Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 3, 2024 - Fresh & Fit

01:53:07

Sulaiman Ahmed And Destiny Debate Israel Palestine Conflict!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	What's up, guys?
	Welcome to Fresh Red Podcast, man.
	We're here with two special guests, Destiny and Sulem and Ahmed.
	Let's get into it!
	Let's go.
	All right, and we are live.
	What's up, guys?
	Welcome to Freshly Podcast, man.
	Part two of the three-peat.
	Earlier, we went ahead and did an expose on a certain cloud chaser, which ruled, you know, it is.
	We've got two special guests in the house, man.
	We've got Salimone and Destiny.
	We're going to debate a couple topics here.
	A quick announcement is rumble.com slash freshlyfit, castleclub.tv.
	Get the crypto course.
	Link is live right now.
	Top of the description.
	Get in there.
	Stop being a brokie.
	And, yeah, go ahead and get in there, man.
	Let's get right into it.
	Yeah.
	So, guys, the way this debate is going to work is I'm going to basically ask an open-ended question, and I'm going to give each party two minutes or 2.30, right, to go ahead and give their full stance uninterrupted, and then another individual will go ahead and give their full stance uninterrupted, and then we can go ahead and do a back-and-forth after the first round, at least when the stances are made.
	The first topic we're going to...
	Well, actually, you know what?
	Hold on.
	Before you...
	What the hell am I doing?
	Introduction!
	Yo, we are so familiar with y'all, we forgot to introduce y'all ninjas.
	Yo, uh, Desi, I'll start with you, man.
	Can you introduce us to the people for the people that have been living under a rock?
	Yeah, I do politics and philosophy on YouTube.
	I'm far left or far right, depending on who I'm arguing with.
	And today we're going to talk about my Islamophobia.
	Fantastic.
	Alright.
	Welcome to the show, Desi.
	Welcome back.
	I'm Suleman.
	I'm on Twitter.
	I investigate certain things.
	And yeah, same topics.
	Politics and philosophy and theology.
	Awesome.
	All right.
	And he was here actually the other day for his own personal interview.
	Yes.
	Really good.
	It was a great time.
	It's on Rumble, guys.
	I know some are like, where'd the interview go?
	Guys, it's on Rumble because we talked about a bunch of taboo topics that YouTube doesn't like.
	But it's there on Rumble.
	Go check it out.
	Like I said before, guys, a bunch of our cunts are going to have to be on Rumble for obvious reasons.
	Yeah.
	Real quick, I'll read the chats and then we're going to get right into this debate.
	Cool.
	Because some chats came in on the end of the last show and I want to make sure I'll show y'all some love.
	Shout out to Sneeko with the W Single Mom.
	And Sneeko, just to answer your question, I think we're going to have an after hours tonight.
	Fresh and Rude Boy doing bad man things.
	You can't mess up again, Brigren.
	Bredren.
	It's a G there.
	I don't know.
	Cool it now.
	Trust me, he's good, man.
	He's chilling.
	Jason Todd said, have you heard?
	She started a charity GoFundMe, apparently.
	I know.
	We made fun of her for it.
	Sneeko's a millionaire, dating $10.
	Donating $10.
	Imagine the accent that kid is going to have.
	Yeah, it's going to be crazy.
	Myron cooked this lying, money-hungry black melon 304 like sesame chicken.
	Also, keep it to go work fresh.
	Thank you so much, Metro.
	Fuck you, haters.
	There has been no damage done to the FNF brand.
	The audience is bigger than ever.
	Big bro Myron.
	I appreciate that, JFrisk.
	Fresh, how do I need to save up to hit...
	What?
	This nigga, bro.
	It's Kuma-san says, I just want to say, what's up with all the haters, especially the ones with platforms?
	I know y'all stomach bubbly.
	You can go take a shit now.
	Hey, bro, it is what it is.
	Haters gonna hate.
	They still watch.
	Anything else?
	And guys, it's going to be 50 and up will be red for this pod because obviously we want to make sure that we focus on the debate and not have interruptions.
	Collazo goes WFresh for nutting.
	Got an eBay business and hit 1.5k profit in April and climbing.
	I work out two times a day, work on my business, work in the military and still find time to smash these hoes down to Marco.
	You fresh are like brothers.
	Okay.
	And then we got here various layers.
	This came from before.
	Various layers.
	Rantam from Rumble says, have a great day, gentlemen.
	Keep up the great work.
	CEO of Network, Big Boss.
	I appreciate that.
	Let's go!
	And then we got Collazo.
	He says...
	We just read it.
	Oh, okay.
	We let's go.
	So, first question.
	First question, guys.
	I'm just going to go ahead and I'm going to start the timer here.
	We'll start with...
	Destiny's kicking it off.
	Open-ended question.
	Is Islam the path?
	And I'll just leave it open-ended and you can go ahead and take any one.
	I'm a big champion of American liberal democracy.
	I think that people like to push certain religions because things become trendy over time.
	But I think the important thing to keep in mind is right now America runs the world.
	We don't just run it militarily.
	We don't just run it economically.
	We also run it culturally.
	And I think the reason why is because our values allow so many different types of people to come here.
	Like, just look at the four of us around this table.
	Like, how many people here are from other countries or whose parents were immigrants?
	Like, the The only country in the world where all of these different types of people, different types of religions, different types of ideologies can come together and then form a business in a capital-free investment environment and then broadcast that to the entire world on American invented technology is the United States of America.
	No Islamic country has done that.
	Ottoman Empire fell.
	Nobody's replaced it since.
	None of these Islamic countries are able to take as much culture as we have and kind of like mix them all together in the way that the United States has.
	And I worry sometimes that people that champion certain types of religions do so in kind of a militant way and do so in a bit of an exclusionary way as well.
	For instance, you should be able to make fun of anybody who you want.
	I think that you guys probably agree with that here more than anybody else.
	I agree with it on my platform, obviously.
	A lot of Muslim people don't agree with it.
	In France, when they did the Charlie Hebdo drawings of Muhammad, there were people that broke into that comic facility and they killed people because they were so upset that, you know, people drew the Muhammad, you know, Salaf, whatever the fuck you say, praise be upon him, and they decided to go and kill the dude.
	Kill the dudes, kill multiple people on that attack.
	I don't like the fact that for the people that champion Islam, it seems like they do so in an exclusionary manner, that everybody has to be Islamic, that everybody has to be part of their religion, and that they can attack and kill people who disagree with their religion, because I think one of the most beautiful things about the United States is the fact that we can tell a cop to fuck off, that we can tell a Christian to fuck off, that we can tell I want Muslims to fuck off, that we can draw whatever we want, make fun of whatever we want, make porn out of whatever the fuck we want.
	And I would think that that is the coolest thing in the United States, and I think that that's what allows us to even do what we're doing here today.
	And I don't think any Islamic country or Muslim majority country has been able to achieve the world domination that the United States has when it comes to military, economy, and most importantly, culture.
	All right.
	That's two minutes on the dot.
	Okay.
	Thank you, Destiny.
	So first of all, I agree with his analysis of America and American culture in current times.
	When he's mentioned about advancements, that's right in current times, but then obviously that's failing and ignoring the entire history, right?
	So what that demonstrates is you don't need to be a specific culture or religion because if you look at history, it was many of the advancements that were made both in science, culture, literature, The renaissance in terms of Greek philosophy, theology, science, all of it came from the Islamic civilizations.
	So they weren't backward, they were actually visionary in the past.
	Obviously things develop, things change.
	In terms of Islam being exclusionary, that's completely not true.
	Islam within Or totalitarity allows all religions, cultures and psychologies within it.
	Now in terms of what he's talking about in terms of freedom, I'm for all the freedom.
	The problem is we're seeing in real time that this propaganda no longer works because in reality we've seen it.
	You speak against Judaism, you speak against Zionism, and they completely want to censor you.
	You're not allowed to mention the Holocaust in certain countries because you're going to be locked up, put in the gulags.
	You're not allowed right now in the United States.
	You can't even do BDS in 34 states because of Zionism.
	So as much as he wants to say, it's not.
	And when you look at extremism, yes, there are extreme elements within Islam.
	One isn't going to deny that.
	But from a proportional perspective, we've seen it.
	The extremism that's happened within Zionism.
	And so extremism is bred from different ideas, cultures, and it's even from atheism.
	We've seen a huge amount that's happened in terms of atheism.
	So extremism is everywhere.
	Now, in terms of Islam, I've got no issue with people being Muslim, Christian.
	They could be what they want, right?
	No problem whatsoever.
	My issue is when there's dual standards.
	So someone like Destiny feels pretty chill about attacking Muslims.
	No problem.
	All good.
	As long as you're willing to debate the ideas, right?
	But the same type of people Basically lose their minds if you're willing to talk about Judaism.
	They'll call you anti-Semitic.
	They'll want to put you in jail.
	So there is these dual standards and Judaism has the same standards that Islam has.
	The only difference is someone like Destiny won't call them out.
	And obviously we know why.
	So when you say you run the world, I guess America does from a corporate perspective, but not from a corporate perspective.
	Okay.
	I'll turn it over to you, Destiny.
	What's your response to that?
	Yeah, there was the Islamic Golden Age.
	It came and it went.
	We got democracy from the Greeks.
	We got multiculturalism and we got former expanded governments from Romans.
	We got the whole industrial age from Europe.
	We got the age of the Catholic Church.
	These civilizations come and they go and we don't go back to them.
	Sometimes people have a lot to contribute to the world, and then we get those things, and then the world moves on.
	You just never turn around and go back.
	If there was such an Islamic golden age, and if Muslims contributed so much to the world and so much to world culture, why did they lose it all?
	What happened to it?
	Why don't we see them continue to dominate today?
	And so far as, like, in the United States, you can't make fun of Nazis, or you can't make fun of Jews, or you can't make fun of whatever.
	You can make fun of whatever you want here.
	The laws will protect you doing whatever.
	That doesn't mean you don't necessarily get hosted on any platforms.
	But, I mean, again, like, yeah, there might be some platforms that would ban you if you I don't have to worry about getting banned.
	I have to worry about getting beheaded.
	I think there's a significant difference there.
	I think I'd rather be worried about Susan coming after me on YouTube than I would be about Abdel coming after me to murder me because I said something about his religion that he doesn't like.
	I think you said Abdull.
	Abdull.
	Okay.
	Your response to that?
	So, first of all, let's take the last one.
	So yeah, you may have to worry about Abdull basically being an individual who doesn't follow the rules of Islam and basically has his ego.
	Just like you'd probably be worried about Weinstein getting angry with you and stabbing you because you went against Judaism.
	Or for example, if you're walking in Israel just because you're a Christian, getting spit on.
	Or if you're basically...
	A different religion, if you're a Muslim or Christian, being killed by Brett Weinstein or whatever the name is.
	So you've got these ideas in many cultures.
	In terms of what you said, of course, we received democracies from the Greeks, but do you know how we got that information from the Greeks?
	It was from the Muslims.
	And you're right, civilisation start and end.
	So in reality, your argument is this is the current civilisation.
	And based on your own argument, it will end.
	And actually, many historians say that the pro-territarians within any society become the dominant.
	And right now, according to even historical literature, the pro-laterians are the Muslims.
	So this could be a situation where they take over.
	But I'm not saying they should.
	I'm not advocating that.
	I'm just saying from a historic perspective, when you're looking at civilizations, civilizations come and fall.
	I have no issue.
	I'm not trying to advocate that Islam should take over.
	That's not my point.
	My specific point about it is whether you're able to, someone like Destiny, able to attack Islam and he's fine, he's fine.
	He even said, I hate Islam, sorry.
	But he would never say, I hate Judaism, even though Judaism is much more extreme.
	Any problem someone like him would ever have with Islam, I've always explained and I've always shown that Judaism is much more extreme in all aspects, in all endeavours.
	So yeah, in terms of YouTube being banned.
	So yeah, you can deep platform someone, you could take someone's voice away.
	That's one aspect.
	But also we've seen the genocidal nature of extremist regimes, whether it comes from all religions or no religions.
	And we've seen that in real time right now.
	Just a final point.
	There's a reason why we're on YouTube discussing this right now.
	And we're going to be talking about Zionism in rumble.
	So that says it all.
	Okay.
	I mean, I'll shit on Judaism, but the problem is not many people care.
	If I go online and I start talking about, like, apparently Jewish people bite off foreskins or some shit when they circumcise kids, like, every Jewish friend I have or every Jewish guy online will be like, yeah, that's pretty weird.
	We don't really do that much anymore.
	That's what everybody will say.
	If I go online and I talk about marrying a fucking nine-year-old, or if I do, like, here's a funny picture of Muhammad AI-generated, I've got like five million death threats in my inbox.
	It's not even remotely close.
	We can pretend that we're just as worried about a Weinstein stabbing you for being Christian as we would be about Muhammad beheading you for being Christian or Jewish.
	But, I mean, where are all of the Muslims trying to immigrate to?
	And where are all of the Christians and Jews going?
	I don't see this reverse, like, Christians and Jews feeling like they can find safe havens in these Arab-majority Muslim countries.
	I do see a lot of Muslims from those countries trying to go to Europe and trying to go to the United States, and I think there's a reason for that.
	Okay.
	Okay, so just...
	Oh, go ahead.
	So the first thing is, yes, you would be banned in all forms of social media if you said Jews try to basically bite the foreskin.
	I mean, Lucas Gage is a...
	I've tweeted this out before, right?
	Lucas Gage is a prime example of someone who calls Jews out and completely is banned.
	So you would, in terms of death threats, I mean, I've had a huge amount of death threats from Zionists, right?
	And I've had my name on a missile, so let's not pretend that this is only happening one way, right?
	And proportionally, there's two billion Muslims.
	There's only a small people, small number of Jews, and yeah, The death threats are disproportionate.
	In terms of when you talk about marrying an animal, someone like you is an example that you would be willing to mention that.
	And again, you probably, and I know you don't know the epistemology and the hermeneutics behind that argument, but you wouldn't mention about Judaism, which literally says marry three-year-olds.
	And this is an example of when we're mentioned, as an example, when I mention in debates, they lose their minds.
	They'll block me.
	They'll try and cancel me.
	And this has happened on many platforms.
	So it does happen indeed.
	I think Weinstein, you meant, Weinstein is a Jewish name, so you probably just got confused there.
	And the last bit about immigration.
	So, of course, The reason people emigrate to Western countries, and not obviously Israel, is because due to Zionist agenda, basically Muslim countries have been bombed to the ground.
	Now, when there's certain countries that have basically not been bombed to the ground, we're seeing emigration happening.
	We're seeing basically people from Britain go to Dubai and go to UAE. So it's not specifically about that, but it's really about a 20-year, even longer, psychological impact of destroying these countries for Israel.
	We'll get into that.
	I got one question and then we'll switch over.
	Follow-up question because we've already been on the topic.
	Is Islam a religion of peace?
	Who wants to take it first?
	I'll go two minutes so you can take your stance and then we can go from there.
	Who wants to take that first?
	I can go first, I guess.
	I don't know if we'll disagree on this.
	My background is Catholic.
	I grew up in the Archdiocese in Omaha, Nebraska.
	I've seen a lot of different things between different Catholic churches.
	I've seen a lot of different things in a Catholic church.
	I don't like generalizing any one particular religion because it feels really silly to do so.
	If you look at the culture and how people operate in Saudi Arabia, and then you compare that to the people, the Houthis in Yemen, you compare that to absolute monarchs in the Gulf states compared to the secular dictatorship in Egypt compared to the Islamists.
	Muslimist dictatorship, the Ayatollah in Iran.
	There are so many different types of Muslim people all over the world.
	Muslims in the United States are going to be way different.
	Muslims in Miami are going to be way different than Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan, or Muslims in Europe, in France and Paris, in London.
	It depends.
	Everybody's so different.
	I wouldn't say that Islam is a religion of peace, but I also wouldn't say that Christianity is a religion of peace.
	What about Judaism?
	Judaism is, I wouldn't say anything is the religion of peace.
	No, I think that people can be violent with religions and people can be not violent with religions.
	It really just depends on the individual actors.
	I do think that Islam kind of has a problem sometimes and that Islam kind of has baked into it more political ideology, which I think can be problematic.
	But, I mean, there are like two billion Muslims on the planet.
	And I think that they're, you know, ironically enough, that was brought up in the last point, is like these countries have been destroyed.
	I mean, I'm pretty sure that Arabs have probably killed each other more than any Western intervention countries have.
	At least for the 1900s and onwards, or the 1920s and onwards at least.
	Real quick, Destiny, if you're going to choose a religion to go to, let's just say you're going to choose a religion to go towards, which would it be?
	Islam, Christianity, Buddhism?
	Well, I feel like, damn, if Jews run the world, they're secretly in charge of fucking everything.
	I feel like I want to be with those dudes.
	Okay.
	From all the things that I've learned about religion, I like Christianity, because I feel like the coolest cheerleader guy is Jesus, because he's super selfless, he's obviously strong, he's God, he does all this shit, but he handles, he treats everybody with respect, even sinners, don't judge the sinner, judge the sin.
	I feel like Jesus is the prime example of if every single person on the planet could be a particular figure, he would be the one that you would want to be like.
	So, fuck the Jews for killing him, I'll say that, okay?
	All right!
	That's about to be criminalized.
	I'll turn it to you Suleiman.
	Is Islam a religion of peace?
	I agree with his assessment actually in the first part of it, right?
	The individuals, it depends on the individuals and also on top of that as well, it depends on the sex and ideas and ideologies, right?
	So I agree with it.
	In terms of Islam being a political ideology, again, this is like a false norma and false notion that's applied.
	Because actually every ideology, whether it's Western or religious, has political elements in it, from Greek, from Plato's Republic, to even current times when you've basically got these scenarios happening.
	Actually, within the United Kingdom, Judaism actually has their own legal courts, they have their own police, so they have their own kind of political framework, even within Western countries.
	So when people make that argument, it's basically based on either Propaganda or they're seeing certain extreme elements within Islam and assuming and basically applying that to everybody else.
	But everything else, I agree with his assessment.
	In terms of Arabs killing each other, that's also fake as well, but we'll talk about that.
	I guess he's going to talk about Syria, but again, that was because of Western intervention.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So that...
	Should I read some chats?
	Then we're probably going to cut to rumble here because now we're going to get into the other stuff.
	One Castle Club.
	One Castle Club?
	All right, we'll read the Castle Club, then we're going to switch on over to Rumble, guys.
	So come on over right now, rumble.com slash Fresh of It.
	Martin, what happened to all the value you said we would get in the Castle Club, like monthly Zoom calls and exclusive episodes?
	Seems like we're just paying for what everyone got for free.
	My friend, do you not see all the Castle Club videos that we put on there on the site?
	Bro, you guys get behind the scenes and no one else gets.
	Yeah, and we do live streams on there for y'all as well, man.
	I mean...
	But we do need to do the Zoom calls.
	You're right about that.
	We will get y'all the Zoom calls, man.
	We've been traveling a lot for the past month and a half or so.
	So we got y'all.
	Don't worry.
	Let's see here.
	Alright.
	Alright, we're off YouTube?
	Cool.
	Now we're on Rumble.
	Okay, so I'll go ahead and start with the first question here, which is, let's see here.
	It is, should America fund Israel?
	Why or why not?
	That is the first question.
	I'll turn it to Destiny.
	You want to go first?
	He can go first.
	I've gone first every time.
	Suleiman, you can go first.
	Should America fund Israel?
	You need a pen?
	Yeah, please.
	Okay, take that real quick.
	Hey, girls, get another pen.
	Right, okay.
	So should America fund Israel?
	I'd say no whatsoever.
	And the reason is because it's a foreign country.
	And basically every country should put their own interests first.
	So the fact that you basically got our foreign nation appropriate in that country, and I say the same thing about United Kingdom as well, so we can apply to both in case they think it's a Brit talking about America.
	Yeah.
	A foreign nation, you should never have a scenario where a foreign nation is basically being controlled by a foreign entity.
	Now, if America wasn't funding Israel, you wouldn't have many of the problems that we have in the Middle East.
	If you believe in this idea, which many of us don't, but even if you believe in this idea of might is right.
	Well, might should be based on individual bases.
	It shouldn't be based on, for example, America's might being used by lobbyists within America to basically destroy the country.
	If you also want safety in America, you would ensure that you don't basically help or be complicit with basically a crazy nation that is basically destroying the Middle East, trying everything in its power to cause world war.
	Look at America.
	When I come here, I'm shocked at the level of poverty that's here, the level of how people are struggling on the streets of America.
	There was a study come out recently that people are trying to decide whether to pay the bills or whether to basically have food.
	So when you've got Americans doing that and then this money is going to Israel or going to Ukraine or many of these foreign nations, you're basically having a scenario where Americans are struggling.
	The second thing is all this does is benefit the military-industrial complex.
	And again, who controls the military-industrial complex?
	Who controls the governments?
	It's again Israel.
	If China, Russia or any other foreign nations were in the same situation, no one would accept it.
	So yeah, I believe that America should not be funding foreign nations when it comes to war.
	I'm not a pro complete exclusionary ideology that I would just not logistically I don't think that makes sense even from a multi popularity perspective but you should not have a scenario where you basically have a foreign nation that controls America and then because of that it's acting the way it's what what Israel would never ever act in the way it's doing with Iran if it didn't have this idea that we're gonna get America we're gonna get Britain we're gonna get these foreign nations to come and back us up okay that is two minutes go ahead Destiny your response Yeah, I think it's just a really basic game theory.
	If you live on a block with 10 people and you say, hey, nobody's allowed to form any alliances, we all have to be on ourselves or on our own, what's going to happen is two neighbors are going to team up, three neighbors are going to team up, five neighbors are going to team up, and then you who are all like individuals are going to be like, okay, well, Fuck us, because now five neighbors are going to come and beat one guy.
	Five neighbors are going to come and beat another guy.
	Another guy will join them.
	Six guys will go and beat the one guy.
	You have to form alliances in the world.
	It's the way that the world works.
	We can't navigate the world pretending that if we decide to pull all of our money back from everybody, that everybody else in the world is going to do the same.
	If the United States leaves some particular place, Russia will fill the absence.
	China will fill the absence.
	They've already tried to do it in the Middle East.
	Russia's trying to do it right now in Eastern Europe.
	And you've got China who wants to do it all over the...
	South China Sea.
	So the idea that we can just back away from everything and then lose the security of our trade routes?
	What if China or Russia says, sorry, we're actually going to turn off your microchips.
	We're going to turn off your access to Taiwan.
	We're going to turn off your shipping to Africa.
	We're going to turn off your shipping to Europe.
	We would have to say, oh, well, I guess we can't do anything because we hate the military-industrial complex.
	Military-industrial complex, like Theodore Roosevelt said, is incredibly important.
	We need to guarantee U.S. ability to trade and interact with countries with our Navy.
	It's the reason why we have one, and it's why we've been so prosperous.
	It's why these microphones probably come from other countries.
	It's why every single thing in this room was shipped in somewhere else.
	It was on the backs of the security of what the United States Navy is able to provide.
	So, yeah, we have to have alliances.
	We have to work with other countries.
	We have to have people that are on our side because if they're not on our side, they're going to join somebody else.
	If somebody's about to come and knock your door down and America says, eh, we're not going to help you, they're not going to sit there and have their house be demolished.
	They're either going to join the enemy or they're going to join somebody else.
	You know, I don't think the move in World War II would have been to say, like, oh, well, we'll let Nazi Germany take over the entirety of Europe and we'll see what happens after that.
	Hopefully they don't come for us, even though Japan did with Pearl Harbor.
	Yeah, I think that having alliances is important.
	I think that it ensures our ability to operate in the world freely.
	I think it gives us access to all sorts of other countries and cultures in ways that we wouldn't otherwise.
	And I think that that is a value that we should absolutely continue to champion in the United States.
	Okay, I don't think you heard my argument because I literally said don't be exclusionary, right?
	So I agree that you need alliances.
	I agree that you need trade agreements.
	What I am saying is do not Basically, give money away to a country that is then destabilizing a region and actually having threats in your own country and then have a scenario where your own people are struggling.
	These are two different things.
	You can, for example, the United States has trade agreements with Saudi.
	That's probably not a great example because of the Houthis.
	But, for example, the United States have trade agreements with the UAE. They have trade agreements with...
	Jordan and many other countries, it doesn't mean that they're basically financially funding them to help with the genocide or basically financially funding them to help destabilize the region.
	The whole problem what we have is when the United States has become the tool of Israel, you have a scenario where the entire region is...
	Basically, there's complete havoc in the region.
	That causes a problem within the region and is actually a threat to the United States from a financial perspective and from a stability perspective and a safety perspective.
	And on top of that as well, it's a problem in terms of the people in that country having to leave that country because you basically destroyed that country and destabilized it.
	Hence why immigration into Europe is so high.
	So in reality, there is much more.
	And China is a prime example of that.
	Right.
	So China has got trade agreements with Africa, with certain countries in South Asia.
	Right.
	They've not had to bomb them.
	They've not had to support a war.
	They've not had to destabilize the region.
	They financially took financially gone in there.
	Now, you can disagree with some of the financial ethics in terms of, for example, what they did in Sri Lanka and the part where they basically almost made the agreement so difficult for the Sri Lankans.
	But then the Sri Lankans may be appreciating it based on what was happening before.
	But that so that means you can have trade.
	So I'm not against exclusion.
	I'm for trade.
	I'm for agreements.
	I'm for these type of things.
	What I'm not I'm against is sending money for no for basically no reason other than destabilizing the region and gifting that money essentially happens.
	Hence why you had basically a bill go through now, which was basically to gift them because they're struggling right now.
	Iron Dome is financially supported by America, which again gives them that vigor to basically start being so crazy and destabilizing the region.
	When you look at many of their acts, they've done them acts thinking, we've got this backup from the United States so we can act irrationally.
	And when you've got an irrational actor, the risk for us is that there could be one or three.
	Yeah, I mean, when you look at who's destabilizing the Middle East right now, I don't think Israel is the source of the destabilization.
	I think Iran and their funding of Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Iran's funding of the Houthis in Yemen, or Iran's funding and support for Hamas in Israel, I think that this is a far greater source of destabilization than anything that the United States might be contributing.
	If you look at raw cost of lives, the Iran-Iraq war cost some one to two million lives, which is more than Every single Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict combined times ten.
	So it's not even close to the level of destabilization.
	And then when we look at, like, we're destabilizing the Middle East by supporting Israel, we need to pull out so what?
	It can look more like Yemen?
	So it can look more like Syria?
	So it can look more like Iraq or Iran?
	Like, what are our stable bastions of thriving Muslim-majority, you know, theocracies or dictatorships in the Middle East that we want everything to look more similar to?
	I think that Israel is doing pretty good considering they're sitting on land with almost no natural resources.
	All of their industry comes from technology and the agriculture that they've brutally terraformed the land to support.
	I think that it's good to support Israel there.
	I think that they do a lot of good for the United States.
	I think they give us a good eye into the Middle East.
	I think it's a good example of a democratic country working even in the Middle East better than anything else surrounding them.
	And I think we should continue to support said country because, yeah.
	So the things you mentioned, right?
	The problem is you mentioned all those countries and we're like, look at those countries.
	But those countries are only like that because of the US bombing them for Israel.
	You mentioned the Iran-Iraq war, but there was a huge amount of loss of life, right?
	But what actually happened with that?
	You basically had a scenario where one of the countries was the number one best economy in that region.
	The other one was the number four best economy in that region.
	And again, it was because of Western kind of pushing and even to the point where Saddam thought that he's got the support of the West for certain aspects of it.
	And also there was also a certain Arab country who did as well.
	So I have to be completely accurate on that.
	But there was this support again because they want to destabilize the region that actually made them go into conflict in the first place or both.
	And that's what the dumb move that Saddam made because he shouldn't have literally listened to them and trust them when his economy was doing so well, as was Iran's economy.
	So, again, it comes back to the same thing.
	It's Western intervention in these countries that is causing the destabilization.
	Iran was a democracy until America came and destabilized it and basically ended the democracy in America in the 50s.
	And then you basically put the monarchs in and then again they got turned over.
	So you have the same scenario.
	So when you look at it, the acts of Iran when it comes to financially funding the defense That you've got against Israeli aggression in the Middle East or, for example, Israeli aggression through America because they're forcing them through the control of the United States.
	As you said, they run the world.
	I mean, you said it with mocking, but in reality, it was completely accurate.
	They run the United States of America and then they're forcing the destabilization of those countries.
	And also, for example, you've completely forgot...
	The fake weapons of mass destruction, which again was done for Israel to destroy Iraq when a million Iraqis plus were killed.
	But what were they killed for?
	They were killed for nothing and hence why many people who I know, such as Lucas Gage, realised that, wait, I'm fighting this war for this foreign nation and they had an epiphany and realised that the Zionist state is a huge problem for world peace.
	Yeah, the United States and the West was not the reason for the Iran-Iraq war.
	The United States did not tell Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait.
	The United States did not tell Saddam Hussein to gas the Kurdish people.
	The United States did not tell Assad to gas his own people.
	The United States was not the instigator for the Syrian civil war.
	The United States did not cause the Arab Spring to erupt all across the Arab world.
	That the United States is so singularly powerful that it can uniquely disrupt and cause all of these countries to fall into disarray is probably more reflection on those countries than any U.S. foreign policy.
	I acknowledge that, especially through the Cold War, the United States was quite interventionalist in probably negative ways in a lot of different countries, and the Middle East is not accepted from that.
	However, a lot of that was only possible because of the destabilization that already existed in these countries.
	Even with the installation of the Shah, the only reason why that was even able to happen is because that country was experiencing massive issues relating to unemployment.
	That's why they wanted to nationalize the oil fields.
	That's why BP and Great Britain begged us to come in and help them control the assets that they'd invested all that money into.
	I'm not saying that U.S. or foreign action is perfect here, but these countries all have issues relating to how they run, relating to how their leaders conduct themselves in war, relating to, you know, gassing their own civilians or using torture or other means of trying to control their populations.
	Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad, the Houthis, none of these people are exceptions to this.
	Even the monarch in Saudi Arabia bombing the Houthis, you know, the Iran-Iraq war, Iran attacking Saudi Arabia.
	There's a whole shitshow of things going on here that can't all possibly be blamed on the United States.
	And if they can, even if we wanted to run with all of that, then maybe they don't need to be rulers.
	If they could be so easily meddled with or so easily influenced by the United States because of things that have happened, you know, 30, 40, 50 years ago, I don't know if that's like a strong argument for the stability of any of these countries.
	Because again, if it's not us meddling in them, what?
	It would be what?
	The Soviet Union?
	It would be China?
	You know, we can say no, but like people complain about, oh, you know, Al-Qaeda came from the Mujahideen and blah, blah, blah.
	Well, who did we fund them to fight off?
	It was because the Soviets were trying to install their own government in Afghanistan.
	Yeah, again, world meddling is not unique to any country.
	We don't do it as much as we used to, and I understand that there are issues that happen in the Middle East because of some meddling, but they can't all be blamed on the United States.
	Okay, that's two minutes.
	Suleiman, your response to that?
	Cool.
	Yeah, so look, this is just completely inaccurate and changing history to what it is, right?
	Like, it's pretending that basically in 1988, when them students took off over the U.S. Embassy and exposed the fact that the U.S. directly intervened and overthrew the democracy in Iran, didn't happen.
	Like, everybody knows that happened.
	Like, how can you say it didn't happen?
	Everybody knows it.
	When you mentioned the Arab Spring, right?
	So some of it was...
	Organic, right?
	But the vast majority of it was inorganic.
	I can give you Syria as an example.
	Syria was completely inorganic.
	You had basically a scenario where there was people protesting, which you have in many countries, disagreeing with Bashar, and then this was propagated through the media, through the West, To essentially cause a huge amount of protest because this is what they do.
	They know that when you propagate a certain amount of information and you cause a populist to basically be in open arms, you can basically destabilise the country.
	And that's what they did.
	So that happened for sure.
	In terms of...
	You made a huge contradiction because first you said very early on that, yeah, we are America.
	America dominates.
	We dominate everyone.
	And now you're saying it's completely unfathomable that the United States could dominate.
	But this is, again, in Accra, because when you look at the actual situation that occurred, and we mentioned them, the United States was involved.
	So, for example, when you look at Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein had very good relations with the United States.
	His actions were supported by the United States.
	You look at the Saudis and the Houthis, you mentioned them in Yemen.
	It was the United States involved.
	And it's only in 2023 when the Houthis stood and banged in Yemen and basically took over every single region, every major city, except for the town of Marib where they were basically closing in, that the Saudis and America were forced to come to the table.
	But that was American support.
	Because Saudis, let's be clear, they're not going to stand and bang.
	They've just got the financial power to do so.
	But not the military power, not the other aspects that basically intelligence and various other things that which the United States basically provides.
	So when you look at that region, and when I say the United States, I'm saying it's for Israel.
	It's for that country because they want destabilization.
	If you want, I'll give you another 30 if you need to finish.
	No, no, something.
	You did?
	Okay.
	I'll turn it to you.
	Destiny, then we can hit the next topic if you guys feel it.
	Yeah, I mean, stable countries don't have protests that turn into attempted coups.
	It just doesn't happen, no matter how strong you think the United States is.
	When I say that we dominate, I mean that we dominate economically and we dominate culturally.
	Everybody listens to our music, everybody listens to our movies, everybody watches our podcast.
	You probably got people in the Middle East watching this podcast right now, as long as it's not illegal in their particular country to watch.
	That's what I mean when I talk about U.S. domination.
	I don't mean we're necessarily intervening in every single country.
	We do try to intervene in some countries, but it's not because—if you look at the history of Yemen, Yemeni destabilization didn't happen because of the United States.
	This has been a destabilized country for decades.
	There have been fights going back to, from my recollection, at least the 60s, where tons of Middle Eastern countries have huge investments in what's going on in Yemen and supporting different leaders.
	Or again, if you look at Afghanistan, you've got huge investments in places like the Soviet Union trying to send their leadership over and to be installed in that country.
	Again, I'm not going to defend every single intervention that the United States has done in the past.
	I agree that especially during the Cold War era, I don't think a lot of it is defensible.
	But to continue to blame the destabilization of the actions of America during the Cold War...
	Or to say that these countries have no autonomy and they just can't resist and they're getting constantly overthrown and school students funded by the United States and Twitter are able to completely destroy the entire country of Syria.
	I think that there are more fundamental problems that exist there if another country can give you a gentle push and all of a sudden your country falls into chaos.
	Okay, you have a response to that?
	I can respond to it.
	And then we'll move into the next topic.
	So look, the problem is that you are now making the argument that when you don't have, when someone isn't doing protests, and then there isn't outside interference, that that can't overthrow the country.
	But that is completely inaccurate.
	We're seeing the college protests in the United States where they're basically the government is so harshly Harshly attacking the students and stopping them from doing so.
	Now imagine there was foreign intervention in that and you could basically have a scenario where the entire country could be overthrown.
	You could have that scenario.
	If a populist is enough Right down the middle, where people have had enough, you can easily overthrow a country.
	And we've seen that history shows it.
	Iran, how was Iran overthrown?
	They overthrew the democracy in this way.
	How did even the monarchy get overthrown?
	They got overthrown because they started a printing press and then people had issues with the monarchy.
	And again, that was because of American-Israeli intervention.
	So you can have a destabilization from foreign actors.
	Hence why the United States and the United Kingdom have been so...
	So specific about not having a foreign intervention, it's why you guys want to ban TikTok, right?
	Because of foreign intervention.
	Why not be chill about it?
	Because you think the foreign intervention can cause destabilization in a country.
	So every country knows that external forces are able to and do try and destabilize a country.
	And that doesn't mean that the country is weak.
	Sometimes a country could be like 50-50.
	You could have a country which, for example, in Turkey where you've got people like Erdogan who's more towards Islamic ideals, for example, or you've got the secularists.
	That country, if America wanted to basically do it and they tried to do it with Golan and so on and so forth, they could basically push it to have it being overthrown.
	So this can happen quite easily.
	Okay.
	I'll go to the next topic now, unless you had something that you want to follow up on that one.
	Who started this one?
	Do you remember?
	Oh, shit.
	I think Suleiman started this one.
	I think I started it, yeah.
	No, he started it.
	Because...
	No, I think it was me.
	I think it was me.
	It was him, because Destiny started the first two.
	Yeah, yeah.
	There you go.
	I would just say that if you look at the United States and you compare TikTok to whatever the U.S. was doing in Syria or whatever the U.S. is doing in any other country, TikTok is a massive application that is downloaded on over 200 million phones in the United States.
	The United States is not doing a propaganda campaign on that level.
	When we say that the United States is overthrowing all of these Middle Eastern countries, we're talking about these incredibly subtle things that are very hard to source or very hard to find.
	That is in no way comparable to day talk.
	And also, the comparison of college students right now on U.S. campuses, they're not about to overthrow the government.
	It's going to be a drama, it's going to be a meme for a week or two more or however long this lasts, and then they're going to go back to school and everybody's going to forget about it because that's how protests typically go in the United States.
	And when you say in the United States, like, you know, couldn't...
	Foreign powers, you know, try to influence you guys.
	And like, well, couldn't that be happening now?
	It is happening now, of course.
	But the United States is a stable democracy.
	So the idea of this country being cooed by a bunch of college students is a lot less likely because we have stronger institutions here and we guard our democratic principles here much closer than other countries do.
	Okay.
	So the next topic, great arguments on both sides, guys.
	Really great stuff.
	The second question, and this one might be a little bit more controversial.
	Is Israel committing a genocide?
	Is Israel committing a genocide at this very moment?
	Who wants to take this?
	You started first last time.
	So, Desi, you want to kick this one off?
	Yeah, sure.
	Reset the clock.
	I think it's important that when we consider genocide, we have to consider that a country is operating with the highly special intent to completely, or it's a highly special intent to eliminate, in whole or in part, a group of people.
	And the origination of this hatred, of this desire to eliminate a group of people, can't simply be part of war.
	It has to be something special.
	It has to be something different.
	It's highly specialized when we're talking about genocide.
	I think that we have to be really careful when we set the precedent of these two people at war, therefore, one person is genociding the other.
	Because what you essentially do in that case is you rob every single nation of the ability to go to war.
	You know, was the United States engaged in genocide against Afghanistan?
	Is Russia engaged in genocide against Ukraine?
	Did we engage in genocide against Japan when we nuke them or when we firebomb Tokyo?
	You know, like in every single conflict that you have, there's going to be one group of people trying to defeat another group of people.
	It can't all be genocide.
	So I think that if we want to claim that Israel is engaged in genocide, I think that we need to be very careful when we look at that highly special intent.
	And I think we need to be careful that we're not confusing military actions, which there are a lot of, with genocidal actions.
	There could be individual people that are engaged in genocidal rhetoric or in genocidal action, and I think if that's happening, those individual people, of course, should be held responsible.
	But I think that if we look at the overall action of Israel, we see that, like, you know, 30,000 people have been killed and, like, twice as many bombs have been dropped.
	We see that the amount of warning Israel takes to try to, you know, have people flee from one side to the other.
	You know, Israel's like, hey, you guys need to leave.
	Basically two weeks before any military operations began, when they're making phone calls to apartment buildings, when they're spending $500,000 on missiles to, like, precisely target people.
	The idea that Israel is engaged in some genocidal action while also taking all of these precautions, while opening up more and more humanitarian ways to get food in, you know, while...
	They're doing all these things.
	It just doesn't really make sense, other than just, like, screaming the death toll over and over again, or saying, women and children, this number, and here's the death toll, and just screaming that over and over and over again.
	There is no real argument here that Israel is engaging in genocide against any of the people in Gaza.
	Okay.
	Salim, I'll turn it to you.
	Yeah, he defined genocide correctly, and he said that it's to eliminate a whole or part of a people.
	And what we're seeing is a genocide.
	It is the elimination of a part of a people because of their basic ethnicity, which is being Palestinian.
	It's obviously not based on religion because these guys are killing Christians and Muslims and oppressing Jews in Israel, but that's a separate point.
	Now, coming back to it, right?
	The ICJ have also stated that there is a plausible case for genocide.
	Now, when Destiny's made his argument, he's not explained that, according to his definition then, what would be a genocide, because he's given many examples of certain acts that occurred, but then he's not explained what genocide is, because if he's saying that whenever there is an act of war, there can't be genocide, that is inaccurate.
	Now, coming back to it, there has been a huge number of people who've been killed, more than 40,000.
	The vast majority of them are women and children.
	And he mentioned that they're targeting precisely.
	If they're targeting precisely, which is what his last point was, And then they're killing so many women and children, that literally tells you that the intent is to kill women and children, unless they're not targeting precisely.
	In addition to that, they claim that they are trying to go for Hamas.
	Up to now, we have no idea how many Hamas people have been killed.
	They initially were getting exposed because there was one to two hundred.
	So they were claiming that for every one Hamas, there was two hundred.
	And when they started getting exposed so badly, they changed the numbers.
	They changed the numbers and now they're like, oh, 13,000 Hamas people have been killed.
	Let's look at their numbers.
	If they say 13,000 Hamas people have been killed, when at that point there was 32,000 people had been killed, and the US themselves...
	Israel's own ally said that 25,000 of them were women and children.
	According to the argument, all the males are Hamas.
	They can't even be a male civilian who isn't Hamas.
	And then many of the women and children are Hamas.
	Like, how crazy is that?
	Do they actually think people are that dumb?
	No.
	In reality, they are committing a genocide.
	They are trying to take out an entire people.
	And they're doing it because they are Palestinian.
	So there's two essential elements when we're defining genocide.
	You need the special intent, and then you need to combine it with some action.
	Eliminating a group of people, in part, is not qualifying as a special intent.
	The special intent has to be absent any reason for war.
	It can't just be, I'm going to war with somebody, so I'm trying to blow up, like, you know, part of the military installation, trying to blow up some city.
	That's not enough.
	Otherwise, every single war would be genocide.
	We have to ask ourselves, what is the difference between genocide and war?
	And if you look at the Israeli operation right now on the Gaza Strip, well, what started it?
	October 7th, an act of war.
	Well, what are they doing?
	Conducting military operations, like you would in war.
	You know, what are all the planes shooting at?
	What are all the artillery shooting at?
	Is it really only 35,000 people have been killed with all of these Israeli munitions, with all of the Israeli airstrikes?
	Who goes to genocide a group of people while telling all of them to flee first?
	Who goes to genocide a group of people while saying like, hey, we're going to make phone calls, and hey, we're going to open up humanitarian corridors, and hey, we're going to try to ensure that enough aid is getting in?
	Who does this?
	If anybody is genocidal towards the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, it would be Hamas.
	Hamas operates in a way specifically to induce the maximum amount of civilian deaths.
	They booby trap homes, so you don't know when you're entering a civilian house if it's gonna explode or not.
	They hide munitions in basements, so when you're trying to figure out where these stockpiles of weapons are, you don't have a military target to attack, you gotta go through civilian houses to figure out where the arms are.
	They hide and they operate out of hospitals.
	Even though Unruh and the chief surgeon of that al-Shifa hospital said they weren't, We found CCTV footage that showed hostages literally being taken into the hospital, with the doctors literally observing it.
	We saw Amnesty International say in 2014 that they know that al-Shifa hospital is operating an interrogation room.
	All of these things have been well documented by NGOs, by international humanitarian organizations and everything, but for some reason we all ignore it when we talk about Hamas.
	Hamas does everything they can to induce civilian death, and they continue to do so because they know that it benefits them internationally because people continue to obsess over the numbers.
	The ICJ did not say that there is a plausible case of genocide happening right now.
	They said that it was plausible that the rights of the Palestinians were being infringed based on the genocide convention.
	The ex-leader, the ex-president of the ICJ literally just did an interview on the BBC clarifying this, that they were not asked to rule on the plausibility of the genocide.
	There's not even a part in that genocide convention that tells a state not to commit genocide.
	It's just telling people to protect their rights against it, and it is plausible, meaning that prima facie, if the facts are true, it could be the case that the Palestinians are having their rights to not be genocide and infringed, but the International Court of Just does not make an actual ruling on that.
	And then also, as a real quick final point, when we say 7,000...
	Hamas themselves claim that 7,000 to 8,000 people that have been killed were literally militants, and that's the Hamas numbers.
	If that's true, then the ratio of militants to civilian killed in this war is already exceeding every single prior military conflict, and that's operating in the most densely populated urban environment ever against an enemy militant that is explicitly trying to induce as much civilian death as possible.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I'll turn it to you, Sullivan.
	Right.
	So, I mean, what you said is accurate, but then again, you applied it inaccurately, right?
	So you said that there needs to be intent, right?
	There needs to be action, and then you can actually attack part of the population.
	So you try and take out part of the population.
	You try to genocide part of the population.
	That's what's happened.
	You have the intent because you admitted that they're precisely targeting people.
	So the intent is there.
	They're precisely targeting the children.
	Their actions have demonstrated that they have precisely attacked the children.
	In terms of what you said about 35,000, they've not told people to move, because in reality we've seen it, whenever they tell people to move, they've killed so many people in the safe zones.
	So what they're doing is they're telling people, "Go to this area, this area is a safe zone," and then they're bombing and killing them.
	And we've seen that time and time and time again.
	We've seen people who basically wave the white flags of surrender, they've been killed.
	Americans were killed when they were doing that.
	They killed their own hostages in the same manner.
	When people were in their air trucks, they did the exact same thing.
	In terms of the booby traps, obviously that's just fake news.
	In terms of Al Shafar, that was the biggest debunked...
	I'm surprised that these debunked propaganda pieces are being used here because we've already debunked them.
	Al Shafar wasn't a military installation.
	Al Shafar had nothing in it.
	The most embarrassing thing was some of those videos where they were showing weapons in...
	In certain areas where they couldn't even be in MRI rooms.
	So they were, if they've been exposed so badly in terms of Al Shafar, Al Shafar was not a military place.
	What happened was there were some injured people who were taken there because injured people, irrespective of whether they're civilians or not, will be taken to certain hospitals.
	And that happens.
	And that happened to the Israeli hostages as well because they were injured.
	And then doctors do their oath of looking after them and that's what they did.
	Unlike the Israeli doctors who were basically supporting this genocide and supporting the attack on hospitals.
	This attack, this fake news about hospitals only because there was Oprah about the first hospital they attacked and they got exposed so badly.
	In terms of the ICJ, this is fake news, what you're saying.
	They literally said it was a plausible case of genocide.
	And then you said, oh, and they're saying...
	That the case was there to show that there was a genocide.
	So you admitted it in your own argument.
	Hamas' number never said there were 7,000 or 8,000 Hamas people killed.
	That is the most fakest news ever.
	Hamas keeps saying that there's not been those numbers.
	In terms of 35,000, I don't think there's that much.
	I think there's much more, much more.
	Okay.
	And then I think you started this one, right?
	So yeah, you started this one.
	So we could get your last side and then your last side and then we'll go to the next question.
	You guys cool with that?
	Yeah.
	Intentionally attacking people is not the special intent to commit genocide.
	The special intent to commit genocide has to be higher than just attacking a foreign nation that you're at war with.
	It has to be higher.
	Again, the crucial part here is you have to be able to differentiate genocide from just war.
	When you talk about al-Shifa hospital has been debunked, no it hasn't.
	They tried to debunk the first one.
	They did it with very little satisfaction.
	But then Israel literally came back through and found that al-Shifa had been re-inhabited by Islamic Jihad, by Hamas, and they had a whole other fight a month ago here.
	It lasted two weeks.
	Were they fighting for two weeks against Palestinian civilians in that hospital?
	The idea is that they've arrested 900 people as part of their rate, 500 that they've already confirmed as being part of Hamas or being part of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
	There's no way that that second siege took two whole weeks if it was just civilians.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	impossible.
	When you talk about attacking safe zones, Israel has only declared one singular safe zone, and that is the Al-Mawasi Beach, which is west of Yankunas, and that place has never been attacked by Israel.
	There's only been one report of a rocket blowing up there, and people don't know where it comes from.
	Some people say Israel, but it's on the outside of the beach.
	There's no video evidence of this.
	There's no actual picture evidence of this.
	So the idea that Israel is attacking safe zones that it's telling people to go to is just not true.
	When you talk about aid trucks getting shot, that was a horrible mistake.
	That WCK thing was really bad, but you also have to acknowledge that Hamas literally operates out of aid trucks.
	They operate out of ambulances.
	We've seen videos of hospital-garbed people picking up weapons and running them to the other side of the street to give to Hamas while they're fighting.
	So the idea that Hamas is not actively trying to engage in exactly And then to say, oh, well, I've never heard of that before.
	Again, if you trust these international organizations like Amnesty International, Amnesty International has it in part of their report for the 2014 going over a protective edge with that whole military operation.
	They show that there is an interrogation torture room as part of the al-Shifa hospital.
	This isn't even contested.
	And part of these international humanitarian communities anymore.
	And again, the ex-president of the ICJ came out and said, we did not rule that genocide was plausible.
	She said that verbatim on the BBC, because that is not what they were tasked with ruling.
	All right.
	And then, Suleiman, you can finish it, and then I will, I think you go first for the second question, because Destiny went first on this one, then Destiny will get last word on the next one.
	All right, go ahead.
	Right, so coming back to it, right, of course there has to be special intent because the intent needs to be there to do it.
	That doesn't mean, and what is the intent for?
	Intent isn't to kill.
	No one said that.
	It's the intent for genocide.
	And we've said that intent was there to have genocide, to do genocide.
	And the prime example is you admit that they specifically target certain areas as precise attack.
	If you're precisely attacking and you're killing so many women and children, that demonstrates your intent.
	In terms of what you mentioned about Hamas, Hamas, look, in terms of October the 7th, they were resisting occupation.
	And so, again, this is another false notion where you try and make it look like things started on October the 7th.
	In terms of Al Shafar, the two weeks thing, that is completely fake, right?
	Because in reality, what happened was they'd completely darkened the area.
	Nobody knew what happened.
	What we do know is as soon as it was undarked or we were able to see what actually happened, we saw a scenario where they had killed so many civilians.
	They had massacred so many people.
	We saw graves with 200 people, 300 people, 400 people.
	It was crazy.
	It was one of the worst massacres we'd ever seen.
	This history will remember the level of massacre that occurred around the area of Al Shafar.
	Not specifically Al Shafar Hospital.
	It wasn't Hamas.
	These guys went and just absolutely pillaged and destroyed the place.
	There is, again, zero evidence from people saying that Al Shafar had any facilities.
	Actually, their videos got exposed.
	When we looked at the videos, none of them were inside Al Shafar.
	None of them had actual bases in Al Shafar.
	The calendar was so embarrassing.
	They'd created it.
	The weapons, they brought them in.
	It was so, so embarrassing.
	Um...
	In terms of safe zones, completely fake news that there's only one safe zone.
	There's been many safe zones.
	Rafa is an example of a safe zone that was attacked and was killed and many innocent people were killed in safe zones.
	I posted many videos in terms of people being killed in safe zones.
	In terms of the WCK that was attacked, it's so embarrassing.
	It had the logos on there.
	These guys knew that that was one of the few places that they're going to allow to give aid.
	They bombed one, then they bombed a second, and then they bombed a third, and they did it, and they killed Americans and British people.
	This is the level of the genocidal nature of this.
	They know there's no blowback for their actions.
	Okay.
	So, good point.
	So, the next question we're going to get into, and this one, I think Suleiman's going to kick this one off, and then Destin will get the last word.
	Is anti-Semitism used to stop free speech?
	The question again is, or the topic is, is anti-Semitism used to stop free speech?
	Go ahead, bro.
	Of course it is!
	And I hope Destiny's consistent on this because he gave us a whole speech at the beginning about how you could basically attack Islam and there should be no problem with it.
	We've seen it.
	The same people who were crying and crying and crying about identity politics are the same people who are literally crying about anti-Semitism.
	You basically look at the US government saying that anti-Semitism has occurred when hardly any anti-Semitism has occurred in the universities.
	Again, many of those claims were debunked.
	What they really don't want, and they've said it and they proved it by the bill that was sent to the House of Congress, they don't want you to call out the state of Israel because as soon as you call out that state, they're going to be exposed.
	So that's anti-Semitism.
	You can't Call out the Zionist control of America and Britain, because again, that's going to be anti-Semitism.
	And what they've done as well with anti-Semitism, they made the parameters so broad that anything can be anti-Semitism.
	So for example now, and these are the same people who used to cry about identity politics when it comes to racism, when it comes to Islamophobia, when it comes to these various other things.
	So yeah, anti-Semitism has been used to end free speech.
	They did it in certain European countries when it was denial of the Holocaust.
	Why isn't an individual able to have free speech and deny it?
	And then they did that.
	In the United States, you guys had about, as I believe it, 32 states that don't even let you freely take part in BDS, which is boycotting Israel.
	This is the level of propaganda that occurs.
	And now the university protests have been shut down based on these false accusations of anti-Semitism.
	You see people being banned on Twitter for this.
	Elon Musk...
	Twitter is the most free speech platform.
	And yet, he's banned from the river to the sea because it's a call for genocide when it clearly isn't.
	It's interpretation.
	One side says it is, one side says it isn't.
	And it's not even against the law.
	And yet, they made that into illegal.
	Just based on...
	Anti-Semitism, they've made it illegal to say that they're attacking the fact that Christ is saying Christ is king is anti-Semitism.
	They want to edit the Bible.
	They want to basically make it so that anyone who calls out this Zionist terrorist regime, you basically have a scenario where you're basically given these false accusations of anti-Semitism.
	I say...
	Stop that.
	Allow free speech.
	In a country where the First Amendment was created, where they allowed free speech, they're destroying the very country.
	As he said, the best country for a reason, but now it no longer is going to be.
	Okay, Destiny, I'll turn it to you.
	Is anti-Semitism used to stop free speech?
	I think to some extent it can be.
	I think that all identity politics is.
	But this isn't unique to Jews.
	Again, Muslims will threaten to kill you if you post pictures of Muhammad on Twitter.
	There's not a bigger attack against freedom of speech than somebody threatening to behead you because you drew a picture of their favorite superhero.
	I think that's pretty insane.
	I think that one of the things I don't like when we talk about anti-Semitism a lot, and people do this a lot, is people aren't honest about their positions.
	I think in the United States, you should be allowed to be anti-Semitic.
	That's part of your constitutional God-given right.
	You can be a Nazi.
	You can be an anti-Semite.
	You can be a pro-Semite.
	You can be whatever you want.
	In the United States, that's protected speech.
	You might get banned on some platforms for it, but you have the right to say those things.
	That being said, there'll be people that will walk around and say things like, oh, no, I'm not anti-Semitic.
	I just think that there's a reason why Jews have been kicked out of every single country they've ever been a part of, and I think that Jews are also controlling the United States of America, and I think that Jews in the United States of America also have more allegiance to Israel, and I think that Jews were actually behind 9-11, and I think that Jews actually have special warnings.
	And it's like, okay, well, okay.
	At some point, whatever you call anti-Zionist basically has a one-to-one overlap with whatever anti-Semitism is.
	At least own it, right?
	I'll say I'm Islamophobic when I fight against Muslims online.
	If I was going to fight against Jews online over their dumb religious shit, I'd say I'm anti-Jewish or whatever the fuck.
	But don't sit here and pretend that, oh no, it's just me doing my talking points and I had no idea that using these phrases was considered anti-Semitic.
	I had no idea that walking up to a Jew and saying, Christ is king!
	I don't think any fucking Christian has ever said that until it became popular to use it as a way to bully fucking Jewish people.
	I grew up Catholic for, I was a Catholic for 12 years.
	I don't remember hearing all the screaming about Christ as king.
	Yeah, and as far as the university protesters go, listen, you have a right on the university to protest, but it is a university.
	You have to do it in an appropriate manner and place, or time, manner, and place, meaning you're not allowed to set up encampments for weeks and weeks, or days and days.
	You're not allowed to block students from going to class.
	class, you're not allowed to disrupt events that are happening on campus.
	That's part of the rules of being on university grounds.
	And if you start to violate those rules, then, yeah, eventually they're going to kick you out.
	You know, people can say that it's anti-Semitic this time.
	What was it?
	Anti-African-American when BLM people were getting arrested?
	Or was it anti-Conservatives when Trump people were being arrested on January 6th?
	Or was it anti-Millennials when the 2008 anti-Wall Street movement was happening?
	Occupy.
	Yeah, occupy Wall Street.
	Like, no.
	I mean, like, people are...
	When situations get violent, they get drawn out.
	Eventually, the cops are going to come in and they're going to shut it down.
	That just happens with every single protest.
	It's going to continue to happen with every single protest.
	It doesn't mean that there's some unique violation of your freedom of speech.
	Okay.
	Suleiman, I'll turn it to you.
	Yeah, I've already answered this whole Muslims will kill you and behead you, yeah?
	I've just given many examples within the Zionists who do the exact same thing, but in a much worse manner.
	And disproportionately, it's a lot worse.
	Now, in terms of what he said, this is the propaganda that Zayos do, right?
	They want to make it so that...
	Anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Judaism, which is not, right?
	Judaism is not the same as Zionism.
	There's Jewish people in Israel that are oppressed.
	But yes, the Zionist control, and remember, there's much more Christian Zionists than there is Jewish Zionists, of the United States is prevalent.
	And these people want to end it and make it the same because they want to make it look like that you're being anti-Semitic so that you basically have a scenario where you're put in prison or they take away your job.
	Or they take away their career.
	You saw that very first Harvard letter where there was an uproar just because the students were calling out the treatment of the Palestinians and they said they're not going to get a job.
	They're not going to get a career.
	So this is what happens.
	In terms of if somebody says that the Jews could chuck them out of 109 countries, look, this is a position that I don't agree with, but...
	It is a position that people should be allowed to have.
	They should be able to have that position.
	You shouldn't be able to stifle free speech.
	And this is what's happened by the Zionist structure because the difference is he can be Islamophobic and he's got no problem.
	He's on YouTube.
	He's on everywhere.
	But he can't do the same thing to Zionists.
	Hence why we moved to Rumble when we were talking about this.
	So he knows it.
	I know it.
	We all know it.
	And people could get banned.
	I've been banned of Buy Me A Coffee.
	We've been banned of many platforms for this reason, right?
	Because this is what they do.
	And it's not just platforms.
	It's law.
	Denying the Holocaust is law.
	You look in this, how is the Congress that they're going to pass?
	That's going to be law.
	So it's a legal aspect.
	Christians, of course, they said Christ is king.
	This is their position.
	They're like, well, this is ridiculous to say that this isn't part of Christianity.
	Also, having the belief that basically the Jews killed Jesus, they're allowed to have that position because, again, this is their ideological position.
	You shouldn't have no issue with it whatsoever.
	In terms of the university protests, the reason they banned it has nothing to do with certain regulations that were not met is because the Zionists were being exposed.
	Everyone was talking about it in the media.
	There was going to be a huge amount of movement.
	And they had to stop it.
	This is very different to the BLM. What did they do with BLM? They allowed it to cascade.
	They allowed it to grow.
	They were burning cars.
	They allowed it to go on for so long.
	And yet these university students sitting peacefully, they basically banned them.
	Alright.
	Turn to Destiny then.
	And then if you guys want to do one more round, we can.
	Like a fire round.
	And then we can go to the next question.
	This is heavy, man.
	Holy smokes.
	Yo, shout out to...
	You guys are both making fantastic.
	We're getting a lot of content as well because we're speaking so fast.
	Yeah, yeah.
	You guys are...
	It's like a rap battle.
	Hold on.
	We got over here Kendrick Lamar.
	We got a drink over here.
	This is probably one of the best well done...
	One of the best debates, man.
	Drake or Kendrick Lamar?
	You know, obviously, like I told y'all before, I'm just moderating it, man, making it fair for both parties so they can get their points because I think it's really important to be able to have these ideas and hash them out together.
	So, Destiny, it's on you.
	I'll give you your two minutes and then we'll go to Suleiman if you guys want.
	We can do a fire round if you guys want to finish it off.
	Holy.
	Yeah, I mean, I would be opposed to making anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism illegal in the United States.
	I don't think anybody's making it illegal in the United States.
	I haven't seen that.
	I don't think the bell in Congress is making it illegal.
	I think it is providing it the same protections that you have for, you know, attacking somebody for their sexuality or attacking somebody for their religion if you're like an employer or if you like own a house and you're trying to rent a house to people.
	I don't think they're making anti-Zionism illegal.
	There's this talking point again that you can attack Islam but you can't attack Judaism.
	The reality is nobody really cares that much about the religion of Judaism.
	Most Jews in Israel don't care about the religion of Judaism.
	The people that are going to care the most are going to be those in the fucking West Bank They're trying to set up their little settlements and everything.
	They're not going to be online fighting with you on Twitter.
	Again, I can go online.
	I go on Twitter and I can shit on Jews in like 15 different ways and nobody gives a fuck because more of the crazy aspects of the Jewish religion, nobody actually cares about.
	Like, most Jewish people won't defend it.
	Whereas if I go online and I start talking about A.E. Sheriff, I start like putting pictures of Mohammed online, I've got like 15 million death threats in my inbox.
	But yeah, I mean, to reiterate, like, yeah, you should be able to, if you want to deny the Holocaust, if you want to deny, you know, Zionists their right to a country, if you want to say all those things in the United States, it should be allowed to be done and I believe it It's still a lot to be done, and there's no way to stop that unless the First Amendment is somehow revoked in the United States.
	If you're upset because people are banning you from certain platforms for it, then I would say that, yeah, I mean, that is what the platforms are doing, but I mean, that's not a freedom of speech violation.
	And I don't even know if I'm fully bought into this idea that Zionists get more protection than anything else.
	It feels like most of the media coverage has been insanely pro-Palestinian.
	If you look at Twitch, for instance, the platform that I'm banned from, Hassan Piker is literally the face of Of fucking Twitch politics.
	And Hamas Piker is literally an avowed supporter of terrorist attacks against Israel, of the destruction of the Israeli state, and will support, you know, the Houthis and the Hamas and the Palestinians in any way, shape, or form.
	And I'm sure when you go on YouTube, you find a ton of pro-Palestinian support as well.
	So this idea that you don't have support for Palestinians that's allowed to flourish on these social media platforms isn't even true in and of itself.
	All right, so if you guys want, we can have a fire run here where you guys can respond to each other and whatever.
	Did I go first then?
	Yeah, because I think you went first.
	Oh, did I? Yeah.
	No, no, wait, because I had the last word last time, so he should get the last word this time.
	And then we can ask him to do a fire run.
	He should get his...
	I can't remember.
	I thought he went first.
	No, no, he was supposed to get the last word on this one.
	No, I think it was me.
	But I actually can't remember.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It is him.
	Okay.
	No, because Destiny went first the first time.
	Because anti-Semitism, I think I talked first about why anti-Semitism isn't free speech.
	Okay, yeah.
	So if you go first, that means he finishes it.
	Wait, am I right?
	Oh, yeah, you're right.
	So, yeah, Destiny was supposed to get the last one on this one, which he just did just now.
	But if you guys want, because I saw that you wanted to address something, you can do a fire round while I put two minutes on the clock, and you guys can go back and forth.
	30 seconds, that'll be probably easier.
	Yeah, go for it.
	Yeah, I was gonna give three minutes for both y'all to go ahead and actually be able to both speak.
	Oh, discuss it, right?
	Yeah, you can actually openly discuss it.
	I'll put three minutes on the clock.
	We'll fire around for this.
	You guys can both just...
	Look, I think we're in agreement, right?
	We don't want censorship, right?
	I think we're both in agreement.
	It doesn't matter if it's Judaism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia.
	It doesn't matter what it is.
	I believe you can, if you speak about things, you can do it.
	Like, even your point about Aisha, I wanted to debate you on it because I knew your points were weak, yeah?
	So I would much rather debate you than do drama.
	So I completely agree with you in that regard.
	But people do care about Judaism.
	This is a misnomer.
	Like, when you basically attack Judaism online, you get basically hate speech.
	Even on Twitter, we had hate speech violations for certain Jewish practices.
	Or, for example, Jewish rabbis having protections in Israel after committing, for example, rape or paedophilia or whatever it may be.
	So we got warnings on that.
	People, even when we looked at, like, for example, Jewish rabbis I've been in charge of Pornhub, I believe.
	There was basically a huge amount of claims of anti-Semitism.
	So that does happen on that.
	So in terms of the reason you don't shit on Jews is because you know that it's somewhere you don't want to go down, right?
	You know it's the issues in the cause.
	We know the risks we take when we attack Zionism.
	I mean, to be clear, I shit on Jews if they're there to shit on, but like most of what you're bringing up, like they do like Jews control all of porn.
	Like these aren't even attacks on the Jewish- No, I didn't sell porn.
	I said porn hub.
	Okay.
	Yeah, whatever.
	These aren't even attacks on Judaism.
	This is just like- Because if it's a rabbi doing it, right?
	It is.
	It is.
	How?
	Because if it's a clergyman, a clergyman represents the religion.
	So if an imam did it, it doesn't mean it would have a bit- people would think that you're basically attacking an imam and you're trying to attack Muslims or Islam in a way.
	So it would be like that.
	So it is- When people attack priests for meddling with little boys, I don't think they're necessarily attacking their religion.
	You don't think they're trying to basically expose the religion?
	No, I disagree.
	I don't think so.
	I think too.
	And in terms of Hassan Piker, I don't know who he is, but I don't know his positions.
	But what I can say is there is a significant amount of content that is not allowed in those platforms.
	And in Twitter, Twitter is a prime example because when you look at the level of de-boosting that happens on pro-Palestinian accounts compared to Zionist accounts, it's significant.
	The only difference is the whole world is with Palestine.
	Wait, you think the de-boosting on Twitter is happening for Palestinians?
	Yes, I can give you my example.
	So I get Much more engagement than Zio accounts.
	I'm like the biggest political engaged account.
	But if you look at my views, they're much more lower.
	So it means the algorithm is somehow not pushing me even though my engagement is much higher.
	Isn't that literally all open source now ever since Elon Musk took over?
	Did you literally see what gets boosted?
	You can't see the reasoning for this.
	Two minutes?
	You can't see the reasoning for this.
	Okay.
	I don't think any of these are being de-boosted.
	I think there's plenty of pro-Palestinian accounts that are getting lots of engagement.
	You're not understanding.
	I'm not saying that they're completely shadow banned.
	I'm saying that, let's take my example, right?
	So the likes, retweets, and shares on mine are much more than any other account on Twitter in politics.
	And yet the views are lower.
	And a Zayo account gets hardly any engagement, but the views are significant.
	So why is the accounts getting the view when mine's not?
	As an example, mine's just an example of many pro-Palestinian accounts.
	And the reason is because there is some, and by the way, Twitter is still the best one.
	It's just I know how Twitter works, so I can give that as an example.
	So there is a de-booster just to maybe balance it out because the whole world is with Palestine.
	I think the more likely thing is that some things are being botted and some things aren't.
	The idea that there are people who work at Twitter that are trying to sneak code in to just de-boost certain things.
	There are so many engineers that would be looking at this.
	I think that people that are private investors in Twitter would be like, why are you doing this?
	I don't know if this is even good for our wallets to be getting rid of organically viewer-generating engagement content.
	Everybody complains that they're getting de-boosted when they're doing good enough.
	They've done it on YouTube.
	I don't think there's any evidence of this actually happening.
	It's been shown since the day.
	That's time.
	That's three minutes.
	Shout out to you guys for being so goddamn civil.
	Okay, so the next question.
	Okay, and they're getting spicy as we go here.
	Should Zionists be able to hold government office?
	Again, the question is, should Zionists be able to hold government office?
	I'll go first because he'll know my argument then.
	It'll be fair for him to respond.
	Okay.
	I think that'll be fair on him.
	Dustin, are you okay with that?
	As long as you're okay with it.
	I'm doing it for his benefit because then he knows my argument because I'm probably going to make the...
	Okay, so if you go first, that means he's going to end again.
	You okay with that?
	Yeah, yeah, I'm sure.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Take it away.
	I'll turn the clock on.
	So, look, I don't think...
	So Zionists, so if Zionist, if the definition of Zionist is somebody who just wants a state of Israel, of course, they should hold office, right?
	What the problem is, is what I believe that someone shouldn't hold office in the United States is when they have Jew...
	A citizenship.
	So they basically don't have loyalty.
	You mean Israeli citizenship, right?
	No, no.
	Any Jewel citizenship.
	But that includes Israeli.
	Oh, I'm so sorry.
	You're saying dual citizenship?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Oh, it sounds like Jew citizenship.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	I'm sorry.
	I just took my 30 seconds away.
	Don't put my name on a missile.
	I'll give him an extra 10.
	Don't worry.
	Don't put my name on a missile again.
	It's the one that you understand, so you're good.
	Don't worry.
	I'll give you extra time, Solomon.
	Go ahead, please.
	So, dual citizenship, right?
	Because then you basically got loyalty to two different countries.
	Now you could be Israeli, you could be like, for example, they make the same arguments about Ilhan Omar as well.
	And because your loyalty should be the United States and you shouldn't have someone, for example, if someone's got loyalty to Russia and the United States, there's going to be problems with that loyalty.
	But then in addition to that, and I make a further argument with that, and that is this, that somebody who holds the opportunity for a right to return also should not hold office in the United States and the United Kingdom.
	And the reason for that is because someone can be Hold the opportunity to have right to return.
	They can destroy the United States.
	They can destroy the United Kingdom.
	They can basically use it for the interest of Israel.
	And then they can go back to Israel and based on their right to return.
	Now your retort that will be, that's anti-Semitic because now you're basically saying no Jewish person can hold office.
	And my retort that is, if you stop the Israeli...
	A supremacist ideology of right to return, then you wouldn't have that problem.
	And so therefore, my argument is very simple, and it is.
	If you have dual citizenship, you shouldn't hold office.
	If you have right to return, you shouldn't hold office.
	And that way you know that the American interests are being put first and the interests of Britain are being put first.
	And the same problems you have in the United States, we have the exact same problems in Britain.
	So any argument I'm making there, you can apply to my country as well.
	I think it's in the U.S. Constitution that you cannot be a citizen of another country, so I'm okay with that in terms of the presidency.
	In terms of barring every single federal office from anybody having dual citizenship, Um, I don't have like super strong feelings on it, but I feel a little bit weird about it.
	I think that's probably okay if dual citizens are, you know, like members of Congress.
	Maybe, maybe not, but I'm like 51, 49.
	I wouldn't care that much on it.
	Um, in terms of saying you can't be a citizen if you have like a right of return, well, I don't think that really works.
	One, we don't really have the right to dictate in other countries.
	No, not a citizen to hold office.
	To hold office.
	Yeah, but I'm saying if giving the right of return automatically disbarks you from holding office, it would be really strange because then effectively any country could just shut down whoever is president.
	Let's say we find out that Biden is part Irish or something, and all of a sudden the Republic of Ireland is like, actually, we're going to give right of return to every Irish person.
	Does Biden have to renounce his Irishness or something?
	Or couldn't you mess with any single member in office if a right of return is granted?
	It just seems like a really big clusterfuck of issues.
	Yeah, I don't have a strong position for, like, if people have dual citizenship, you know, maybe it's questionable, like, do we really want somebody voting on whether or not we should go to war with the country if they hold a citizenship in that country?
	I think you can make, like, strong arguments on either side of that.
	Like, should somebody have to revoke their citizenship just for running for office?
	Would this go all the way down to, like, the governor and the state assembly level?
	Like, maybe just for, you know, federal office, we would say this, but, yeah, I don't have strong opinions on this one or another, but I I don't agree with, like, if they've got right of return, every single Jew is disbarred from holding office, because then any country that offers a right of return means that, like, anybody from these types of countries wouldn't be allowed to hold office.
	Okay.
	Your response to that?
	So, um...
	In terms of Congress, the problem with your argument is that you're saying that the US president can't have dual citizenship, but then people who are Congress, people who are part of the senators, can essentially, who decide policy, who decide if you're going to go to war in certain aspects, in terms of policy, procedure, whatever it may be.
	The things that can cause the destruction of the United States, if they put certain policies that internally can cause the destruction of the entire fabric of Western society, for example, certain people would make the argument, as an example, certain liberal ideas, Then you would basically be able to destroy a foreign nation based on those ideas.
	Hence why I agree with the constitution in terms of the president and I think it should be cascaded down.
	In terms of the right to return, yeah, look, there will be problems with it for sure, right?
	Because it's not a clean position.
	The problem is there's only one nation that has this supremacist ideology, which is Israel, where you have a right to return.
	It's merely because of your inherent race.
	And so for that reason, you have a problem where someone can go to the United States and destroy the nation and then use the right to return to go back.
	And this is the problem we have.
	And that's why to safeguard the country.
	To safeguard the country from foreign intervention, which is something that Americans seem to be caring about.
	They talk about Russian intervention and Chinese intervention, but for some reason they don't care about Israeli intervention.
	A country who literally is forcing the United States to go to war, is forcing the United States to basically have less security, have more financial issues and so on and so forth, then I think when it becomes that major...
	You need to know that whoever is making decisions, they're making those decisions solely based on American interests and for the betterment of the United States.
	Because I'm all for, like, I agree with you at the beginning, there's a reason America is the best country in the world, and it should be left to do so, not without foreign intervention.
	Okay.
	A little bit of time on the clock with that one.
	What's your response to that, Destiny?
	Yeah, again, I don't have strong feelings on most of this.
	The strongest one, just on the right of return, I don't know every country's immigration policy, but I'm sure there are other countries that allow you the ability to immigrate if you've got some ancestry or if you've got some ethnic tie to some particular thing.
	I'm sure that's the case.
	I just don't have every policy on hand.
	I know that, like, in the United States, if you've got parents that are U.S. citizens, you've got a right to go to the United States.
	If you're born on a U.S. base anywhere, you get a U.S. passport.
	But I don't know every single country's immigration policy.
	I wish I did.
	Nationality is different to risk, though.
	Yeah, sure.
	But again, I mean, what is the nationality you have if both your parents are American, right?
	We don't have a race that we can have to call an American race.
	So, yeah, I don't know.
	Also, I mean, yeah, no, I don't know.
	I feel like other countries here probably have other types of ability to return depending upon your ethnic background or religious background.
	I don't know every country.
	Okay.
	Alright, so we'll move on to the next topic here.
	The big one.
	Yeah, this is a big one here, and you guys obviously are definitely going to disagree with, and I'm glad we're on Rumble on this one.
	Was October 7th a military operation or a terrorist attack?
	Again, the question is, or the topic is, was October 7th a military operation or a terrorist attack?
	I'll take it to, I think you started last time, so Destiny, you can start on this one, and we'll do a fire run at the end of this one, and I'll let you take it.
	Yeah, a military operation seeks to accomplish military goals.
	If you're doing an invasion and you're a military, there's probably some military goal you're trying to accomplish.
	Hamas very clearly had no military goal they were trying to accomplish.
	The goal was to incite terror in the citizens.
	That's why thousands of rockets were launched at the beginning of the invasion.
	That's why when they cut through and they started going into Israel proper, they hit up kibbutzes, some of which had nothing to do with the military.
	They went to that Nova festival and they killed, raped, and took hostages from tons of people there.
	These people didn't present any sort of actual militaristic threat or have any kind of militaristic gain.
	The entire idea was to take some 200-plus hostages back, every single one of these being a violation, by the way, of the law of armed conflict.
	And no, that's not the same as Palestinians that are facing detention in Israeli prisons, even though that argument is often made.
	So no, every single part of the operation on October 7th was just designed to instill and incite fear in the Israeli population.
	There was no reasonable military operation or goal that Hamas was trying to accomplish, and that's why they accomplished none.
	And it led to, as we've seen now, the reprisal from Israel in response to this with a war.
	Okay.
	All right, with another minute to spare, Suleman, let's go with you.
	Yeah, look, it was a military operation, right?
	You don't need to be a military to conduct a military operation.
	They're not allowed to have a military, right?
	So what the actual target was to go to do a military operation, the kibbutzes did hold military personnel, hence why that was their target.
	The Nova Festival was never meant to be there.
	It was extended by a day without anybody knowing it.
	They were meant to go to the kibbutz, get the Israeli hostages, military personnel, and swap them for the Palestinian hostages that are kept in Israeli prisons.
	And they are the same, because in reality many of them have not been held trial, they've basically been kept there, and they've basically been abused.
	The only difference is when the state of Israel does it, it's called prisoners, and when basically Palestinian does it, or Hamas does it, it's called hostages.
	That's the only difference.
	It's just a difference in language.
	Look, raped, that is the biggest fake news ever.
	Like, this mass rape propaganda has been debunked.
	There's no evidence for this whatsoever.
	I would like Destiny to provide evidence of there have been an actual real evidence of rape.
	Because this is just like fake news that's been debunked.
	Just like the 40 beheaded babies that we debunked.
	Just like any baby being killed by Israel, we debunked.
	So all of this has been debunked.
	They didn't plan to take 200 hostages.
	It's actually the opposite.
	They did not expect the Nova Festival to be there.
	They didn't expect it.
	And they didn't expect the Israelis to react in the manner that they reacted in terms of killing many of their own hostages and so many of their own people.
	And so for that reason, you had a scenario where they end up taking many more hostages than they expected.
	And that's why even Israeli literature says that they've been trying to get rid of some of them hostages because they never expected to have such a multitude of hostages.
	And remember, all of our arguments are based on Israeli news.
	So really, the arguments are much stronger because this is even by their own news, they're making these arguments.
	One thing I appreciate what Destiny said is that they wanted to kill, they wanted to go after the Israelis, the state of Israel.
	And he is very much accurate in that because he didn't say Jews, because in reality, it was an attack on the state as opposed to a people because the Hamas charter is very clear that they don't have no issues with Jewish people.
	Okay.
	I'll turn it to you.
	And again, the topic is, was October 7th a military operation or a terrorist attack?
	Yeah, so the idea that the Nova Festival was moved today, this is a multi-day festival.
	I mean, you could look at all the flyers beforehand.
	It's not like this was just one day.
	And also, the idea that it was moved and nobody knew, if that was the case, then how did the party people know to go to the festival?
	That doesn't make any sense.
	And also, when you're paragliding in and you see a bunch of people partying, I mean, like, what are you thinking?
	Like, are you radioing back to base?
	Well, Mohammed, I don't know what to do.
	There's a bunch of partygoers here.
	Oh, fuck.
	I guess we just have to fucking kill them all.
	I didn't know they'd be there.
	Like, take as many houses as possible.
	Like, mow down as many motherfuckers as you see.
	Like, we have videos.
	We say it all comes from the IDF. That's not true.
	These dumb motherfuckers were recording videos of themselves.
	You have videos of people walking up and down porta-potties, shooting in with their assault rifle.
	But maybe they think that there are secret IDF soldiers hiding in those.
	I don't know.
	Maybe they operate from porta-potties in Hamas so much that they think the IDF does it as well.
	The idea of the 40-beheaded baby thing...
	Wasn't true.
	Israel never said it.
	This was a misreport by the media.
	If you try to trace down where that original claim came from, it originated from Twitter.
	It did not come from any Israeli reported source.
	Again, everybody can go look for it.
	You can go find it.
	That original source is not an Israeli source.
	We can say the mass rape propaganda, but, I mean, we've got tons of eyewitness reports of hearing rapes happening and witnessing rapes happening.
	Now we've had people that were hostages that have come out who have said that they were sexually assaulted, and they know that other hostages were being sexually assaulted.
	And we've got a lot of charred bodies and a lot of dead people whose underwear were torn off, bodies where there was blood coming out of the vagina, bodies where the genitalia were shot over and over again.
	But the problem is that when you've got an invading terrorist organization that is raping you, they also tend to kill you as well.
	It's pretty hard to get away from that.
	It's really funny when people say, like, oh, like, where are all of the rape survivors?
	Well, believe it or not, when an invading military force is raping you, they're probably going to kill you, too.
	And that's why over 100 of the bodies that were found were charred beyond all recognition, but still kind of hard to explain why the legs were open and why the clothes were torn off the bottom halves of these bodies.
	Yeah, we can say that arguments are made all from the Israeli news, but, I mean, whose fault is that?
	I mean, Hamas isn't open about anything.
	You know, when we go through and we try to audit Israel on some of these, you know, massacres in the past or some of the bad actions they've done, we can only do that because Israel is a democracy and we have the ability to actually audit them.
	That's why Israel hosts its own criticism in the form of B'Tselem or in the form of Haaretz.
	What is the Hamas equivalent to B'Tselem?
	What is the Hamas equivalent to Haaretz?
	They don't host any of their own criticism.
	They throw people on buildings and they kill people who think that they're in opposition to the government there.
	Two minutes.
	Okay.
	All right.
	I'll turn it over to Suleiman.
	So in terms of Nova Festival, you misunderstood what I said.
	I didn't say it was moved.
	I said it was extended and I provided significant evidence on my Twitter page that it was extended.
	It was meant to be one day and then it ended up being increased to two and then three days.
	So that's what I said.
	So no, they weren't expected.
	Not because it was moved, but because it was extended.
	In terms of 40 Beheaded Babies, I've done a thread on this.
	What you're saying is fake news.
	It was reported by a journalist.
	It was also reported by I-24 News, which is...
	Run by a very good friend of Netanyahu.
	That's where some of this fake news about 40-beheaded babies was propagated.
	And by the way, there were zero babies killed.
	The only people killing babies is the Zionist terrorist regime.
	So when you mention terrorists, I think you're talking about the Zionist regime.
	When you said that the hostages were assaulted, there's no evidence of that.
	Many of the eyewitness testimonies have been exposed.
	For example, Riz Cohen.
	He literally said, oh, I heard it.
	And then later on, he changed his testimony to say, oh, I saw it.
	There was another guy who said that he saw 29 people being raped, and then again, it got exposed as being a lie.
	So many of these eyewitness testimonies are by settlers, or basically Israeli liars, who want to perpetuate the lies.
	Look, they had GoPro cameras.
	They want you to believe that they had GoPro cameras, and they malfunctioned, that nobody saw anything.
	So whenever these atrocities occurred, for some reason, the GoPro cameras stopped working.
	It's the most ridiculous argument ever, but they want you to believe that.
	In terms of people being charred, People were charred.
	We saw it.
	It got charred by Israelis when they were using Apache helicopters.
	As an example, 200 Palestinians were killed, or as they say, Hamas people, or the resistance were killed, and they basically counted them as Israeli numbers, and then later they found out, no, they weren't Israeli, they were Palestinian.
	So that's how they were killed.
	They were killed their own people as well as they killed them.
	And this is the problem.
	The Israelis killed many of their own people because they lost their minds when they came there.
	This is the problem that they don't want to speak about.
	So that's the thing about the time.
	And in terms of Israelis, you can't trust anything.
	They lie and lie and lie.
	Remember when they were about Shirin Abu Akleh, they claimed that they didn't kill her.
	And then later on, this got exposed, that they did actually kill her.
	And it's only when it got exposed.
	So yeah, you can't trust the Israeli news.
	They lie until they get exposed.
	My argument about Israel was that if we actually had independent sources, the situation would be much worse.
	So even with Israeli sources, the lies are being exposed.
	Okay.
	Yeah, again, I've never heard anything about the festival being extended by one day.
	It seems like there's a lot of people that were able to stay there even though the festival was extended.
	But let's assume that all of that was true.
	Even if it was extended by one day, why kill everybody at the festival?
	There's no reason for that.
	If you show up and you come upon a festival and you're like, oh, it's not supposed to be here, why would you start killing them?
	We've seen the bodies.
	You know, I... I asked you for the source on that, and I understand we're not going to have sources like right here in the middle of a debate, but that 40-beheaded baby thing did not come from an Israeli source.
	That's why you said a journalist, and then you said I-24 News.
	I don't believe that there was an Israeli source for any of that story.
	A lot of it got spread around on Twitter, but none of this actually came from Israel.
	None of this came from the government.
	None of it came from the IDF.
	It was memes that started to get snowballed on Twitter and then started to get spread around and people talked about it.
	But there was no actual initial report from the IDF or from any IDF person or spokesman about there being 40 beheaded babies.
	It just didn't happen.
	It was a meme that spread out of control on Twitter.
	You're talking about Ross Cohen.
	I don't know if you're sourcing Blumenfall in the gray zone for this, but I looked at the testimony that this guy gave on day one.
	On day one, when he was talking to a journalist outside of an ambulance, he didn't mention anything about seeing any rapes.
	But that's because it was a three minute clip that went viral on Twitter that got cut from If you find the original conversation that exists on Facebook, he literally starts talking about rates right after that three-minute cut.
	They just didn't include it in the original Twitter video because it was cut down for a time or something.
	I'm not entirely sure.
	When we say that we can't trust anything that the IDF says, I mean, we can run with that, but why would I trust anything Hamas says?
	Hamas literally put out a flyer saying that...
	We don't kill civilians.
	We would never do this, despite the fact that dead Hamas soldiers are being found with documents on them, giving them explicit instructions on how to ask for people to take their clothes off, how to ask for people to come with them, or how to take people hostage.
	And then we've got videos of them taking people hostages.
	We've got videos of people walking up and down cars seeing charred bodies and seeing dead people in cars.
	This was way before IDF choppers showed up and started firing.
	You don't think that any of these Israeli citizens that were walking up and down the highways finding all of the dead bodies, you don't think that any of them would have noticed that there were Apache helicopters that were raining down hellfire on any of the cars?
	None of this actually happened.
	There would have been people reporting it.
	There would have been people posting videos of it.
	Okay.
	Turn it to Suleiman.
	Oh, that's crazy.
	You're saying there was no Apache helicopters.
	We literally got the evidence of it.
	We've got Israeli literal news.
	Barat's saying that basically in Kibbutz Beri, they start shooting short artillery fire and killed 182 people.
	I believe 118, I can't remember the exact number, but it was in the hundreds of people.
	Yasmin Parat says that they basically, when they were shooting and killing, they killed their own people.
	We got eyewitness testimony from the Israeli side saying this, never mind the Hamas side.
	In terms of what you said, what you're not understanding is when the Nova Festival was there, they weren't expecting it.
	So then the plan wasn't there.
	What they didn't expect was for the Israelis to lose their mind and start attacking them and killing them and basically applying the Hannibal Directive in a mass scale.
	Hannibal Directive is they kill their own people so that they don't become hostages.
	That's what happened.
	So it wasn't Abdul, let's kill it.
	It was Epstein.
	Let's not kill these...
	Let's not kill these...
	Let's just shoot everyone.
	Don't let any hostages out because we're going to have to negotiate.
	That's actually...
	What happened?
	In terms of Riz Cohen, I said to you, and it is, his testimony changed.
	And you mentioned in terms of the hostages held by Hamas.
	Bro, as soon as the hostages came out, all of them were literally saying they treat us really well, they didn't abuse us, they didn't sexually assault us.
	And then what happened was, the Israelis were like, what the hell?
	These Hamases, these guys are making Hamas look good.
	Like, they're treating them like angels.
	They're treating them so well.
	They're giving them food as they're eating food themselves.
	And then what they did was, when they started releasing hostages, they kept a blockade.
	And they didn't let them speak to the media for weeks and months to put the propaganda into their minds to control them, to manipulate them and make them lie.
	That's actually what happened.
	You talked about Hamas having documents.
	This is the most ridiculous argument ever.
	Like, no one believes it's all fake.
	Like, oh, we were left with a passport.
	We were left with some documents.
	Hamas are very clear.
	The charter is very clear.
	They have no issue with...
	In terms of Jews, Christians, or Muslims, their charter is literally saying that they want freedom for the Palestinians.
	So in reality, the Hamas charter is very clear and their actions are very clear.
	This was a military attack to save their own people.
	Okay.
	And I think, Destiny, you went first on this one, right?
	Maybe?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I think you did.
	So Suleiman got the last word.
	We could do a lightning round if you guys are good.
	Then I got one more question.
	Sure.
	Yeah, real quick.
	Yeah, we could do a lightning round here.
	Then that way you guys can go ahead and have the open dialogue with each other.
	I saw that you guys had some things.
	You had one too?
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Yeah, for the hostages that came out initially.
	Yeah, the first hundred hostages that came out didn't say anything about mistreatment, of course, because they only let people out that had family members that were still being held hostage.
	You're not going to come out and be like, yeah, they're treated like shit in there.
	I think they're raped everybody.
	That's not true.
	A lot of the hostages came out, yes, because they only allowed women and children and families to come out.
	Some of the hostages were, but some of them weren't.
	And this was a fake news, but this was what Zionists made.
	They made the argument that when that woman came out and literally said, we've been treated really well, they were like, oh, husband's still there.
	And we actually checked it.
	It was fake news.
	So this is like the fake news.
	You don't think there's anything Do you have family members that are still being held from any of the...
	No, no, I just said some of them work, but some of them are.
	Even if it's not family members, the fact that you would come out and start talking about the hostages when they release you, wouldn't it make sense to tell...
	So why are they talking about it now, then?
	Well, now, because I don't even know if there are any hostages left alive.
	Israel just tried to do...
	No, because Israel tried to do a ceasefire where they wanted to trade 40 hostages, and for some reason Israel's coming out of 33, because it sounds like Hamas doesn't even have 40 hostages to trade.
	Well...
	Well, the thing is, Israel has killed a lot of their own hostages.
	That's happened for sure.
	But in reality, what's happened is, the reason they need to negotiate is because the disagreement, why no ceasefire is agreed, is because Hamas want a permanent ceasefire.
	Because the last ceasefire, what happened was, when they got their own Palestinian hostages back, even within them seven days, the Zionists took more hostages.
	So this is the problem.
	So it's illogical from Hamas' perspective.
	Hamas has been asking for a 10-year ceasefire, okay?
	Not a permanent ceasefire, because they want to qualify with 10 years, because they still want to go to war with Israel in the future.
	But regardless, they don't have the right to ask for it.
	No, they want a permanent ceasefire.
	That's not right.
	They want a permanent ceasefire.
	You can't ask, you can't capture hostages and then make demands off of having hostages.
	That's not how military conflict works.
	And then when you bring up the...
	No, but that's happened in the past because Israelis have hostages.
	Previously, what's happened is they've traded one Palestinian hostage for 1,000 Israeli hostages.
	Wait, hold on.
	I'm sorry.
	Wasn't that the exact opposite?
	Wasn't that the start of 2008 where they had one Israeli hostage and they traded him for 1,000 Palestinians?
	That's why I'm not.
	Also, you bring up the attack helicopters.
	You bring up the attack helicopters.
	Yes, because war crimes pay off.
	Yes, that Apache helicopters were shooting.
	The Israelis were killing little people.
	That happened in places where there were holdouts from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad that were still fighting.
	You bring up Kibbutz Bari.
	No, no, that's not right.
	That's not right.
	Why were there 200 charged Palestinians and 100 charged Israelis?
	Because they weren't differentiated.
	They did the Hannibal Directive, and this is from Israeli sources.
	Israeli sources confirmed that they applied the Hannibal Directive.
	Nope, they did not, because that Hannibal Directive has never been confirmed.
	It's in Haaretz.
	No, the Haaretz article that everybody cites, and I've read the original article on this, because Blumenthal cites it in the great zone.
	There's not one article, there's many articles.
	Do you find it strange?
	Okay, if you're aware of that article- Check my threads.
	If you're aware of that article, do you think it's strange that the article had that they had fired on some likely Israeli civilians without even putting it on the headline?
	Wouldn't that seem like a really big story?
	Say it again?
	In the article that you're talking about, because the original language is in Hebrew.
	I don't even know if this was published in English.
	In the Hebrew, they literally say at one point that they had shot, and there were probably some Israeli people that were still being held by a mosque.
	Not so many.
	It was not many.
	That word was never used.
	How many were killed in Kibbutz Beri?
	Total?
	Or when the IDF came back through?
	We don't know how many were killed after that.
	Well, according to Haritz, it was either 118 or 181.
	There's no shot that story exists.
	You don't think they'd be screwed?
	Check my thread on when the baby was killed.
	We'll look for it afterwards.
	Who killed Elias Khan?
	The baby.
	We'll look for it afterwards, but for Apache, I don't know the name of every single person that got killed.
	Who killed the baby?
	The one baby.
	Three minutes?
	But I see that you guys are obviously very...
	I'm not going to end this, so I'll put another two minutes on the clock because I think this is important to hash out this discussion.
	Go ahead.
	Who killed the baby?
	The only people...
	The only baby that was killed.
	I mean, we talked...
	They were talking about having babies and killing babies.
	Babies are important.
	Who killed the one Israeli baby?
	The only people that were getting killed...
	I don't know the name of every single person killed them.
	That's great.
	This is the one factory that you've remembered.
	But we can all look at this afterwards.
	So if we Google 187 Israelis killed by IDF Haaretz, we're going to find a Haaretz article that confirms that.
	And nobody else in Israel, nobody else talking about that?
	No, no.
	What the article will confirm is that there was shot artillery fire by the Israelis and in Kibbutz Beri, 118, 180 people were killed at that time.
	Oh, no.
	Hold on.
	How would they know who was killed before and who was killed after?
	If the Israeli response was hours later, how would they have known who got killed initially and who got killed afterwards?
	No, because we've got eyewitness testimony.
	Yasmin Parra says that basically what happened was the Israelis were shooting indiscriminately.
	This was an Israeli woman.
	Yasmin Parra, you do know, is an Israeli woman.
	She did many interviews and when they were getting exposed, they stopped her interviews and basically made sinister.
	The shooting indiscriminately into the kibbutz happened after the initial invasion in and they were heading out.
	Even your own narrative doesn't make sense because the IDF didn't respond in time.
	Hold on.
	The IDF did not respond in time to get to the actual Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad before they were already on their way back in Israel.
	If they were already there shooting at people because kibbutz muri is going to happen.
	No, kibbutz muri is going to happen before you get to the festival.
	If they were already able to stop them there, then there's no way that they would have got it.
	It didn't make any sense.
	You're not standing because you're trying to make the argument that the military takes one target and then another target.
	That literally doesn't happen.
	They literally attacked people at the Nova Festival and they were at the kibbutz muri and they basically attacked in the kibbutz muri.
	The problem is that from the chain of command up top down and it's been confirmed by that lieutenant colonels give the command to basically attack indiscriminately.
	Because they weren't able to differentiate.
	There's even a report saying that what Hamas did was they were walking slowly.
	So because they were walking slowly, they didn't understand.
	They couldn't differentiate between Hamas and a civilian.
	And hence why they thought, you know what, we need to make sure that we basically take them out.
	And that's what they did.
	So in reality, that's what happened.
	So they did kill a large proportion of their own people.
	Look, some civilians were killed by Hamas.
	I'm not saying that.
	This isn't like some kind of thing.
	But what I'm trying to say is the actions of Israel have demonstrated that what they did was they killed a significant number of their own civilians.
	Some factions.
	It's a factual disagreement.
	I don't think the timeline matches up.
	Hamas came in, they went back, they killed him on the way back.
	They killed a lot of people.
	This is what I'll do.
	To make sure that we can hash this out, this is what I'll do.
	Well, it's a factual disagreement, so I don't think.
	I was going to put one more minute on the clock for each of them so they can go ahead and give their timeline, right?
	And that's it.
	That way it can be, yeah.
	Both of them can put their timeline out.
	Listen, I know who killed the baby.
	What?
	And it's exactly what I said earlier.
	If the United States isn't helping, you're gonna get Chinese intervention.
	You're gonna get Chinese intervention in Gaza.
	That's an outside joke.
	So she's a Zayo, then.
	That's where the Zayo's gonna be, right?
	This nigga, bro!
	So this is what I'll do.
	Is one minute okay or two minutes okay for both of you?
	I'm chill because I think people get both arguments.
	I think 30 seconds.
	So I'll give you guys both 60 seconds on the clock to give your timeline because this is very important.
	I want everybody to hear both perspectives openly without any type of interruption.
	Who wants to go first?
	I think that when you talk about the IDF killing their own civilians, it's a common code that people use to try to hand wave how many people Hamas killed when they came in.
	The idea that Israel was killing people in Kibbutz Beri, but somehow Hamas was still operating in the Nova Festival doesn't make sense.
	Hamas came through the fence.
	Paragliders came over and rockets shot.
	They hit up kibbutzes first.
	You can see the whole path and the whole timeline.
	And then they also went to that NOVA festival, and then they started driving back.
	Now, as they were fleeing some of the kibbutzes, there were some people that were locked.
	They've got these little emergency rooms that they hide in because of rockets and hot fires all the time over the Gaza Wall.
	And as the IDF came in, they were already, I think, generally gone from the Nobel Festival, but there were still some lingering Hamas elements that were, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, that were fighting in some of these kibbutzes.
	And as the IDF came in, they engaged with and they got into conflict with some of the Hamas soldiers that were in some of these kibbutzes.
	And as a result, there might have been, I don't even know if a single Israeli death has been confirmed from that, but there might have been some Israeli people that had been killed while Hamas was operating there.
	But the idea that the IDF came in quick enough to be responsible for all the deaths in the kibbutzes, but then somehow missed everybody that was further into Israel, into the Negev, The Nova Festival just doesn't make any sense.
	They would have never made it back to Gaza if the IDF was already there blowing people up at the kibbutzes.
	Okay.
	I'll turn it to you, Suleiman, so you can give your side.
	Yeah, of course.
	So basically, you had a scenario where Hamas came in, right?
	And then they basically did go to the kibbutzes.
	They went to various kibbutzes, kibbutz, very kibbutz, and then various other kibbutzes, and many stationed military personnel, and they were at the Nova Festival.
	His argument is that the Israeli military will only That's just ridiculous.
	There was a multi-operational situation that occurred.
	They had the Apache helicopters and the Apache helicopters were basically attacking and burning people from atop.
	And it was people who were trying to get back to Gaza, but they did do it and they basically applied the masks Because what the aim was is we don't want any hostages to do so.
	This is the directive that Israel have.
	A directive is this.
	We'll kill our own people because then we don't have to negotiate them as hostages.
	And we've seen that throughout the history that they've done that.
	In terms of the kibbutzes, separate to that, they were basically, they had people and the Israeli claim is that they had hostages there.
	They tied them up and whatever it may be.
	And then the Israelis came in and they basically killed their own people.
	They basically started attacking Hamas and then they killed their own people.
	And this is confirmed by Yasmin Parag.
	Can I ask one quick question and he can answer it?
	How are the bodies burned by the Apache helicopters?
	Are they like long distance flamethrowers?
	If Apache helicopters are shooting guns and missiles, how are the bodies burned?
	Would they be exploded?
	So in terms of the specific way, I don't understand how it works, but in terms of what you look at, what they did was they bombed the people.
	So if you look at the chart people, it was from the helicopters, it was from up top.
	So if you look at the actual cars, you look at it and there's artillery on the top of the cars.
	So how would that happen without there being a helicopter?
	Because we have videos of us throwing grenades into the cars.
	We see them do it.
	So Hamas has got helicopters?
	No, they're just tossing grenades into the cars.
	On the top of the cars.
	They came in with RPGs as well.
	We have videos of that too, of them shooting rocket launchers and shit.
	So you're basically making the argument with 200 cars.
	If you look at it, it's a line of cars.
	Significant line.
	Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cars.
	And they're done with RPGs.
	That's ridiculous.
	It was done by the helicopters.
	It was done by the Apache helicopters.
	And it was done from the top.
	And there's no video footage of that by anybody going there?
	There's...
	Isn't that crazy?
	There's not a single person of all the people coming back to the cars.
	Not a single person of all the helicopters.
	There's video footage of the Apache helicopters.
	Shooting people on the Gaza fence at the wall.
	No, no, no.
	That was outside the Nova Festival because the Nova Festival, the problem with it was it was right next to the border.
	And so what they did was when they shot it, they shot it right there because that's the whole point.
	What people have got issue with the Nova Festival is why would you hold also such a festival which is right outside the prison camp?
	I'm pretty sure the kibbutzes are closer to the wall than the Nova festival was.
	The Nova festival was right next to the border.
	Wasn't it like 10 to 15 kilometers away?
	The Nova festival was right next to the border.
	This is why people have got a problem with their actions as well.
	No, people have a problem because they don't like it anywhere in the south.
	Sorry?
	People don't like the festivals anywhere in the south.
	But they wouldn't be happy if they were in the north or in the middle of the country either.
	No, no, the problem is when you're holding a festival right outside a prison, you're basically flaunting it in the face.
	But anyway, that's not the reason they were attacked, but I'm just demonstrating to you why it was right next to the border.
	That explains it because this is some of the arguments that people were making.
	Okay.
	Alright, I thought that was really, I know we went out the time there, but I think it was really important to hash out both perspectives and get both sides out.
	This will be the final question.
	And this is kind of one I thought about while you guys were discussing.
	Does Israel run American foreign policy?
	I will go ahead, because I've seen you guys kind of oppose this, but we'll go ahead and just ask that question, because that's really a big elephant in the room here, I think, that everyone talks about.
	Does Israel run American foreign policy?
	Who wants to go first on this?
	So everyone feels fair, we can do a lightning round at the end where you guys can go ahead and I'll put like three minutes on the clock like last time.
	I think the United States has an interest in Israel.
	I don't think that means Israel runs foreign policy any more than Ukraine runs foreign policy, any more than anybody else runs foreign policy that we've got an interest in.
	I think that Israel's an important ally in the Middle East.
	I think they're our shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East.
	We trade with them a lot.
	They do a lot of tech work for us.
	We get a lot of information from them.
	They help us in terms of securing Other allies in the region and fighting against Iran.
	So I think it's pretty obvious why we support Israel and the idea that we have some unique attachment to them or that we're hypnotized or mindfucked by them into supporting them.
	I just don't think there's any evidence for that.
	Okay.
	That was short and sweet.
	So your stance is that foreign policy with Israel is no different than Ukraine or other countries that we have.
	We probably like them a little more because of the history, but I don't think it's anything more special than that.
	Okay, fair.
	So we just like them a little bit more, right?
	So APAC is a prime example of how they run U.S. politics.
	they themselves say what 95 to 98 percent of the people that they endorse are guaranteed to basically be get office in the united states in addition to that when you look at it if you look at the actions you saw it even now people were uh had uh people from the right were basically against sending funding to ukraine but when it comes to israel it doesn't matter if you're left or right even the college protests have been slightly more left or mainly more left the people who were the democrats did not care because israel controls american politics both from the left and the right And same with UK politics.
	It doesn't matter if you're Keir Starmer or if you're Rishi Sunak, it doesn't matter if you're Donald Trump or you're Biden, you are controlled by the Israeli regime.
	So what then happens is the actions of the Israelis basically direct America on how to act and therefore they direct the funding, they direct all aspects of it.
	It's why someone like Speaker Johnson, as soon as he comes in, despite the farah that he comes in with, He literally did not care about issues within America.
	Many Americans care about the border.
	They care about these things.
	But he actually went immediately and said, I'm going to give funding to Israel.
	It's not something that is, ah, I like him slightly more.
	Like, who literally does that unless you're literally controlling the politics?
	I mean, in Twitter, we have something called AIPAC tracker.
	And it literally is.
	As soon as someone from America, a senator or congressman, makes a statement which is full-on pro-Zio, you literally have him showing, look, they've received this much money from the Zios.
	They've received this much from the lobby.
	And everybody knows.
	And it's well known as well, intrinsically, not just from the financial aspect, that you literally have to be pro-Israel, pro-Israelis to have an opportunity to run for office.
	That is extreme foreign intervention.
	The irony of the same people crying about Russian intervention, crying about Chinese intervention, when a foreign state is explicitly and intrinsically running your country.
	Okay.
	Turn it to Destiny.
	Yeah, I think that Israel is really popular with the American people.
	I think, unfortunately, 9-11 didn't really do a good job at PR for Muslims.
	I think there were a lot of problems related to that.
	I think the Iraq and the Afghanistan War probably put a bad taste in our mouths relating to Muslims.
	And I think that Israel has just always enjoyed, you know, at least since 66 or 67, like, pretty broad support from the United States.
	And we just have viewed them more favorably than other people in the region.
	The idea that there's some special relationship that they have or some, like...
	Super ability to garner support in the US. I just think that for pretty understandable reasons, they even look at the October 7th attacks.
	You get stuff like this.
	You get stuff like rockets coming over walls constantly.
	You get stuff like people that are saying they want to destroy an entire country over and over again.
	It's not really surprising why people in the United States would be more favorable to a democracy like Israel than they would to an Islamist, theocratic regime in the Gaza Strip.
	Okay.
	Turn it to you, Salim.
	So, first of all, 9-11.
	I mean, there's evidence to suggest that Israel was involved in that.
	So, I don't know what that argument is coming from.
	Again, to cause Americans to go to the Middle East and basically cause destruction in the Middle East.
	You mentioned Afghanistan and Iraq.
	Well, I already explained it.
	This was done for the Israelis.
	You are previously providing evidence that American foreign policy is specifically for Israel.
	You mentioned October the 7th.
	What's October the 7th got to do with America?
	It's because you, in your mind, you know that when you attack Israel...
	What's going to happen is Israel's puppy, America, has to jump in and basically protect it.
	That's literally the position that you're making.
	In reality, when you said that Hamas is an Islamist regime, I don't know what argument you're making from that because if you look at the Hamas charter, they're very clear that their charter is based on equality, fairness and justice.
	Difference.
	To the Netanyahu regime, to the Likudan regime, which is using biblical references in terms of explaining their actions, calling their adversaries biblical terms such as the Amalek.
	If anybody is using religious terms to strike or using this as a political religious war, it is the Zionist regime.
	Okay.
	Destiny, rebuttal to that.
	This has been one of the most civilized debates, well organized man.
	Yeah.
	There's not really any way to fight against any of the claims because there's not any meat to any of these.
	I mean, we can go over the 9-11 truth or stuff.
	I kind of did it with Ryan Dawson here.
	I'm not really convinced that there's much meat there.
	We can go over the idea that Israel forced the United States to go to war in Afghanistan.
	I'll do that if...
	Do you want to go into the 9-11?
	I have a question real quick.
	That's fine.
	That happened recently.
	Sure.
	So, Stiko...
	Hold on, before we do this, because this is completely off topic.
	Oh, sure.
	Are you guys content with the discussion we had?
	I don't think there's any special thing.
	Yo, Don DeMarco is one of you guys.
	Good job, Emmanuel, for doing the Palestinian-Israel debate.
	Probably one of the most civilized, well-structured debates.
	And thank you guys for being so civil and fucking professional.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	So, you and Stiko did a stream recently, and religion was brought up.
	Christianity...
	Islam.
	And there was a fundamental point that was brought up about Aisha.
	Age of consent.
	You don't have to go to question, he didn't give a direct answer.
	Now I ask a question to you guys here on the panel.
	What is the age of consent in Islam, you would say?
	How do you know Aisha was nine?
	Uh, because I think it said she was like playing with dolls.
	No, how do you know she was playing?
	Where did you get the information from?
	Don't they give the age in the Quran for her?
	It's not in the Quran.
	Fake news.
	Okay, where is it?
	You tell me.
	You're the one who talks about it more than anyone I know.
	I asked Nico about it because he was the one coming on.
	No, but you've talked about it.
	I'm not.
	No, no, no.
	You've talked about it.
	No, no, listen.
	It's fine.
	You can talk about anything.
	When you talk about it, you should be educated on it.
	You've talked about it on social media.
	You tweet about it.
	I want to know where you got the information from.
	I got it because it triggers the fuck out of Muslims.
	That's why I bring it up.
	But here's the reality.
	You can tell me that it's not found anywhere in the Quran, but when I bring up, hey, Aisha was nine, and I start getting death threats, it feels like people want to fuck nine-year-olds.
	That's the feeling that I get.
	Now, if it's the case of, like, where are you even getting this from, bro?
	That's not even true, then they would just say it.
	But instead, there's, like, literally a plethora.
	There's more defenses of fucking nine-year-olds from the world of Islam than there is from the entire world of fucking libertarianism, okay?
	Like, when you go online, there's like 50 million different videos that talk about why Anisha, she was actually really developed for nine years old, and the dolls she was playing with were actually like Super Barbies for like adolescents or teens or whatever.
	Again, you're going into propaganda.
	The point is, you do not know where you got it from.
	So this is the problem when people don't have the education or knowledge.
	They literally try and blog it, right?
	So in reality...
	And this is the issue you have.
	You do not understand how Islamic epistemology and hermeneutics work.
	It is not mentioned in the Quran.
	In account of Muslims, the Quran is certain knowledge.
	And then you have basically other things, such as hadith, such as the opinion of the scholar, which is not considered certain knowledge.
	Some people agree with it.
	Some people disagree with it.
	It could be false.
	It could be true.
	It's not certain information.
	So when you say Aisha was nine, this is mentioned in hadith.
	But...
	But there is all the alternative hadith that basically give the idea that she was actually more older than nine.
	She was 18.
	So if your position is that, look, having sex with nine-year-olds is pedophilia, I agree with you, right?
	But even though I've seen videos of you trying to basically...
	Isn't the hadith that it comes from, like, one of the...
	Which hadith is it?
	Isn't it one of the most cited, most trusted hadiths?
	Or is this just one part we don't like of it?
	No, no, so the hadith, so any hadith, and this is the problem, any hadith, what we have is basically passed on from one person to another, to another, to another.
	So any hadith, every single Muslim scholar will tell you, epistemologically, is a probabilistic knowledge.
	Probabilistic means it could be right, or it could be wrong.
	It could be true, it may not be true.
	And therefore, it has no tenets when it comes to Islam.
	So if someone was to reject, example, the hadith about Aisha B9, he would not leave the fold of Islam, because She's not rejecting the tenets within the religion.
	So her being 9, so my position she was 18, as an example, right?
	Because I think that hadith has epistemological issues, as well as the person who narrated that hadith has memory issues.
	So again, this is an attack on Islam.
	This is an attack on that specific people, anyone who believes that hadith, or for example the hadith.
	Why don't we just say that then?
	Because, again, the problem...
	Why isn't it on Twitter when you bring it up?
	Because, like, you bring up, like, why don't you make fun of Jews?
	When I ever bring up, like, what about the pianist circumcision thing?
	Every Jewish guy goes, oh, that's fucking weird.
	That's what I see.
	When I bring up the Aisha thing, okay, well, I haven't found any Jew that wants to defend it to me, okay?
	Maybe that Rabbi Shmuley guy I've ever talked to him, maybe he would, because that guy seems fucking insane.
	But whenever I bring up anything on Twitter about, like, Aisha, it's, like, fucking World War III. It's, like, World War, like, Muhammad edition, where I've got, like, so many people in mind.
	No, no, no, you've admitted it, because the reason when you bring it up, it's not based on academia, epistemology, anything like that.
	It just triggers people.
	No, you do it to basically attack people.
	Yeah, I do.
	I think most Muslims in the United States and in Europe, I don't think they want to have sex with nine-year-olds.
	I don't think they would support that.
	They clearly don't.
	And if you ask them, most people would say, look, the argument, those who even believe it, they'll be like, look, we accept it, but it was physically, emotional development is a different type.
	And I don't agree with these arguments.
	I'm just saying.
	They make those arguments, but they say right now, the development is later, mentally and physically, and therefore it should be much later.
	So even their argument isn't that you should have sex with nine-year-olds.
	The reason you get that response is because you specifically are doing it to attack a person Three minutes.
	And so people are emotional.
	So people are going to provide an emotional response.
	That's the way it works.
	Go ahead.
	The Quran 65-4.
	I don't know how that works, but you're saying that it proves that she was of a younger age.
	Impossible.
	It's not in Quran.
	They're saying in the chat.
	I'm not really sure about that.
	Impossible.
	Fake news.
	What he's saying is epistemologically in Islam, the Quran is considered the direct word of God.
	Every letter written in the Quran is true.
	Given from Allah or whatever.
	But hadiths are oral traditions that are passed down from other people and the credibility of the hadiths and the interpretation of them can be called into question and you can have like imams debating between the validity between hadiths.
	And there's a mechanism to work out the authenticity.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Are you guys satisfied with that?
	I think you brought up a good point.
	If that was the case, why doesn't every Muslim just say that?
	No, because there are Muslims who believe that she was nine.
	And so the point is when he's attacking them, it's attacking them for their specific position.
	And so obviously they're emotionally connected to that position.
	But my point is, My issue with destiny is he didn't know what he was arguing, where it come from, the source of it, and he didn't know the epistemological and hermeneutical reasons.
	He was just doing it to attack Muslims, and he's admitted that, and obviously hence why he gets the response he did.
	Sneaker got real triggered.
	That's fucking funny.
	That's some viral though.
	Oh my god, okay.
	I didn't watch the Sneaker one.
	I'll read the chest out of the Sneaker, he'll be here in a little bit.
	I'm curious, what percentage of Muslims think you agree with that?
	Agree with what?
	With your hadith interpretation there.
	So it's a good question.
	Right now, classically.
	Right now?
	So classically, I would say the vast majority, right now I'd say the minority.
	Okay.
	Wait, right now the minority agree with you or disagree with you?
	Agree with me.
	Minority agree with me.
	So the majority of Muslims right now think that Ayesha was nine years old.
	That's right, yeah.
	Wait, what the fuck was the point of all this then?
	Because I'm trying to explain to you.
	No, no, the point is because you have to understand how hermeneutics work and you need to understand that what you're attacking isn't Islam.
	You're attacking a certain position that some people have within Islam, even if it's the majority.
	That was my point I was trying to make.
	And actually my position is a position that was held by a large proportion in the early century.
	So for example, the person who narrated the hadith, his own teacher wouldn't take that hadith of him as an example.
	So it wasn't accepted as much in that time.
	Is that the guy with the bad memory?
	Yeah.
	Just so the audience understands?
	Yeah, it's the guy with the bad memory.
	Okay.
	So Imam Malik, who was his teacher, who's one of the founders of Sunni legal theory, did not take that narration from him.
	Okay.
	We've still got two minutes on the clock.
	Anything else that you guys want to...
	Okay.
	I just want to make sure all parties are satisfied.
	That was a great discussion.
	I'll read the chats, and we'll close this out.
	Girl show.
	Yeah.
	Cool.
	What do we got here?
	We got...
	Destiny is Dayuth.
	Suleiman and Meyer know what I'm saying.
	And Fresh beat the Ching Chong lying whore in court.
	You got this.
	Okay.
	Thanks, bro.
	Yeah, man.
	I mean, when you got the truth on your side, there's nothing really that can happen.
	Yeah, I mean...
	What else we got here?
	Pretty much.
	That's it?
	Cool.
	Yo, Destiny, thank you guys so much for coming.
	Where can the people find you guys?
	Yeah, youtube.com slash destiny.
	That's it.
	Cake.com slash destiny.
	And Suleman, where can the people find you?
	Twitter.
	One of the biggest political commentators on Twitter right now, man.
	$500,000 plus.
	I didn't know that Destiny was RP, man.
	That was awesome.
	Just kidding.
	Hey guys, I hope you guys enjoyed this debate, man.
	No, I appreciate it.
	Destiny is the first Zayo I've debated who literally didn't interrupt.
	I was ready for him to interrupt and start calling him a Zayo and it didn't happen.
	You didn't get a chance for me to call him a Zayo.
	Oh, man.
	Hey guys, I hope you guys enjoyed it.
	I'll be back with some lovely ladies.
	Nico's going to be in the house with Sonny Fast.
	It's going to be a great time.
	We'll catch you guys back here in a little bit.
	Peace!

▲