All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 12, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:31
20231212_piers-morgan-uncensored-right-to-free-speech-in-qu
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
NHS Doctor and Sharia Law 00:05:36
The NHS GP whose movement calls for jihad and denies the Hamas massacre was a terrorist, a terrorist attack.
Does he really represent Muslim views?
Is he fit to practice medicine in this country?
Richie's Rwanda plan passes its parliamentary test, but will it ever actually work?
Is he worth it?
Can it save his skin?
We'll debate.
President Zelensky is at the White House tonight with a powerful plea for more aid in his battle against Vladimir Putin.
I'll take on the pundit and the politician from the American conservative right who both say Ukraine shouldn't get another American set.
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Dr. Abdul Wahid is the leader of a controversial Islamist movement which glorified the Hamas attacks and chanted for jihad on the streets of London.
Astonishingly, he's also an acting-serving, long-serving actually, NHS GP.
And last night, he came on my show, accepted an invitation to be interviewed after he was in the newspapers for his thoughts about what happened October the 7th.
And while that interview caused last night a bit of a stir.
Do you think Hamas are a terror group?
I believe it's a resistance war.
Do you think what they did on October the 7th was a terror attack?
I believe that if civilians got killed on that day, it is appalling.
It is appalling.
You're a doctor, man.
It's appalling.
You're a doctor.
I believe.
What do you mean?
1,200 people got massacred.
Well, very clearly, Dr. Waheed cast doubt on whether the atrocities on October 7th even took place.
Also clearly, he questioned whether any civilians had been massacred.
He believes the Hamas attacks were an act of resistance and the people who did it are not terrorists, but they're fighting a resistance.
I don't think they were.
1,200 innocent people were killed that day.
Women were raped.
Babies and the elderly were kidnapped.
Some people were beheaded.
It was a medieval orgy of indiscriminate violence.
And we know that in no small part because Hamas filmed their attacks and gleefully celebrated them in videos they posted to the world.
And Hamas has since publicly warned that it will not hesitate to repeat the attacks again.
Whatever your view of this war, and I've tried to platform a lot of people on both sides of it repeatedly so we can get a sense of what both sides are thinking.
Denying that the massacre October the 7th even happened cannot be the basis for any sensible discussion.
I have deep sympathy with the decades-long plight of the Palestinian people, which I've expressed many times.
I've repeatedly called out Israel's occupation of both Gaza and the West Bank.
I have deep unease about the scale of Israel's response to the Hamas attack, unease that's now shared by the President of the United States.
But to deny that it was a terror attack at all is quite frankly poisonous delusion.
And I think it's entirely valid to question whether this man's views are compatible with being an NHS doctor in a publicly funded health service.
I'm not calling for him to be fired or cancelled, as some have said today.
I gave him a platform on this show called Uncensored to elaborate on his opinions.
But I found a lot of his answers deeply concerning.
And I do believe many members of the public, not least his own patients, might also share my unease about the opinions he so willingly offered, just as they were about cries of jihad on the streets of London.
There's been a backlash from some Muslim followers of myself on Twitter, mostly because I suggested Dr. Wahid wants women to be oppressed.
Would you like Sharia law in this country?
Last time I'm going to ask.
If Sharia law, if Sharia, yes or no?
If Sharia law means upholding family values, means looking after the poor, means no gays, no feminists, women who get above themselves, right?
That's what caricature.
Oh, I know what Sharia law wants.
Why do so many women become Muslim these days?
Why do they want to be oppressed?
Is that what you're going to tell me?
Well, I said that in the specific context of Dr. Wahid's desire for Sharia law in this country and his defense of a tweet from one of the members of his own organization calling feminists and gay people filth.
It's important to understand that context.
I don't suggest for a moment that women who want to convert to Islam should do so for any other than perfectly good reasons.
I have no problem with Islam as a religion or with Muslims.
I have a problem, though, with people who endorse and support terrorism or who are blatantly homophobic or who are blatantly misogynist.
Now, many people have since accused me of being, as I say, anti-Muslim.
But I'm not.
No one who watches this show could possibly reach that conclusion.
Let me be crystal clear again.
I'm anti-terrorists and I'm anti-those who support terrorists.
Well, joining me now from television is Douglas Murray, the associate editor spectator.
The co-founder of the Muslim Debate Initiative, Abdullah Al-Andalusi, and Dr. Izldin Abulaysh, the Canadian Palestinian medical doctor, who's joined me again in the studio.
And great to see you.
Thank you very much indeed for joining me.
Let me start with you, if I may, Dr. Abulaysh.
Defining Terrorist Organizations 00:15:33
When you saw that interview, what was your response to the fact that it's an NHS doctor working and living in this country who was saying those things?
It's important.
I am coming, you know.
I heard it.
I heard many of your interviews.
Jihad, the word jihad.
My presence here is jihad.
When I'm coming to meet with you to advocate for my Palestinian people and for saving lives of the people is jihad.
And this is the highest level of jihad.
The resistance against someone who is invading you, this is the lowest level of jihad.
But jihad, when I am traveling, when I am going to any place, even someone who is dying because of far away from his home is a kind of jihad.
When we are fasting, when we are working, work is a jihad.
And that's the most important.
We need to understand it, not to take it out of the context in the limited understanding of it.
When I am invaded with a disease, COVID, what do I do?
I have to resist the COVID.
And that's when we face cancer, disease, any cancer.
You would not categorize October the 7th as a resistance.
It's, you know, I condemned the killing of any innocent human being.
And for me, I was born, my daughters were killed before October 7th.
Yes, I know.
I was born as a Palestinian refugee before October 7th.
My parents were refugees before 48.
They were born in Palestine.
So the history didn't start.
The world is not created October 7th.
That's what we need.
And we are today.
It's important.
But understand that.
Let me continue.
I don't think today is the 12th of December.
Today is the 12th of December where we have more than 23 Palestinian thousand are killed.
More than 45,000 are severely wounded.
Even the damage in the Gaza Strip as Borel, the representative of foreign affairs of the European Union, it's far beyond the damage in Germany for six years in two months more than that.
So even, you know how...
That's not true, actually.
No, no, no, there was far more.
He said that.
Who said that?
Borel, the representative of the European Union, the Foreign Affairs.
I mean, there are far more people died in World War II than have died in the United States.
No, no.
The damage.
The damage.
The structural damage.
The destruction.
Well, there certainly would have been more damage in Germany in World War II.
He mentioned that himself.
That won't be factually accurate.
But here's my question, though, for you.
It all comes back to me.
I'm very happy to platform anybody on this show, right to the point where they try and convince me that what happened on October the 7th was not an act of terror.
And when people refuse to concede that point, I find it very hard then to have a civilized discussion.
It's why I got so annoyed last night.
Well, I think it was appalling.
And I think you want to consider that.
Do you consider it as terrorists?
I do not consider Israel to be a terrorist organization.
They're killing my daughters.
I think here's a question we have to ask ourselves, which is, since you have defended Israel's operation in Gaza as self-defense.
No, no, since you have...
Don't misquote me.
Don't misquote me.
So you don't say it's part of their self-defense.
No, let me clarify.
I've defended Israel's right to defend itself, right?
In fact, they have a duty to its civilians after Hamas's repeated threats since October the 7th to repeat it to defend.
So is the world not self-defense or is it according to the military?
Let me just clarify my position so you know, right?
However, I have repeatedly questioned the proportionality of Israel's response, as indeed their greatest allies are.
But not the response itself.
No, but not the response itself, though.
I think they're perfectly entitled to go and take away.
Okay, so may I continue my question then?
So since, as I repeat, so since you have justified their response, maybe not how they've carried it out exactly, but you justify their response as self-defense.
Their right to defend themselves by taking the terrorists who committed that atrocity, yes.
Okay.
And presumably you refused to call Israel, and you have refused when you've been asked to call Israel a terrorist organization, government, or the idea for terrorist organizations.
Well, the difference is here.
Well, hang on.
No, Let me finish my question, please.
I have a question for you.
I must clarify.
You're making some statements that are a bit misleading.
Sure.
This country considers Hamas to be a prescribed terror group.
They do not consider Israel to be a terrorist organization, and nor do I.
So that's the position.
I'm not asking you.
The United Destiny.
The United Designer.
I'm not asking the British government.
I'm asking you, Piers.
I don't think that's a problem.
But the British government isn't here.
I do not think they're a terrorist organization.
Now let me finish my question, if I can ask the question as well, right?
For us to discuss.
So considering that you have justified the operation that Israel initiated as self-defense and that you refuse to call Israel a terrorist organization or a terrorist government, despite the fact that almost as many Palestinians, Gazans have died under Israel's precision bombing than Londoners have died during the whole year of a blitz on the German bombing, which wasn't precision bombing.
And yet you still say that, well, Israel isn't a terrorist organization.
I think the question we should be asking here is, should you be suspended?
Is it responsible to have a person with your views speaking to the public when you clearly refuse to condemn that which needs to be condemned, which was worse than the London Brit Blitz?
Perfectly reasonable.
With precision weapons, and the Germans didn't even have precision weapons.
Perfectly reasonable question.
Yes.
And you've asked me it on my show.
Yes.
The fact you're here and able to ask that, I think, is evidence that I'm prepared to listen to people who will look me in the eye and ask me difficult questions.
Well, you didn't say that, but anyway.
That's fine.
You're perfectly entitled.
Believe in uncensored free speech here, but let me ask you the question then, which I asked.
He's answering my question, but you haven't answered it.
Well, I have.
I said I don't think they're a terrorist organization, despite the fact that they've.
They've killed almost as many as Germans.
You've asked me a question when they bombed London in the blitz.
For one year I have non-precision bombs.
I have given you an unequivocal answer.
Now let me ask you if you can give me one.
Yes, do you believe Hamas are a terror organization?
Okay, and i'd like to ask you what?
Just answer my question.
Well, I need, I need clarification.
Well, this country can has prescribed theft as a terror group.
Do you think they are?
Are you the British government?
No, i'm asking you, okay.
So I want your clarity, I want a clarification.
I gave you a simple, straight answer.
What does it mean?
No, you tell me.
I, I don't know.
You're asking me a question.
You are.
You don't think they are a terror group?
No, I want, I want your definition of what would you?
What is a terror group?
An actor commits acts of terror?
A group that commits terror attacks, as they did on october?
One that commits terror attack?
All right fine, so define terror, do you want to ask?
I do, but I just want clarification.
No no, we almost want terrorist attacks, please.
No no no no, we're going to go somewhere with this.
We don't know, we don't.
We're going to go somewhere with this, right?
Well, are you going to answer the question?
Yes, once I get your definition.
What's a terror attack?
The definition is as is laid down in international law, which is committing an act of terror, which is which is terrorism?
Are you asking questions you don't know the definition of?
Well, why don't you tell me what you think?
I don't know.
You're asking the question.
You have no idea what terrorism is.
No, I want, I want you to answer your question.
I would say, massacring 1200 people on october the 7th in the way Hamas did, is an act of terror.
Do you agree?
So, so killing civilians is an act of terror?
No, that's not what I said.
Oh so, so then killing civilians, committing a mass act of terrorist terrorism?
So so killing civilians is not an act of terrorist?
You're not going to answer.
Let me bring.
No, I I want, I don't want your definition.
No no, I want to be clear.
We have a third guest.
No, but I want to say i'm going to bring something i'm going to bring in.
I want to say something.
All right, you know Adili, you know United States recognized be IL O as a terrorist and it negotiates with Bil O.
This is one thing.
The second october 7th happened and that many things happened after.
Are we here just stuck there as a snapshot and to discuss it, or we want to discuss what after and what can be done to do with the way.
That's the most important.
I think they're all important issues, but right now, because of what happened in the fallout from last night's show, I specifically want to discuss the definition of terrorism, Hamas and whether a British but have to be hang on, i'm going to bring in Douglas Murray sitting patiently here.
Douglas uh, first of all, what was your reaction to this interview with an NHS doctor last night on this show?
Well, let me first of all say that uh, it's necessary to clear quite a lot of things up, because we've heard quite a lot of hogwash in the last few minutes.
Firstly uh, your guest last night is a member of an extremist organization, HIS Battahir, which is banned in many countries, including in European countries, and it's also banned in many Muslim countries.
It's banned in Pakistan.
It's banned in Egypt and that's because these Muslim governments recognize that it is an extremist group that has a revolutionary ideology, that wants to replace government countries banned in Muslim countries, As well as in as well.
Do you know Germany?
One European country is banned in Douglas Murray.
I'm not going to let you lie to the audience like you usually do.
You're going to justify everything you say on this show, James Murray.
So please give me one country.
It's not banned than Germany.
You just said Germany.
You're not listening.
To the audience.
Google it for yourself.
No, Hezbollah in Germany.
Is this Mr. Al-Andalusi?
Can I just check?
Because I can't see you.
It is you.
Is that him?
Yeah.
Okay.
This is a guy.
He's of no significance, but he's a guy who I have seen in studios for years spouting extreme Islamist rhetoric.
Many years ago, he couldn't condemn the killing of the journalists at Charlie Ebdo.
Last year, he wouldn't condemn the attempted murder of Salman Rushdie.
Now he can't do this.
He fails every single time.
But let me get on to the question.
I'm not going to engage.
I'm not going to engage in a bunfight with this Islamist.
Let me answer the question Piers put to me before you try to interrupt again.
Only if you don't lie.
Let him write.
Answer, please.
First of all, let him answer, please.
First of all, I'm not going to keep being talked over by this Islamist blowhard.
Let me speak.
First of all, your first guest treated us to the first bit of mouthwash this evening by claiming that the word jihad can mean absolutely anything.
Nonsense.
When a big bearded member of Hizbutah here calls for jihad on the streets of London, then they are not calling for an inner personal struggle with the nature of the divine.
They are calling for violence.
And anyone who can't recognize that should be questioned about their own motives.
Secondly, we've just been treated to a monologue about casualty figures in Gaza.
Where do these figures come from?
I'll tell you where they come from.
They come from Hamas.
It's quite remarkable that two months after the October the 7th massacre, that two months after the October 7th massacres, the Israelis still don't know the precise number of people murdered on October the 7th.
There's a reason for that because it takes time to work out massacres of that scale.
The numbers are striking.
One of the striking things, you know, I just don't know if either of your guests are going to allow me a word in.
Because you are lying in the numbers from the IDF, which are not accredited.
No, you will, you know, it's experiencing hearing somebody who presents themselves, who presents themselves as a moderate being a spokesperson for Hamas.
So let me continue.
They are Hamaz figures.
They are all provided by the ministries of Hamas, which is Hamaz, which is a prescribed terrorist organization.
If you want to reel off Hamaz figures, then be my guest.
But you are not able to mislead the viewers of Piers' show by quoting Hamas figures at his viewers as if they are homosexuals.
I'm quoting to this United Nations.
The international community is not a family.
Where do you think they get the figures from?
Where do you think they get the figures?
Thirdly, I will continue to speak if it kills you.
Thirdly, World War II.
It is nonsense that what has been happening in Gaza has, as you said in this endless list of fallacies, that there has been more bombing in Gaza, more deaths and destruction in Gaza than during World War II.
Do you know anything about World War II?
Do you know anything about World War II?
In Dresden, in Dresden, do you know if in Dresden alone, take one German city, take one German city, the destruction was on a scale totally different?
I'm taking London.
I'm taking London.
I'm very interested in this point.
Let me ask Douglas one question.
No, no, no.
I will, because he makes the point I want to say.
Okay, I'm going to come back to you both.
Let me ask Douglas one question.
Douglas, specifically about the doctor, don't you?
It is very important for your viewers to hear the following definition.
The definition of terrorism is the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians.
That is what Hamas specializes in.
That is what Hamas did.
And that's what is happening here in Gaza also.
Is what Israel is doing terrorism?
No, for the following reason.
And again, you can lie about this if you want, but do not expect not to be challenged about it.
What the IDF is doing is the same manner of war as the British Army, the American Army, and all other armies in the civilized world.
They target terrorists like Hamas, and there are civilian casualties.
Yes, there are.
But it is not the aim of the IDF any more than it is of the British or American armies to target civilians.
And anyone who pretends otherwise is lying to the public watching.
All right, Douglas, final question before I go back to the two in the studio here.
And it's specifically about the doctor that was on last night, whether he should be allowed to continue practicing as a GP when he identifies Hamas as a resistance group, wouldn't say that it committed an act of terrorist said he didn't even believe that there had been a massacre and was also quite blatantly homophobic, amongst other things.
Well, he didn't actually.
Douglas, Douglas, let me ask Douglas if Douglas.
The Medical Association is the one who was assigned to the Spanish.
I'm asking Douglas what he's doing.
Douglas, he's not the medical doctor.
I'm asking Douglas' opinion.
Douglas.
Well, you don't seem to be much of an impartial observer of this, I have to say myself.
I thought slightly highly of you before you started ranting as much as Mr. Andalusi this evening.
I'll tell you what I thought of it, Piers.
I think our country has had enough of people like your guest last night.
It's not just that he's in the NHS.
Why is he in Britain?
Why do we allow people in Britain to try to overthrow the state who praised terrorism, members of extremist organizations?
What has Britain got from this guy exactly?
What benefit have we got from him?
I mean, I wouldn't want to be an NHS patient going to him.
Election, Jews, and Antisemitism 00:08:11
I don't know if any Jews would particularly want to in Britain.
I don't know if very many innocent people would want to go to this doctor.
But my question is not just should he be able to practice.
I want to know why our country of Britain has been such a soft touch for decades that we have Hamas leaders, terrorist spokespeople, Islamist sympathizers like your guest, Mr. Al-Andalusi, and now NHS doctors who are members of groups like his Buttahir that stand on the streets of London, call for jihad, call for Muslim armies to arise.
I don't think our country benefits anything from these people.
I think people like that should leave.
We have no need of them.
Douglas Murray, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
I appreciate it.
Let's come back to you gentlemen to wrap this up.
Let me start with you, Dr. Abalash.
Look, passions run high here on both sides.
I get that.
But there have to be certain points of agreement, don't there?
And one of the things that I find very hard to deal with, like I said at the start of this debate, is when people simply won't accept what we all saw with our own eyes because Hamas put it out on their own videos through their own social media platforms.
What happened October the 7th was a terror attack.
Can we not agree that?
I am coming here as a Palestinian.
Yes.
I am not belonging to any faction, and Hamas is not representing the Palestinian people.
We have to understand it.
It's part of the Palestinian people.
It was elected with the free democratic election in 2006.
Since that time, we don't have any election.
We look forward to having an election, and we have to respect the election of the people and the choice of the people.
If you in UK tomorrow to elect any right fanatic group, what do you think the other people will say to you?
If they said, no, they are terrorists or they are not accepted.
They are part of the Palestinian people.
Whether we accept or not, we need to have a new leadership to have a new election.
And then it's our choice to do it.
What is happening?
As I said it clearly, before October 7, October 7, after October 7, will never lead to any positive way.
It only aggravates bloodshed, more animosity, more pain, more suffering, and more extremism.
I think you may be right.
And this has been my concern about the, in my view, increasingly disproportionate response by Israel, is it may have the opposite effect to what they want.
It may actually lead to more radicalism.
Destroying most of Gaza seems to be what the mission statement is now.
I don't see how that helps the situation at all.
But I do understand why they want to try and eliminate Hamas.
And that's the conundrum.
Well, I'd like to clarify firstly.
Islamic law very clearly says, and there's no difference of opinion on this for 1,300 years or even more, that it is impermissible in whatever situation to target women, children, elderly, non-combatants, or those not reservists in the army.
So even the Hamas fighters, which were interviewed on Israeli TV, the broadcast was interviewed, the interview, they said the same thing, that it is prohibited.
The issue with October the 7th is that there's a big question mark regarding what exactly happened.
I completely accept.
Let me finish.
What do I mean by this?
I completely accept that there was Israelis were killed who were not combatants.
It is reprehensible in Islamic law.
And likewise, is it reprehensible that non-combatants on the Palestinian side are killed?
Like, for example, an eight-year-old Mohammed El-Khul and others in West Bank who were shot by an Israeli soldier.
But my point is this, right?
And here's the issue, which is Michael Clark, who advises, you might see him on Sky News talking about Ukraine war.
He's a military advisor on Channel and also Channel 4.
He described, he said that Hamas, the operation, they actually lost control of the operation and it turned into a spontaneous terror attack.
I'm quoting him the beta.
I don't believe a word of that.
But this is what he says.
I'm giving you my opinion.
I know, well, I'm giving you an expert opinion.
It was clearly planned by Michael Clark.
Well, they didn't.
They did.
Where?
Where did Hamas...
Did you know that quotation?
Do you see no Hamas people that day gloating about it?
Are you watching the videos?
Yes, I did.
Did you watch that Hamas spokesman?
You quoted that Hamas spokesman on TV.
Did you see what he said about the attack?
He said that there was no order to target civilians.
What many people did.
But we know they did.
A general consensus of all this sort of analysts have shown that there was looters that came out of Gaza who were not part of Hamas.
My simple question is this.
Was it a terror attack?
Anyone who killed civilians should be condemned and it's comprehensible.
Anyone who kills civilians is a criminal.
Was it a terror attack?
What?
October the 7th.
And when I asked you, you said what defines a terror attack is that you target civilians.
Yes, okay.
You target civilians, right?
So then I want to ask, I want to ask that question.
But just for sake of consistency, when the British Army targeted German civilians in World War II, was that a terrorist?
No, because they were responding to Nazi Germany's attempt to destroy the world.
So you're saying the morality of the world.
So you're saying that because of who they were fighting, it's not a terror attack to target civilians.
Is that what you're saying?
So we have to wrap this up.
Because I only want consistency.
I'm saying there's no moral equivalence between us defending ourselves against Nazi Germany, who committed a holocaust that killed, in fact, they killed 12 million people.
Did Britain launch war on Germany because of the Jews?
Did Britain declare war on Germany because of for the sake of Jews?
Britain declared war on Germany.
Did Winston Churchill, in his ultimatum to Britain, did he say, stop persecuting the Jews?
Do you know why?
Because at that time, anti-Semitism was so rife that people didn't care about the plight of the Russians.
Really?
It was only afterwards, after they discovered the death camps and so on and so forth.
Don't pretend that the Allies launched this war for the sake of Jews.
Anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism, the horror of the concentration camps towards the end of the war.
We did it to save our democracy and freedom.
Because the idea there's anything else that we're doing.
What are the Palestinians?
What are the Palestinians doing?
The idea there's any moral equivalence is ridiculous.
But let me come back one more time before we finish to my simple question.
Was what happened on October the 7th a terror attack?
And I'm telling you that if you refuse to call the bombing of Burma or Dresden as a terror attack, then why is that not hypocritical?
I'm totally fine to call it terror attack if you're willing to call it terror attack too.
Listen, let's join each other, including the IDF as a no-wheel they're doing as a terrorist.
I do not believe IDF.
Then that's being hypocritical.
No, that's being hypocritical.
I'm happy to condemn this as a terror attack.
Yeah, you're not afraid of the terror.
You have to be consistent with this whole thing.
Final words.
You know, yesterday I was listening to the chief of Mossad and the chief of Shempet, and he said it's because of the failure of diplomatic and political issues.
This is important.
And there was negligence.
And what can we do now?
And that's the most important as a medical doctor.
We need to stop the bloodshed, to go to serious negotiations, to use it.
What happened October 7th as an opportunity to bridge the gap between Palestinians and Israelis and not to repeat it again and again?
Doctor, I'm going to end it there.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I've got to fire people from their jobs because they have different opinions.
Well, you know what?
I don't think British GPs should be coming on national television in this country and breaking the law by publicly supporting and endorsing a terror group.
Which is, by the way, it's a criminal offense to support a terror group in this country.
Yeah, of course.
He did that last night.
By what?
When did he talk about it?
By saying there were resistance, not a terror group.
He was talking about Palestinians in general.
He was talking about Palestinians.
He was talking about Hamas.
Hamas.
He was talking about the Spanish.
You didn't watch the interview.
Go back and watch it.
Leave it for the police to investigate.
He described it.
He took Palestinians.
He broke Palestinians one day.
He broke the law.
He's all right throughout the whole of Palestine.
You asked me why.
Biden Accountability in Ukraine 00:09:19
That's why.
Palestinians are not.
We're going to leave it there.
I'm going to leave it there.
Again, thanks to Douglas Murray, to Dr. Abelash.
It's good to see you again.
Thank you very much.
Thank you so much.
Abdullah Andalusi, thank you very much for coming in.
I appreciate it.
And since the next President Zelensky is at the White House right now as he tries to convince the US to provide more aid for Ukraine, US lawmaker Byron Donald since the US just stopped funding Ukraine and joins me next.
Welcome back to Onsenson.
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky came face to face with US lawmakers in Washington today as he attempts to win over Republicans resisting more funding for his country's war against Putin's Russia.
Zelensky's making a last-ish effort to save a $61 billion aid package.
Well, to debate whether the US should keep this ministry support flowed, I'm joined by two people who don't agree with me.
The Conservative talk radio host Ben Ferguson and the Republican congressman Byron Donalds.
And I'll start with you, Congressman, if I may.
Here's what I don't get.
All the resistance is coming from people who historically would have been absolutely first in the line to try and stop a Russian dictator cutting a swathe of barbaric invasion through Europe.
What's happened to you guys?
Why are you prepared to let Putin win?
First of all, Piers, I think that's the wrong way to even phrase the question.
We're not prepared to let Vladimir Putin win anything.
The only thing we're saying is that you have to actually take care of issues at home first.
If you actually do that, there'd be a lot of ability to remove Ukrainian aid in Congress.
I have some disagreements in that.
Number one is there's no accountability with this money whatsoever.
Number two, Joe Biden has had no view what this mission actually is.
He wants to cover up his own derelictions with his disastrous foreign policy that has led us to this point right now, not just in Ukraine, but in my view, in other areas around the globe.
But House Republicans and now Senate Republicans, our mission is clear.
Secure our border.
Get that business done.
It makes no sense to give Ukraine upwards of $200 billion from the American Treasury while our nation is overrun by some number, some estimates.
Why can't you do both?
Why can't it make sense?
Just do both.
Listen, to be truthful, nobody trusts this administration.
They're flagrantly violating a border security.
This comes back.
By this immigration law, this is border security.
Listen, I agree with you that what's happening on the border is completely out of control, a dereliction of duty by Joe Biden, and it's got to be fixed.
But America is, last time I checked, the number one superpower in the world, the richest and most powerful country on earth.
You're telling me it can't control its border and at the same time stop a Russian dictator taking over European countries.
Really?
Not with Joe Biden as president, because the man isn't.
It wouldn't be if Republicans were in charge.
Our responsibility right now is to hold the line and make sure our border is secure because Joe Biden is such a terrible leader.
He won't even take care of first things first here in America.
So if he won't do that, we have to force him to do that.
And unfortunately, Ukraine is the leverage point to force him to do it.
Because Joe Biden, let's go back in history.
Let's remember history.
Joe Biden saw Russia amassing troops for six months at the Ukrainian border.
He did nothing.
Ukraine was asking for help during that six months.
He did nothing.
When Russia invaded, Vladimir Zelensky was told, hey, get on a G5.
And if he didn't tell Joe Biden, no, give me bullets.
I'm not looking for a ride.
Joe Biden wouldn't even be talking about it.
Sounds like you think we should have been involved a lot earlier.
What we should have done is done everything to make sure an incursion into Ukraine never occurred.
And Pierce, let's go back in time.
Was Vladimir Putin thinking about invading Ukraine?
Of course.
But did he do it when Donald Trump was president?
He absolutely did not.
Joe Biden has led us to where we are.
Congressman, you have to go.
So final question.
So you want to wrap things up in Ukraine.
You just give Putin what he's stolen in terms of land?
Listen, at this point, there's going to have to be a negotiation and a deal.
You give him what he's taking.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
They need to figure out a negotiation.
The number one thing that matters to us is border security in Europe.
If you don't care about the border security, if we take care of America at home, then we can talk about the world.
But you don't care about the Ukrainian border security.
It's that simple.
So my question is, Putin wants to rewrite the Ukrainian border and just take vast sways of the country for himself.
And you wouldn't let him do that, right?
No, I do not want to let him do that.
What would you do?
He's not going to want to do everything.
I want, me personally, I want to do everything possible for Vladimir Putin to be defeated.
But I am telling you this.
How do you demand him by giving him everything he's taking?
Pierce, the American voter, is demanding that our security is taken care of first.
Our borders be secured.
That's the position of politicians.
I know you have to talk about it.
Hold on.
Last minute, Pierce.
Last thing, Pierce.
All Joe Biden has to do is undo what he did when he came into office.
Secure our border.
Then we can talk about Ukraine.
Until then, there's nothing to talk about.
All right.
Maybe too late by then.
Putin may get his victory and you'll have helped him.
But anyway, I appreciate you joining me.
Congressman, thank you very much.
Let me turn to Ben Ferguson.
Thank you.
Ben, I just don't get this.
I can't.
Well, let me explain it a different way.
Yeah.
Let me explain it a little bit different way.
There's two problems here.
One, there's zero accountability with the money we're sitting over there right now.
There's massive amounts of corruption with Ukrainian oligarchs and many of their families are in five-star hotels in Warsaw.
We're paying an insane amount of money that's not going to the battlefield.
So there's a problem here with accountability.
That's one of the questions that must be answered before we send more funds.
The second problem with this is if you have these people, Zelensky and others that are in charge, and they hear from American foreign policy that they have an unlimited amount of time with unlimited dollars coming to the U.S., I'm not sure they're not going to drag this thing out because they're all getting rich and everyone around them with the billions that are coming into their country because of the well-documented.
They're all getting killed.
Ukrainians are not.
That's not true.
The oligarchs are getting killed.
They're not the ones fighting.
How do you, a Republican?
Let me ask you a question.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, for example, did you think it was right that America went to Sepul and kick him out?
I think it was right the way that we fought that war and we got them out quickly and we didn't stay forever on end.
And that's why you're not.
You agreed that when somebody invaded a sovereign country, the right thing to do, even though Kuwait was not a member of NATO, was for American forces, including troops on the ground, to get involved to kick him out, right?
Piers, there's a difference between Kuwait and the United States.
Would you agree with this?
Do you agree with you?
Yes, because it was a quick interaction.
Why don't you agree with him?
There's a never-ending date.
There's a never-ending date here.
And that's part of, I'm not dumb enough to give an open check and just say to a country that it has massive amounts of corruption, many believe worse than even Russia when it comes to corruption in their government.
Here's a blank check indefinitely for decades on end.
By the way, there's another part of this.
America's given two.
That's exactly what we're doing.
America's giving on.
No offense.
It's not your tax dollars.
It's not your tax dollars.
Hang on.
Let me talk.
America's given just about two years of money so far, right?
And Britain's been the second biggest donor of money.
No troops on the ground like there were in Kuwait.
No tanks, nothing.
Just giving money to Ukraine to fund their military operation so they can try and defeat a Russian dictator who illegally invaded their sovereign country, just as Saddam Hussein did to Kuwait.
Two non-NATO countries being defended by America, one you completely endorsed and supported, and one you want to run away from and let Putin have a victory.
And Republicans.
When the Republicans want Russians to win like this.
This is where you're wrong.
I didn't say run away.
I said accountability.
I want there to be accountability for this check that I'm writing as an American taxpayer.
By the way, with money we don't have that we're then borrowing and then having to finance going to corrupt people in Ukraine.
There is a huge difference between these two scenarios.
Kuwait was a very short-term implementation of a process to win, and then it was over.
You could have done 10 Kuwaits in the timeframe that you've done one Ukraine, which is an installment at best right now.
How are you going to feel if you don't give the money?
Final question and brief answer, please.
How are you going to feel if the money doesn't get given to Ukraine and Putin actually defeats Ukraine and then starts invading other countries near Ukraine?
It's not on me.
That's on Joe Biden.
Joe Biden's the joke.
Actually, it is on you.
Joe Biden's foreign policy.
It would be on you and everyone.
Joe Biden for not securing the border.
It would be on Joe Biden.
It would be the first time.
It would be the first time in modern American history where it was the conservative right that allowed a Russian dictator to rampage his way through Europe and take what he wanted.
When you're being held staggering.
Piers, Piers, when you're being held hostage by a president of the United States of America that allows for 8 million people to invade your country in the last year and a half since he's been president, then that is, and he refuses to do his job.
Elon Musk Free Speech Limits 00:06:38
And this is what you have to do to hold him to accountability.
You do it.
So if you want to blame someone, don't blame me, say I'm cutting and running.
I can't stand Vladimir Putin, right?
I can't even travel to Russia if I wanted to in peacetimes.
The reality is, this is Joe Biden's fault that he's not held them accountable for the money we've already sent and refuses to ask questions about the corruption.
Ben Ferguson, always good to talk to you.
Thank you for joining Uncensored.
I appreciate it.
Uncensored next, the father of a Sandy Hook victim says that Elon Musk is a sociopath after he restored the massacre-denying conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to X podcast Zuby thinks Musk is right.
I'm a free speech hypocrite, which always be next.
Welcome back to Uncensored.
Elon Musk's reversal Alex Jones' return to X to spa outrage from a grieving father who lost his son in the tragic Sandy Hook massacre.
David Wheeler, whose son Benjamin was the sixth when he was shot dead along with 20 others, has slammed Musk associate path, the ex-owner, previously condemned Jones, for exploiting the death of children for personal gain, politics, or fame, and ended a U-turn.
I'm joined in the studio by my pat, the rapper and broadcaster, podcaster, Zuby, broadcaster as well, talk TV contributor and family lawyer, Paul Lauren, Adrian, and the journalist and former newspaper editor, Emily Schiffer.
Welcome to all of you.
Zubi, you think I'm a flaming hypocrite about free speech because I want Alex Jones to be continually banned from X. Why am I a hypocrite?
Do you support freedom of speech?
Yes.
So how do you reconcile that?
All free speech, even in America, which has probably the finest protection of free speech in the world with the First Amendment, has a number of things which are excluded, including defamation.
He was just found guilty by several courts of the most egregious defamation in modern American history.
And it was because he targeted for years the poor families of the Sandy Hook children who were massacred in that school shooting.
And he has not paid a dime to those families of the $1.2 billion he's supposed to be paying.
And it's an absolute disgrace.
And I agree with what Elon Musk said a year ago, which is anyone that seeks to benefit or gain from the deaths of children for personal gain or fame or whatever should not be allowed on X.
Now he's changed his mind.
I think he's been hypocritical, not me.
Well, over the past decade, I know that for a fact that Alex Jones has apologized for that many, many times.
We're talking about things that he said.
Only when he was facing financial oblivion.
No, he apologized.
No, no.
Only when he was actually being held to account for it.
No, prior to that.
No, he didn't.
Never apologized prior to that.
Yes, he did.
No, he didn't.
Yes, he did.
Only when he was sued.
No, no, no.
He apologized prior to that.
I know that as a fact.
Listen to his Joe Rogan appearance about four years ago.
He apologized very profusely.
But that was after the lawsuits were coming in.
I don't know about that.
Anyway, I think if X is going to be a free speech platform, it needs to be a free speech platform.
Would you let Nick Fuentes back on?
Yes.
A white supremacist anti-Semite.
Yeah, as long as he doesn't break the rules.
Well, those are breaking the rules.
No, having views, having thoughts in your head is not against the law.
What about saying that on his show?
If you say things on the platform that violate the platform.
And if you promote your show and you say them on your show, well, if I started spewing white supremacy stuff in front of you, right?
And I then tweeted a link to the show, you'd be happy with that?
I'm not saying I would be happy with it, but I wouldn't want you banned from X for that.
Really?
So I could look down the barrel of this camera and say, I think all black people should be thrown out of this country.
Watch how they clip this one.
Well, no, okay.
So someone will clip it, right?
And I could say that.
Yes.
And then I could tweet a link to this show to promote the show.
Yes.
And you would think I should stay on X.
Yes.
I would support your right to free speech.
Wow.
That's not free speech, it's hate speech.
No, it's free.
Freedom of speech specifically exists to protect views and people espousing views.
There are six different criteria excluded under the First Amendment, including child pornography, including defamation, including all sorts of things.
You can't famously go into a theater and shout fire if it's crowded theater.
Sure, but you can say.
So there are lots of restrictions already.
Look, there are people who think that I engage in hate speech.
There's people who think that you engage in hate speech.
Hate speech is a very subjective.
It's an extraordinarily subjective term.
And if anyone who has ever said anything...
So for you, there's no limits.
Anyone can say anything.
I don't think you can directly call to violence.
Right.
No, I don't think you can.
Alex Jones' words led to direct violent compromise.
Yeah, they did.
No, that's not.
That's not.
People were urinated on the kids' graves.
Okay.
Because they believe Alex Jones was a very good person.
When he said it was a hoax.
If someone was untrue.
What do you think is the correct path to redemption if someone has said something that you're doing?
I think if you do what he did for that number of years and you have a $1.2 billion award against you and you don't pay the families one cent, declare yourself bankrupt to avoid it, you don't get to come back onto a social media platform to start earning money.
Well he does.
He's come back on.
I know there's nothing.
Because Elon Musk, in my view, has made a terrible mistake.
Quick reaction from you two to this.
I think it's quite interesting hearing Zuvi respond to you without once referencing responsibilities.
We're all very good at identifying my right to this and my right to that and when my right has been abused.
But what we're not very good at doing is recognising how responsible we have to be when we are looking at exercising those rights.
And clearly he hasn't been responsible.
Clearly his lack of responsibility has caused harm.
And I just wonder what Elon Musk is hoping to achieve.
Well okay Emily is Elon Musk a force for good or not on since he bought Twitter a year ago.
Well he's not a force for good for Twitter itself or X.
I mean he's recently told advertisers to F off and I'm afraid the real cynic in me.
The real cynic in me well it's good but you know his debt payments and what he borrowed to buy X is just must be crippling him at this point.
I think what's I'm afraid the cynic in me thinks that this is just sort of massive publicity stunt.
Could be.
It could be.
And look what Elon Musk does believe.
He's listening to reverse speech.
Look, he does believe in free speech.
I believe in free speech.
I think there have to be limitations as the First Amendment has, but we'll see how this plays out.
I think Alex Jones will live down to every expectation.
Take a short break and come back and discuss Rwanda next.
Rule of Law and Amendments 00:02:12
Welcome back.
Still on my pack.
Emily, Richie Sunak, big win tonight, actually, after all the doom-laden forecasts.
Not a single Conservative MP in the end voted against his bill.
Many abstained, but no one voted against him.
How big a win is it?
Is it just a temporary victory?
It's 44, so that is a big win.
I'm sort of unfashionable in my view in that I think he is going to win this battle.
I think there's going to be a lot of work between now and the next reading.
You know, obviously the right are wanting their amendments.
Those more to the left, One Nation, don't want any more amendments.
If they're not, they might want to weaken it a bit.
But I do think the right have a long history of causing a lot of trouble.
They don't always go ahead with it.
And I think I hope they just keep repeating to them, one year in power is worth five years.
Here's my point, Paula.
I don't know why he wants to die on this hill.
In the end, so a few hundred people get taken to Rwanda when you've got a much bigger problem with legal migration numbers going through the roof up to nearly a million.
Yeah.
And can we just set out what this absolute farce is?
Quickly, if you don't mind.
Farce is.
Go on the gov. website, have a look at the skilled visas, who they're looking for, who they need to come and do jobs.
Everybody.
They need judges.
They need barristers.
They need solicitors.
You know what?
Because five million people in this country have given up working because we're lazy, work shy.
are lazy and work shy.
This isn't about you Zubi quickly.
What do we do about immigration generally?
The world's got the same problem.
Immigration in general, the rule of law just needs to be followed and upheld and enforced.
I think it's that simple.
You can't just have people coming in, whether this is in the States, people running over the border in the hundreds of thousands or this is in Europe, people coming over on boats.
The rule of law needs to be enforced.
There should be immigration, but it needs to be fair.
There needs to be a process and people need to follow that process.
I think most people can get on board with that.
The trouble is we're coming up against the rule of law and that's what the right of the party wants about the ECHR.
Pack, great to see you all.
We've run out of time.
Lovely to see you, Zubi.
As always, when you're in town, please come and come back.
That's it from me, whatever you're up to.
Keep it uncensored.
We do believe in free speech.
I'm with you on that, Zubi.
Just not with Alex Jones.
Export Selection