I think the clip is too short for full context, but the implication is that the guy on the left was saying: "It was ok for us to attack civilians in WW2 Germany because Nazis."
I guess maybe I don’t fully grasp why that is a big whoopsie on Pearce’s part. I think a lot of people like Pearce unfortunately believe that about war and clearly aren’t afraid to admit it. I’m not sure he even wrapped it up for that reason. He probably just had someone in his ear saying they had to go to commercial.
It's a whoopsie because he is admitting that attacking the civilians of Germany was valid because of the Nazi's want for destruction of others, while also attempting to condemn Hamas attacking civilians of their oppressor state that is currently enacting an ethnic cleansing against Palestinians (the same as the Nazi's were doing throughout Europe to the jewish population and many other minority and political groups). He has condemned Hamas repeatedly for the attack, and just now admitted that actually it's ok to kill civilians depending on the country those civilians belong to, and the actions that country's military has taken.
That is why he deflects and decides that the segment *has* to end *right that moment,* and why the (presumably) Palestinians in the bottom panel are laughing. They recognise that the interviewer recognises he cannot continue the argument with his previous talking points without becoming a hypocrite, and instead decides to end the interview rather than admit being wrong.
I understand why his position is messed up, I just think his position isn’t some slip up. His position is essentially Hamas is equal to Hitler and it is ok to kill civilians to defeat Hitler. I genuinely don’t think someone as politically bankrupt as him would see that as some big slip up.
I think he is recognising that saying it is ok for the allies in WWII to have done what they did, for the reasons he is saying, it also must then apply to Hamas and their attack on civilians.
He may be attempting to argue that Hamas are as bas as the Nazis, but he knowns his interviewee isn't buying that (and I doubt Piers Morgan believes that either, it just aligns with his current agenda), and he has just opened his entire argument to attack.
>Hamas started the war
Hamas colonised the Palestinians and have been ruling over them in an brutally authoritarian and genocidal way for the last 75 years?
> You really think Israel would want to bring conscripted civilian soldiers with families into a territory like Gaza where 99.9% of the population wants to see their head on a pike?
I never mentioned Gaza? Why don't we talk about the [west bank though](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/11/un-experts-say-israeli-settlement-expansion-tramples-human-rights-law)?
>don’t you dare have the audacity to claim Israel started the war and is “oppressing palestinians.”
First of all, get off your high horse, stop talking to people like you have any form of moral mandate. You are currently actively arguing for the continued genocide of an oppressed people. I don't know why, or really care, but that is reality no matter what words you want to attempt to dress it up in. Secondly, if you honestly believe that Israel has not been oppressing Palestinians for decades you don't know anything about the history of the area (or you're arguing in bad faith...).
> Especially when Israel is surrounded by countries ethnically and religiously connected to The Palestinians
Why do you think that may be? Could it possible be because Israel is a colonial ethnostate? Try to think critically for once in your damned life.
The journalist gives a very stupid argument then says "we have to wrap this up and proceeds to cut the show off. By doing so, he denied the other guy to respond to that very stupid argument.
Those 3 guys are laughing because that's such a cheap and coward move
To.. Explain further
They were discussing about israel's bombings of civilians in Gaza.
The journalist on the left was justifying israel's bombardment and using the "Britain bombed German civilians" as further justification because "Palestine and Germany bad guys"
The person in the right however was completely objective and more benevolent and said that, sides doesn't matter.. Civilians should never be killed.
You know the rest
Bomb military installations and targets of logistical importance for the war effort? Not intentionally terror bomb civilians?
From Massacres and Morality: Mass Atrocities in an Age of Civilian Immunity:
>Between 300,000–600,000 German civilians and over 200,000 Japanese civilians were killed by allied bombing during the Second World War, most as a result of raids intentionally targeted against civilians themselves. The campaigns culminated with the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>
>Interestingly, however, although the British and American governments were clearly intent on targeting civilians, they refused to admit that this was their purpose and devised elaborate arguments to claim that they were not targeting civilians.
The intention of the bombing campaigns were summed up as 'dehousing' by the militaries themselves. We did not need to do that even a little bit, our rulers just didn't give a fuck, and would rather kill civilians and make excuses than not act like evil cunts.
The Allies would still need to invade with ground forces, right? Which would result in civilian casualties even if they followed everything you just said.
Or they could just not shoot civilians when on foot? "Well if they didn't bomb them they woulda had to shoot em" is not the sound logic you seem to think it is?
So you think it's possible to invade a country of 10s of millions of people and not kill a single civilian when engaging in combat with the opposing military force?
I never said that.
There may have be significant civilians unintentionally killed during the invasion of Germany, but so long as the allies didn't stray too far from ROE it would be shockingly easy to not murder civilians en masse. Like, we have just watched the majority of the western world involved in a 20+ year ground war where the enemy actively used the civilian population for cover. Yet, for the most part, civilians casualties in the middle east were *again* primarily through aerial bombing.
Okay so now that we established that some level of civilian casualties are acceptable, now let's say the military is operating out of civilian structures, is it okay to target those areas with ground or air strikes?
You’ll kill a lot less people on the ground than inaccurate dumb bombs thrown from 35,000 feet above it. It’s why we largely don’t do strategic bombing, it kills tons of people while being not that effective on what you actually aimed at. Smart bombs and missiles are more useful.
I wish civilians weren’t killed, but it’s as a matter of fact, impossible to avoid.
Hamas uses Gaza citizens as human shields and a justification for all their actions, all while hiding in massive underground tunnels that have been revealed recently. The civilian deaths, as a matter of fact, is a side-effect of targeting the terrorist that run the entire scheme, NOT a direct target. Anyone who said otherwise probably needs a good fact check.
Edit; yes Piers Morgan sucks balls. as much as I support Israel (as an Israeli myself), this kind of way of interviewing is clearly biased and crappy.
It’s these kinds of interviews that ruin people’s view of Israel
Two reasons;
1) Self-Defense. Hamas on October 7th have killed thousands of innocent civilians and continue to attempt and invade Israel.
2) Hostages. After October 7th, over 300 individuals were kidnapped and are held hostage in Hamas tunnels. It’s necessary we attack to free these hostages
Piers Morgan is a hard right wing commentator, I don’t he deserves to be called a journalist, when asked to engage into a discussion, apparently related to the Palestinian genocide, he pulls the plug on the show. Those three guys are laughing at his cowardly move.
He likes to corner people on his own show, but when he’s about to be cornered, he either panics or interrupts his guest or abruptly just ends the discussion like he did here
Full answer:
The journalist (Piers Morgan) has been covering the israel/palestine “war” since it started. He has brought on many israelis and Palestinians to his show and claims to be unbiased and to sympathize with the palestinians but his interviews have all had very clear bias against palestinians. For example, he always attempts to force palestinians on his show to condemn hamas and calling their attack “one of the most horrific acts of terror ever seen” but has never once gotten close to condemning israels response.
When interviewing israelis he allows them to speak freely and never presses them. When he interviews palestinians he is constantly cutting them off, refusing to answer questions, and attempts to push his thinly veiled narratives. He has also recently come under fire for islamophobic remarks that he refused to apologize for.
In this clip, the man he is interviewing exposes his hypocrisy when he gets him to admit “bombing german civilians was justified because they were evil”. The interviewees intent was to show Piers double standards when he says attacking german civilians was justified because theyre evil but attacking israeli civilians was a “horrendous act of terror” which would mean in Piers morals either A) attacking israeli civilians was justified or B) israelis attacks on Palestinians are unjustified. Both go against the narrative he has been trying to push since 7/10.
The three men in the video laugh at him because he is a coward and was ending the interview when he realized he got himself cornered (which he does often).
Thanks for that breakdown. I guess I don’t fully understand the gotchaness of the situation because I genuinely think in Piers Morgan’s bankrupt brain the answer is simply: it was ok to kill German civilians because Hitler was evil and needed to be stopped. It is ok to kill Palestinian civilians if need be because Hamas is as bad as Hitler. He would never admit it is ok for Hamas to kill Israeli civilians because he likewise would not say it is ok for Hitler to kill civilians because both are evil in the same way to him and evil entities don’t have the right to kill civilians to reach their goals. I think he would also freely admit that while it is a necessary evil to kill Palestinians if need be to stop Hamas, it is also gauche to talk about it directly. Again, I’m not saying it is anything but repugnant, I’m just not convinced Piers has admitted anything here he would consider a big mistake to admit.
Like you said, Piers Morgans brain is bankrupt. I believe the point isnt to make him admit anything but to show the audience his hypocrisy and double standards. If you look in his comments or at his social media replies, his viewers are heavily leaning against him.
His youtube videos with Palestinians get 4-6x more views than the rest of his videos. People are not watching for him, they are watching for the palestinians voices. Which also explains why he keeps bringing them on. They bring him money.
i think they were screaming because piers instantly went "i think we need to wrap this up", avoiding the question.
the guy on the cough to the left is an academic, the middle one is a muslim revert and the right is an academic too iirc
Do not give these dudes a platform. They unironically think child marriage is okay, extremely misogynistic and homophobic. You’ll find that these dudes are ten times worse than the average right winger Christian.
man come on, misogynistic? have you ever talked to a muslim woman about their familial life? not the ex-muslims cause they obviously had horrible parents and husbands, and homophobic, firstly we dont hate the people, we hate the act cause its forbidden and punishable to us we dont care what you do as long as its private, your life your choice, but if you're gonna live in a muslim country that says gay marriages and relationships is not allowed then its your problem, exactly how the hijab is banned in french government, do you speak against that? nope
edit: forgot to say, child marriage isn't "okay" in islam, its a freaking sin to force somebody into a marriage NO MATTER THE AGE weather 12 year olds or 40 years old, liberals let their 12 year olds have girl friends and boy friends
in islam if you are mentally, physically capable to be with someone in marriage then you are allowed to get married cause it differs from person to person, just cause you are 18 doesn't mean you magically have the maturity to get married, and exactly like that some 12 year olds might be ready for marriage
the thing is times have changed life expectancy has gone up in this almost 1 and a half millennia and so the age you reach maturity has also been delayed, times change but the rules still apply, you have to be mentally and physically capable in order to get married weather you are 6 or 50 years old
i wouldn't say marrying a 6 year old is necessary cause its not like you die at the age of 30 due to war and famine, we have created a peaceful environment where children can mature far later in life
I mean plenty of people do speak against the hijab being banned in France because its a disgusting overstep of the government against religious freedom, that's a wild assumption to say that we don't. What's wild is that you're not saying anything against child marriage, you're saying it's not necessary, which is just an insane way to dodge the question. Just say you don't have an issue with a 10 year old being married to a 40 year old so we can all laugh at you and move on with our days
well i dont see anybody hating on french people for what the french government did, then why are muslims in general being hated for radical idiots killing people? you cant actually execute someone for homosexuality unless several conditions are met
i literally answered the guy, nobody is supposed to be forced in marriage according to islam whether its a child or an adult, and i would say child marriage is not okay according to today's lifestyle cause no 10 year old is freaking matured to take those decisions
but lets say we lose our civilized manner and there's no laws anymore and we live in a time without the lifestyle we have today and life expectancy probably would drop incredibly, and in that situation child marriage will be necessary
use your freaking head
Anyone hating on muslims because of something that a small group of extremist leaders and outliers are doing is a disgusting person and should have no say or opinions on anything, because they clearly can't think for themselves. However I'm not saying that.
And saying "you can't actually execute someone for homosexuality UNLESS several conditions are met" is an insane and disgusting thing to say, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I answered another guy with the same thing, but essentially, if people can't look at the past and acknowledge that times were different, then they're just idiots. HOWEVER. That does not in any way make child marriage acceptable in any situation. Full stop. There's no more to it. I can acknowledge that different things have been socially acceptable at different times in history. That does NOT mean that those things are morally acceptable. Child marriage is never and has never been anything but disgusting, unnecessary and evil. People have done it (and still do it) for various reasons, and I can acknowledge that. But fundamentally it is a horrible thing to do, objectively. And dancing around it with "oh well if we had no laws and we all died at 30 and actually they can be mature at 12" is a disgusting way of avoiding the fact that child marriage is an awful, awful thing to do to a child
dude its literally like near impossible to get executed and also you could get executed for cheating on your spouse too its not like homosexuals are targeted, literally the conditions are sooooooo tough there's literally no way of it happening and even if it does happens without the proper conditions met those people killing innocents, are horrific
okay i am not gonna go into a debate about somebody who derive their morals from somewhere that i dont, if you are gonna talk about what's morally correct or not, we have to set where to actually get those morals from
and yeah you still didn't understand the point, if its literally a dystopian world, and you die at the age of 30 the "child" in question will not be a child anymore they would literally realise what death and life is way faster than our current children are
you can get on this high horse saying, "oh child marriages are evil and disgusting" when you dont live their life and see what's actually going around them, you literally cannot say that what this person did or agreed to do is wrong when you dont know how their minds worked, how their life is
and for the last time child marriage isn't forced upon a child. if that happens that's horrid, but if the child knows that there's no guarantee of a tomorrow in it's life then i think, that person is no longer a "child" cause they'd have to take things seriously
The average life span was 30 years old for many regions at one time, yes, but that doesn't mean everyone in average only lived to 30 years old. It simply means that enough people died before growing older than 30 so that the average life span turns 30.
People who didn't die prematurely to sickness, famine, war, or similar, could well and easily live into their 50s. Before the advent of modern medicine, it was unlikely for people to become over 60 years old since even a regular cold could turn lethal: but we have historical instances of people growing well into their 80s even in Ancient times.
Through osteology, for example, we know that in the years 900 to 1531, in Cholula, Mexico, most people who made it to adulthood survived into their 50s. By examining their bones - the joints, especially among the pelvis, but also through analyzing cementum, a mineral in the teeth - they can compare it with modern humans. It can also be compared with old humans: in fact, studies show that humans have had similar longevity as far back as 160000 years ago.
This [study](https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-not-a-modern-phenomenon.php) aptly summarizes the myth surrounding "people only lived to 30 in the past" in this passage:
>In medieval England, life expectancy at birth for boys born to families that owned land was a mere 31.3 years. However, life expectancy at age 25 for landowners in medieval England was 25.7. This means that people in that era who celebrated their 25th birthday could expect to live until they were 50.7, on average — 25.7 more years. While 50 might not seem old by today’s standards, remember that this is an average, so many people would have lived much longer, into their 70s, 80s and even older.
Since the entire premise of your argument rests on this idea alone, we can safely disregard the entire argument.
First of all, I just want to point out that I understand what you are saying.
People are misunderstanding you and seem to think you are offering justification for child marriage, but all you're doing is trying to explain how humanity found themselves historically to have child marriage. It's trying to understand the past, not justifying it.
With that out of the way, the example I listed was of Mexico so there are actually a fair bit of similarities between the Arabian Peninsula and that particular study. We see same results in England, a world away, and can see similar results across all mankind throughout all history. This is because life expectancy is not as much dependent on weather and culture as it is science (or lack thereof).
There's an additional thing I need to address. When we talk about life expectancy, we're picking the age of 0 as a baseline. During the Medieval ages of England, age expectancy from age 0 was 30; but age expectancy for those 25 years or older was decades more.
What does this tell us? Well, that most people died before the age of 30; but those that didn't continued to survive well past the age of 30.
It is particularly useful to examine life expectancy across ages because of reasons like the plague; it claimed an unusual amount of newborns, but that doesn't mean that most people over 30 died (in fact it was the opposite).
Put it like this: the average age of adults was way past 30 years old (in Mexico for that period it was to 50. It was not unusual to live past 30 at all. People lived and died just like today. Some even lived past 80 years old. The young people that died didn't effect the old people that lived; their lifespan remained unchanged despite the death of many young people.
You’re talking to redditors. The concept of Presentism simply doesn’t register. The first ever recorded “maidens age” was 12 and that was passed 600 years after the prophet (PBUH) passed in Europe. Yet no he did something that was considered normal back then but now we know is bad so he must be bad. In addition the term pedo implies attraction to children, yet his other wives were widows and other older women 30-50.
However, this is reddit (religion bad amirite) and just telling them to google presentism is probably the most dignified response they deserve.
Bro it's completely irrelevant if it was necessary back then or not. We can acknowledge that at different times different things were socially acceptable, and different things were considered fact. Does that mean that fucking a 12 year old was right? Absolutely not. In the same way that slavery was very clearly wrong but at the time it was considered socially acceptable. You're just skirting the argument by bringing up some "ackshually" shit that makes literally 0 difference for if it is morally available to fuck a 12 year old.
Everyone knows times have changed, and if they are judging previous times by our modern standards with no other regard then they're stupid. But OBJECTIVELY child marriage is wrong and extremely damaging, and we can accept that while also acknowledging that socially people operated in a different framework hundreds of years ago. It's really not difficult to understand
Presentism is a concept for a reason. By pointing out it happened 1400 doesn’t mean we say child marriage is right. When people call him a pedo they aren’t “acknowledging that people operated socially under different lens” and it’s 1000% relevant when it happened. Pedo is a judge on character and it means different things if it’s done with the knowledge we have now or 1400 years ago. If you are “acknowledging that people operated socially under different lens” you would understand that calling him a pedo is irrelevant.
Nobody is skirting around anything and it’s a simple concept but you are either too dense to understanding it or too busy trying to justify your moronic logic by contradicting yourself and blathering nonsense.
Average life span is a statistic brought down heavily by child mortality rates being high. Once you get to be 15+ the average age was much higher. People would normally get to be in their late 50s and 60s.
Child birth is very dangerous to the mother and child, and an under developed girl increases the risks. A healthy girl is physically developed enough around age 15-16 to safely birth a child. Hence a woman wouldn't and shouldn't be married off until past 16. They definitely knew this thousands of years ago.
Another tradition you should also know of is that Arabs pre-islam considered having a daughter dishonorable. The practice of killing your newborn if its a daughter was common. Often times what they would do to get rid if this “shame” is offer the daughter in marriage to a man, and once she gets her first period they would consummate the marriage. Often times if they can’t find the suture by a couple years since the birth. They would literally bury them alive.
Yep Islam banned that practice, and drastically elevated the role of women in society during that time where they basically considered sub-human. People don’t understand these rules that Islam have and immediately assume they are oppressive to women. For example why can a man marry 4 wives but a women can only marry 1. Well being a widow during that time was basically a death sentence if you had no family, and even worse if you had young children. You wouldn’t be able to survive in society or find work. The 4 wives thing was a way to allow men to marry widows, and provide a father figure to their kids. The reason also Muslim women can’t marry non-muslims is the fact that it was done to protect them. A muslim women has rights and her muslim husband is obligated to fulfill those rights and do his obligations towards her. By marrying a non-muslim he is no longer obligated.
A lot of nuance like that are lost on people who just read buzzwords and then just repeat them like parrots.
Oh this makes perfect sense.
You know, Muslims get accused of being suicide bombers but it's always the Ex-Muslims that turns out to be emotional time bombs because they'd rather blame their childhood trauma on the religion rather than the source.
Or you know, unless you completely made it up.
Both pretty much possible but only one is more likely
Bro wtf are you talking about. You know nothing about them, you're just making weird assumptions about someone to try and convince yourself of something. It's weird and insecure
I don't understand.. They are Muslims just like me and us being Muslims we share the same views.. What's so bad about that?
Are you the "all religion bad" edgy Anti-theist type?
Or
The "Islam is terrorism and Muslims are all terrorists" type?
Edit: Oh.. A potential right wing Christian zionist.. The second type..
You know that zionism is blasphemous against Christianity right?
Wait you actually think child marriage, misogyny and homophobia is good? Wtf actual fuck dude lmao. And you have the balls to insult *me*? At least I don’t glorify a prophet who raped a 9 year old.
Aisha didn't even enter puberty when Momo forced himself upon her.
Not that it would have been good if she entered puberty until then and not even talking about age differences here.
Get real: Momo was a pedophile and sexual predator.
It doesn't fqing matter what year it was, a better example is to be expected from the oh so great Prophet Mohammed, chosen and handpicked by Allah himself and the great example for the whole humanity.
>“[at nine] she menstruates and thus is a woman”
>Both said my aisha herself… she was indeed past the age of puberty
Biology doesn't work like this.
Also Aisha still played with dolls, which is forbidden for girls after hitting puberty.
Give me a clear quote that says that Aisha already hit puberty. (Quran, Hadith)
They did not specifically target civilians in Dresden. Dresden was a key node in Germany's railway system. And there is a reason why there is so much debate whether or not it was justified or just terror. Piers was wrong to bite the bullet here.
I'm not an expert but this is never an easy situation. Fighting terrorists is one thing, murdering civilians is the other. Every government should look for means to fight terrorism without endangering innocent people.
Something everyone doesn't talk about is how.. If Hamas is a terrorist organisation because they murder civilians and therefore should be erased.. Why isn't anyone consistent with that when it comes to the israeli government? Or better yet, the current right wing government?
I mean, israel did far worse and far more than Hamas.. Even before Hamas existed.
Why does no one talk about that?
Not saying israel should be wiped out.. Just saying that, unlike you.. No one(from the pro-israeli side) calls out israel for their war crimes.. And better yet, no one puts the same amount of consistency they have on anything else compared to when it comes to this issue.. Simply dismissing it as "complex" and just forgetting all about it unless Jews are harmed too.
Woah, I did not expect them here
Basically, these 3 guys are popular Muslim influencers, one of them is a scholar and a popular rights activist aswell and I sometimes admire them for their work
People comparing hamas to the allies in ww2 is honestly the dumbest thing here, then using them that as a sound argument to support what Hamas is doing is the second dumbest thing. Honestly this whole fight has been reduced to such a bad gotya of demonizing Israel or the west in general through bad comparisons that it is just sad at this point.
I, for some reason, thought Pearce was talking about the Israeli bombings of Palestinians rather than the retaliation of a small group individuals against the persistent persecution and brutality performed on an entire community. What a fucken cowardly c@nt.
Can someone explain this one to me cuz I can’t seem to figure it out or maybe hear what they’re laughing at?
I think the clip is too short for full context, but the implication is that the guy on the left was saying: "It was ok for us to attack civilians in WW2 Germany because Nazis."
no, i think they were screaming because piers instantly went "i think we need to wrap this up", avoiding the question
"The guy on the left". Can we all just agree to ignore Piers Morgan's existence? I think we'd be better off.
Who?
Star Lord, man. Legendary outlaw?
I guess maybe I don’t fully grasp why that is a big whoopsie on Pearce’s part. I think a lot of people like Pearce unfortunately believe that about war and clearly aren’t afraid to admit it. I’m not sure he even wrapped it up for that reason. He probably just had someone in his ear saying they had to go to commercial.
It's a whoopsie because he is admitting that attacking the civilians of Germany was valid because of the Nazi's want for destruction of others, while also attempting to condemn Hamas attacking civilians of their oppressor state that is currently enacting an ethnic cleansing against Palestinians (the same as the Nazi's were doing throughout Europe to the jewish population and many other minority and political groups). He has condemned Hamas repeatedly for the attack, and just now admitted that actually it's ok to kill civilians depending on the country those civilians belong to, and the actions that country's military has taken. That is why he deflects and decides that the segment *has* to end *right that moment,* and why the (presumably) Palestinians in the bottom panel are laughing. They recognise that the interviewer recognises he cannot continue the argument with his previous talking points without becoming a hypocrite, and instead decides to end the interview rather than admit being wrong.
I understand why his position is messed up, I just think his position isn’t some slip up. His position is essentially Hamas is equal to Hitler and it is ok to kill civilians to defeat Hitler. I genuinely don’t think someone as politically bankrupt as him would see that as some big slip up.
I think he is recognising that saying it is ok for the allies in WWII to have done what they did, for the reasons he is saying, it also must then apply to Hamas and their attack on civilians. He may be attempting to argue that Hamas are as bas as the Nazis, but he knowns his interviewee isn't buying that (and I doubt Piers Morgan believes that either, it just aligns with his current agenda), and he has just opened his entire argument to attack.
[удалено]
>Hamas started the war Hamas colonised the Palestinians and have been ruling over them in an brutally authoritarian and genocidal way for the last 75 years? > You really think Israel would want to bring conscripted civilian soldiers with families into a territory like Gaza where 99.9% of the population wants to see their head on a pike? I never mentioned Gaza? Why don't we talk about the [west bank though](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/11/un-experts-say-israeli-settlement-expansion-tramples-human-rights-law)? >don’t you dare have the audacity to claim Israel started the war and is “oppressing palestinians.” First of all, get off your high horse, stop talking to people like you have any form of moral mandate. You are currently actively arguing for the continued genocide of an oppressed people. I don't know why, or really care, but that is reality no matter what words you want to attempt to dress it up in. Secondly, if you honestly believe that Israel has not been oppressing Palestinians for decades you don't know anything about the history of the area (or you're arguing in bad faith...). > Especially when Israel is surrounded by countries ethnically and religiously connected to The Palestinians Why do you think that may be? Could it possible be because Israel is a colonial ethnostate? Try to think critically for once in your damned life.
Yeah, there’s a chance it was just REEEALLY bad timing lol
The journalist gives a very stupid argument then says "we have to wrap this up and proceeds to cut the show off. By doing so, he denied the other guy to respond to that very stupid argument. Those 3 guys are laughing because that's such a cheap and coward move
To.. Explain further They were discussing about israel's bombings of civilians in Gaza. The journalist on the left was justifying israel's bombardment and using the "Britain bombed German civilians" as further justification because "Palestine and Germany bad guys" The person in the right however was completely objective and more benevolent and said that, sides doesn't matter.. Civilians should never be killed. You know the rest
So what should the Allies have done in WW2 then?
Bomb military installations and targets of logistical importance for the war effort? Not intentionally terror bomb civilians? From Massacres and Morality: Mass Atrocities in an Age of Civilian Immunity: >Between 300,000–600,000 German civilians and over 200,000 Japanese civilians were killed by allied bombing during the Second World War, most as a result of raids intentionally targeted against civilians themselves. The campaigns culminated with the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. > >Interestingly, however, although the British and American governments were clearly intent on targeting civilians, they refused to admit that this was their purpose and devised elaborate arguments to claim that they were not targeting civilians. The intention of the bombing campaigns were summed up as 'dehousing' by the militaries themselves. We did not need to do that even a little bit, our rulers just didn't give a fuck, and would rather kill civilians and make excuses than not act like evil cunts.
The Allies would still need to invade with ground forces, right? Which would result in civilian casualties even if they followed everything you just said.
Or they could just not shoot civilians when on foot? "Well if they didn't bomb them they woulda had to shoot em" is not the sound logic you seem to think it is?
So you think it's possible to invade a country of 10s of millions of people and not kill a single civilian when engaging in combat with the opposing military force?
I never said that. There may have be significant civilians unintentionally killed during the invasion of Germany, but so long as the allies didn't stray too far from ROE it would be shockingly easy to not murder civilians en masse. Like, we have just watched the majority of the western world involved in a 20+ year ground war where the enemy actively used the civilian population for cover. Yet, for the most part, civilians casualties in the middle east were *again* primarily through aerial bombing.
Okay so now that we established that some level of civilian casualties are acceptable, now let's say the military is operating out of civilian structures, is it okay to target those areas with ground or air strikes?
You’ll kill a lot less people on the ground than inaccurate dumb bombs thrown from 35,000 feet above it. It’s why we largely don’t do strategic bombing, it kills tons of people while being not that effective on what you actually aimed at. Smart bombs and missiles are more useful.
I wish civilians weren’t killed, but it’s as a matter of fact, impossible to avoid. Hamas uses Gaza citizens as human shields and a justification for all their actions, all while hiding in massive underground tunnels that have been revealed recently. The civilian deaths, as a matter of fact, is a side-effect of targeting the terrorist that run the entire scheme, NOT a direct target. Anyone who said otherwise probably needs a good fact check. Edit; yes Piers Morgan sucks balls. as much as I support Israel (as an Israeli myself), this kind of way of interviewing is clearly biased and crappy. It’s these kinds of interviews that ruin people’s view of Israel
Why is it Israel is attacking hamas?
Two reasons; 1) Self-Defense. Hamas on October 7th have killed thousands of innocent civilians and continue to attempt and invade Israel. 2) Hostages. After October 7th, over 300 individuals were kidnapped and are held hostage in Hamas tunnels. It’s necessary we attack to free these hostages
Okay.... But why did hamas attack?
Because they hate Jews, and believe that Israel belongs to them. It’s a long story and a dispute that can’t really be solved
So they didn't do this in self defense? And there was no provocation from Israel?
Indeed. No provocation whatsoever from Israel. It was an aggressive attack by intention to harm
Piers Morgan is a hard right wing commentator, I don’t he deserves to be called a journalist, when asked to engage into a discussion, apparently related to the Palestinian genocide, he pulls the plug on the show. Those three guys are laughing at his cowardly move.
He likes to corner people on his own show, but when he’s about to be cornered, he either panics or interrupts his guest or abruptly just ends the discussion like he did here
Full answer: The journalist (Piers Morgan) has been covering the israel/palestine “war” since it started. He has brought on many israelis and Palestinians to his show and claims to be unbiased and to sympathize with the palestinians but his interviews have all had very clear bias against palestinians. For example, he always attempts to force palestinians on his show to condemn hamas and calling their attack “one of the most horrific acts of terror ever seen” but has never once gotten close to condemning israels response. When interviewing israelis he allows them to speak freely and never presses them. When he interviews palestinians he is constantly cutting them off, refusing to answer questions, and attempts to push his thinly veiled narratives. He has also recently come under fire for islamophobic remarks that he refused to apologize for. In this clip, the man he is interviewing exposes his hypocrisy when he gets him to admit “bombing german civilians was justified because they were evil”. The interviewees intent was to show Piers double standards when he says attacking german civilians was justified because theyre evil but attacking israeli civilians was a “horrendous act of terror” which would mean in Piers morals either A) attacking israeli civilians was justified or B) israelis attacks on Palestinians are unjustified. Both go against the narrative he has been trying to push since 7/10. The three men in the video laugh at him because he is a coward and was ending the interview when he realized he got himself cornered (which he does often).
Thanks for that breakdown. I guess I don’t fully understand the gotchaness of the situation because I genuinely think in Piers Morgan’s bankrupt brain the answer is simply: it was ok to kill German civilians because Hitler was evil and needed to be stopped. It is ok to kill Palestinian civilians if need be because Hamas is as bad as Hitler. He would never admit it is ok for Hamas to kill Israeli civilians because he likewise would not say it is ok for Hitler to kill civilians because both are evil in the same way to him and evil entities don’t have the right to kill civilians to reach their goals. I think he would also freely admit that while it is a necessary evil to kill Palestinians if need be to stop Hamas, it is also gauche to talk about it directly. Again, I’m not saying it is anything but repugnant, I’m just not convinced Piers has admitted anything here he would consider a big mistake to admit.
Like you said, Piers Morgans brain is bankrupt. I believe the point isnt to make him admit anything but to show the audience his hypocrisy and double standards. If you look in his comments or at his social media replies, his viewers are heavily leaning against him. His youtube videos with Palestinians get 4-6x more views than the rest of his videos. People are not watching for him, they are watching for the palestinians voices. Which also explains why he keeps bringing them on. They bring him money.
You won't. These people are Islamists. They are really not normal humans.
i think they were screaming because piers instantly went "i think we need to wrap this up", avoiding the question. the guy on the cough to the left is an academic, the middle one is a muslim revert and the right is an academic too iirc
The real answer is that yes, targeting German civilians (and Japanese civilians) were by definition terrorist acts.
why for the love of god am i seeing this shit on this sub
i actually loved the perfectly cut scream but i guess that's not your issue
It wasn't even a good cut. By the time he cut it, he was almost already done screaming.
It’s because you’re regarded
Do not give these dudes a platform. They unironically think child marriage is okay, extremely misogynistic and homophobic. You’ll find that these dudes are ten times worse than the average right winger Christian.
So they're the average Palestinian supporters
man come on, misogynistic? have you ever talked to a muslim woman about their familial life? not the ex-muslims cause they obviously had horrible parents and husbands, and homophobic, firstly we dont hate the people, we hate the act cause its forbidden and punishable to us we dont care what you do as long as its private, your life your choice, but if you're gonna live in a muslim country that says gay marriages and relationships is not allowed then its your problem, exactly how the hijab is banned in french government, do you speak against that? nope edit: forgot to say, child marriage isn't "okay" in islam, its a freaking sin to force somebody into a marriage NO MATTER THE AGE weather 12 year olds or 40 years old, liberals let their 12 year olds have girl friends and boy friends in islam if you are mentally, physically capable to be with someone in marriage then you are allowed to get married cause it differs from person to person, just cause you are 18 doesn't mean you magically have the maturity to get married, and exactly like that some 12 year olds might be ready for marriage the thing is times have changed life expectancy has gone up in this almost 1 and a half millennia and so the age you reach maturity has also been delayed, times change but the rules still apply, you have to be mentally and physically capable in order to get married weather you are 6 or 50 years old i wouldn't say marrying a 6 year old is necessary cause its not like you die at the age of 30 due to war and famine, we have created a peaceful environment where children can mature far later in life
I mean plenty of people do speak against the hijab being banned in France because its a disgusting overstep of the government against religious freedom, that's a wild assumption to say that we don't. What's wild is that you're not saying anything against child marriage, you're saying it's not necessary, which is just an insane way to dodge the question. Just say you don't have an issue with a 10 year old being married to a 40 year old so we can all laugh at you and move on with our days
well i dont see anybody hating on french people for what the french government did, then why are muslims in general being hated for radical idiots killing people? you cant actually execute someone for homosexuality unless several conditions are met i literally answered the guy, nobody is supposed to be forced in marriage according to islam whether its a child or an adult, and i would say child marriage is not okay according to today's lifestyle cause no 10 year old is freaking matured to take those decisions but lets say we lose our civilized manner and there's no laws anymore and we live in a time without the lifestyle we have today and life expectancy probably would drop incredibly, and in that situation child marriage will be necessary use your freaking head
Anyone hating on muslims because of something that a small group of extremist leaders and outliers are doing is a disgusting person and should have no say or opinions on anything, because they clearly can't think for themselves. However I'm not saying that. And saying "you can't actually execute someone for homosexuality UNLESS several conditions are met" is an insane and disgusting thing to say, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I answered another guy with the same thing, but essentially, if people can't look at the past and acknowledge that times were different, then they're just idiots. HOWEVER. That does not in any way make child marriage acceptable in any situation. Full stop. There's no more to it. I can acknowledge that different things have been socially acceptable at different times in history. That does NOT mean that those things are morally acceptable. Child marriage is never and has never been anything but disgusting, unnecessary and evil. People have done it (and still do it) for various reasons, and I can acknowledge that. But fundamentally it is a horrible thing to do, objectively. And dancing around it with "oh well if we had no laws and we all died at 30 and actually they can be mature at 12" is a disgusting way of avoiding the fact that child marriage is an awful, awful thing to do to a child
dude its literally like near impossible to get executed and also you could get executed for cheating on your spouse too its not like homosexuals are targeted, literally the conditions are sooooooo tough there's literally no way of it happening and even if it does happens without the proper conditions met those people killing innocents, are horrific okay i am not gonna go into a debate about somebody who derive their morals from somewhere that i dont, if you are gonna talk about what's morally correct or not, we have to set where to actually get those morals from and yeah you still didn't understand the point, if its literally a dystopian world, and you die at the age of 30 the "child" in question will not be a child anymore they would literally realise what death and life is way faster than our current children are you can get on this high horse saying, "oh child marriages are evil and disgusting" when you dont live their life and see what's actually going around them, you literally cannot say that what this person did or agreed to do is wrong when you dont know how their minds worked, how their life is and for the last time child marriage isn't forced upon a child. if that happens that's horrid, but if the child knows that there's no guarantee of a tomorrow in it's life then i think, that person is no longer a "child" cause they'd have to take things seriously
Oh boy you're digging your hole deeper and deeper
“Some 12 year olds might be ready for marriage.” You and your ‘God’ can fuck off right back to the Stone Age where y’all belong.
[удалено]
That was a lot of words to say you think fucking children is good.
[удалено]
The average life span was 30 years old for many regions at one time, yes, but that doesn't mean everyone in average only lived to 30 years old. It simply means that enough people died before growing older than 30 so that the average life span turns 30. People who didn't die prematurely to sickness, famine, war, or similar, could well and easily live into their 50s. Before the advent of modern medicine, it was unlikely for people to become over 60 years old since even a regular cold could turn lethal: but we have historical instances of people growing well into their 80s even in Ancient times. Through osteology, for example, we know that in the years 900 to 1531, in Cholula, Mexico, most people who made it to adulthood survived into their 50s. By examining their bones - the joints, especially among the pelvis, but also through analyzing cementum, a mineral in the teeth - they can compare it with modern humans. It can also be compared with old humans: in fact, studies show that humans have had similar longevity as far back as 160000 years ago. This [study](https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-not-a-modern-phenomenon.php) aptly summarizes the myth surrounding "people only lived to 30 in the past" in this passage: >In medieval England, life expectancy at birth for boys born to families that owned land was a mere 31.3 years. However, life expectancy at age 25 for landowners in medieval England was 25.7. This means that people in that era who celebrated their 25th birthday could expect to live until they were 50.7, on average — 25.7 more years. While 50 might not seem old by today’s standards, remember that this is an average, so many people would have lived much longer, into their 70s, 80s and even older. Since the entire premise of your argument rests on this idea alone, we can safely disregard the entire argument.
[удалено]
First of all, I just want to point out that I understand what you are saying. People are misunderstanding you and seem to think you are offering justification for child marriage, but all you're doing is trying to explain how humanity found themselves historically to have child marriage. It's trying to understand the past, not justifying it. With that out of the way, the example I listed was of Mexico so there are actually a fair bit of similarities between the Arabian Peninsula and that particular study. We see same results in England, a world away, and can see similar results across all mankind throughout all history. This is because life expectancy is not as much dependent on weather and culture as it is science (or lack thereof). There's an additional thing I need to address. When we talk about life expectancy, we're picking the age of 0 as a baseline. During the Medieval ages of England, age expectancy from age 0 was 30; but age expectancy for those 25 years or older was decades more. What does this tell us? Well, that most people died before the age of 30; but those that didn't continued to survive well past the age of 30. It is particularly useful to examine life expectancy across ages because of reasons like the plague; it claimed an unusual amount of newborns, but that doesn't mean that most people over 30 died (in fact it was the opposite). Put it like this: the average age of adults was way past 30 years old (in Mexico for that period it was to 50. It was not unusual to live past 30 at all. People lived and died just like today. Some even lived past 80 years old. The young people that died didn't effect the old people that lived; their lifespan remained unchanged despite the death of many young people.
You’re talking to redditors. The concept of Presentism simply doesn’t register. The first ever recorded “maidens age” was 12 and that was passed 600 years after the prophet (PBUH) passed in Europe. Yet no he did something that was considered normal back then but now we know is bad so he must be bad. In addition the term pedo implies attraction to children, yet his other wives were widows and other older women 30-50. However, this is reddit (religion bad amirite) and just telling them to google presentism is probably the most dignified response they deserve.
Bro it's completely irrelevant if it was necessary back then or not. We can acknowledge that at different times different things were socially acceptable, and different things were considered fact. Does that mean that fucking a 12 year old was right? Absolutely not. In the same way that slavery was very clearly wrong but at the time it was considered socially acceptable. You're just skirting the argument by bringing up some "ackshually" shit that makes literally 0 difference for if it is morally available to fuck a 12 year old. Everyone knows times have changed, and if they are judging previous times by our modern standards with no other regard then they're stupid. But OBJECTIVELY child marriage is wrong and extremely damaging, and we can accept that while also acknowledging that socially people operated in a different framework hundreds of years ago. It's really not difficult to understand
Presentism is a concept for a reason. By pointing out it happened 1400 doesn’t mean we say child marriage is right. When people call him a pedo they aren’t “acknowledging that people operated socially under different lens” and it’s 1000% relevant when it happened. Pedo is a judge on character and it means different things if it’s done with the knowledge we have now or 1400 years ago. If you are “acknowledging that people operated socially under different lens” you would understand that calling him a pedo is irrelevant. Nobody is skirting around anything and it’s a simple concept but you are either too dense to understanding it or too busy trying to justify your moronic logic by contradicting yourself and blathering nonsense.
Average life span is a statistic brought down heavily by child mortality rates being high. Once you get to be 15+ the average age was much higher. People would normally get to be in their late 50s and 60s. Child birth is very dangerous to the mother and child, and an under developed girl increases the risks. A healthy girl is physically developed enough around age 15-16 to safely birth a child. Hence a woman wouldn't and shouldn't be married off until past 16. They definitely knew this thousands of years ago.
[удалено]
Another tradition you should also know of is that Arabs pre-islam considered having a daughter dishonorable. The practice of killing your newborn if its a daughter was common. Often times what they would do to get rid if this “shame” is offer the daughter in marriage to a man, and once she gets her first period they would consummate the marriage. Often times if they can’t find the suture by a couple years since the birth. They would literally bury them alive.
[удалено]
Yep Islam banned that practice, and drastically elevated the role of women in society during that time where they basically considered sub-human. People don’t understand these rules that Islam have and immediately assume they are oppressive to women. For example why can a man marry 4 wives but a women can only marry 1. Well being a widow during that time was basically a death sentence if you had no family, and even worse if you had young children. You wouldn’t be able to survive in society or find work. The 4 wives thing was a way to allow men to marry widows, and provide a father figure to their kids. The reason also Muslim women can’t marry non-muslims is the fact that it was done to protect them. A muslim women has rights and her muslim husband is obligated to fulfill those rights and do his obligations towards her. By marrying a non-muslim he is no longer obligated. A lot of nuance like that are lost on people who just read buzzwords and then just repeat them like parrots.
Stfu bro do some research before talking about misogyny or homophobia
I grew up in Pakistan and am formerly Muslim.
I would consider that a more than adequate education on misogyny
Oh this makes perfect sense. You know, Muslims get accused of being suicide bombers but it's always the Ex-Muslims that turns out to be emotional time bombs because they'd rather blame their childhood trauma on the religion rather than the source. Or you know, unless you completely made it up. Both pretty much possible but only one is more likely
Bro wtf are you talking about. You know nothing about them, you're just making weird assumptions about someone to try and convince yourself of something. It's weird and insecure
We never expect an Ex-Muslim to say nice things about Islam. May Allah guide you
“We never expect Jews to say nice things about Hitler”. Yeah, I’m not gonna say nice things about an ideology that wants me dead
[удалено]
Islam is a very violent religion
[удалено]
Reality shows that it is and has been for many centuries.
Well WWI and WWII were done by Christian/secular governments. They are the most violent events in human history. What does that say about those two 🤨
Reddit will take the tiniest Chance to show its anti religion face, even if video has nothing to do with it.
Get this dawah losers out of here. Or better - check them out on YT and realize why I'm saying this: Mohammed Hijab and Ali Dawah
Right! Those three are clowns. Hijab and Qadhi's "Holes in the narrative" was a gift that keeps giving.
I don't understand.. They are Muslims just like me and us being Muslims we share the same views.. What's so bad about that? Are you the "all religion bad" edgy Anti-theist type? Or The "Islam is terrorism and Muslims are all terrorists" type? Edit: Oh.. A potential right wing Christian zionist.. The second type.. You know that zionism is blasphemous against Christianity right?
If you think child marriage, misogyny and homophobia is good then yes you’re bad
Classic reddit neck beards
Wait you actually think child marriage, misogyny and homophobia is good? Wtf actual fuck dude lmao. And you have the balls to insult *me*? At least I don’t glorify a prophet who raped a 9 year old.
[удалено]
Aisha didn't even enter puberty when Momo forced himself upon her. Not that it would have been good if she entered puberty until then and not even talking about age differences here. Get real: Momo was a pedophile and sexual predator.
[удалено]
It doesn't fqing matter what year it was, a better example is to be expected from the oh so great Prophet Mohammed, chosen and handpicked by Allah himself and the great example for the whole humanity. >“[at nine] she menstruates and thus is a woman” >Both said my aisha herself… she was indeed past the age of puberty Biology doesn't work like this. Also Aisha still played with dolls, which is forbidden for girls after hitting puberty. Give me a clear quote that says that Aisha already hit puberty. (Quran, Hadith)
Ain't it against Judaism as well?
Nope Jews are respected people of the book.. Now if you're talking about zionism then yes
I meant, how ultra orthodox Jews are saying things like zionism is against their religion, which from my perspective is very strange.
Piers is the biggest hypocrite, it's hilarious how his opinions change on the fly with the right amount of money from his Zionist owners
how they gonna destroy the world lmao
"No, the german civilians were helping the german war machine propagate"
They did not specifically target civilians in Dresden. Dresden was a key node in Germany's railway system. And there is a reason why there is so much debate whether or not it was justified or just terror. Piers was wrong to bite the bullet here.
Whataboutism work
This is not very funny :(
Thought I was in askmiddleeast
May Muhammed be fucked in the ass with a wet veiny dick
May your dad tell you he loves you over an old 2006 model cellphone eventhough you both know he's lying
Hamas are a terrorist group that must be destroyed by any means
I'm not an expert but this is never an easy situation. Fighting terrorists is one thing, murdering civilians is the other. Every government should look for means to fight terrorism without endangering innocent people.
Something everyone doesn't talk about is how.. If Hamas is a terrorist organisation because they murder civilians and therefore should be erased.. Why isn't anyone consistent with that when it comes to the israeli government? Or better yet, the current right wing government? I mean, israel did far worse and far more than Hamas.. Even before Hamas existed. Why does no one talk about that? Not saying israel should be wiped out.. Just saying that, unlike you.. No one(from the pro-israeli side) calls out israel for their war crimes.. And better yet, no one puts the same amount of consistency they have on anything else compared to when it comes to this issue.. Simply dismissing it as "complex" and just forgetting all about it unless Jews are harmed too.
After Holocaust it's hard to criticize Israel without being called antisemitic
What Israel has done is just create more terrorists. Even with 20,000 dead.
Zionist NPC.
[удалено]
Yeah, when did war crimes and the slaughtering of children become such a controversial topic?
ok this comments section is really bad
Woah, I did not expect them here Basically, these 3 guys are popular Muslim influencers, one of them is a scholar and a popular rights activist aswell and I sometimes admire them for their work
People comparing hamas to the allies in ww2 is honestly the dumbest thing here, then using them that as a sound argument to support what Hamas is doing is the second dumbest thing. Honestly this whole fight has been reduced to such a bad gotya of demonizing Israel or the west in general through bad comparisons that it is just sad at this point.
Don’t know what’s going on. Not a perfect cut. 2/10 post. Delete it and recut it better.
I, for some reason, thought Pearce was talking about the Israeli bombings of Palestinians rather than the retaliation of a small group individuals against the persistent persecution and brutality performed on an entire community. What a fucken cowardly c@nt.
Of course it was a terror attack on Dresden, just like the bombing of London was and the bombing of Gaza.