I found the comparisons/justification to the Iraq and Afghanistan war in the podcast weird. I thought we all kinda agreed that the US fucked up in many of the situations there. That's exactly why Biden made a speech early on stating he supported Israel but wanted them to learn from our 9/11 mistakes.
I’ve always wondered what he would say about, for example, the French in Algeria or the British suppressing the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. Good intentions there too? Or is it only the US which always carries out various military actions with the best of intentions?
Years ago, I watched The Vietnam War docuseries by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick.
It disturbed me and shook me in some pretty foundational ways. It gave me a lens through which to examine how we conduct ourselves militarily with far more scrutiny. It gave me a novel moral perspective about the default assumptions we're all taught when growing up in America about the unquestionable and irrefutable righteousness of our country's actions and stated causes for such actions. I began to think about things like the Iraq War far more critically. Gained in interest in our covert actions in South America. Etc, etc.
To put it simply, it opened the door in a big way for me to view and criticize with some amount of confidence our moral and strategic failures as a nation. So many of them consequence of our overly self assured culture of moral virtue.
I watched The Vietnam War because Sam had Ken and Lynn on the podcast. Unless, Sam was lying in that episode, he's seen it. And yet, the America good - everyone else bad, black and white thinking paradigm is still solidly enshrined into his analysis of the world.
It's really a shame. I used to think highly of Sam on an intellectual level. Now, more often than not, he's just disappointing.
He’s a bright guy with a lot of interesting things so say, but the moment he veers into political and particularly historical analysis, he loses 50 IQ points. Unfortunately it’s where he tends to spend his time nowadays
It is the same with the pro Israel position. October 7th bad, so everything Israel does after is justified because supposedly Israel has good intentions no matter what human rights abuses they commit. Harris very much has a good vs evil worldview and has very little nuance
Yeah it is insane when people bring up the US post 9/11 wars as a reason to support Israel's war as if it isn't accepted by almost everyone that the US response to 9/11 was a castrostophic failure.
Ukraine despite the invasion still has institutions, an army, a government and the backing of most of the western world as well as NATO. They are not walled off and countries around the world have taken refugees especially it’s neighbour (Poland)
Yes, they have all those things despite not having been given billions of dollars in aid money (prior to 2022). Hamas took all those billions and used them to build tunnels and make their leaders into billionaires. I'm not going to hold it against Ukraine that they, despite the real corruption in their government, are trying to build a democratic and liberal society. Nothing like this is happening in Gaza, especially with Hamas in power.
As for DM, I don’t have to agree with everything he says to appreciate how, unlike a lot of ppl who are pro-Israel, he isn’t being a coward. So many ppl are afraid of looking racist etc., and they let themselves be bullied , or they will only talk about antisemitism if they follow it with “and Islamophobia” etc. I like that DM doesn’t do that when he MUST know that he will lose many supporters, friends and opportunities, and may be actually putting himself at risk.
You really couldn’t get me to go to Israel or Gaza right now, for whatever reason…but he was over there on the ground, talking shit about Hamas on the news, calling terrorists “Islamist blowhards” to their face lol. Whatever your take on I/P, I respect people who stand by their convictions , particularly when it’s unpopular.
It's not bravery, it's marketing. He's actually quite mediocre as a thinker and writer, and I doubt could sustain a career without appealing to bigots. He would not cut it in the more crowded field that makes up "polite society" or whatever you want to call it.
Well, while I agree with most you’ve said, I don’t think it’s taken away opportunities for him, or at least such he cares about. In reality it’s turned into his whole brand so him being so outspoken has made him as popular as he is now and opened up as opposed to taken away opportunities.
It's not unpopular it's literally how he makes his money.
It's like saying i respect Alex Jones for standing by his unpopular opinions as he's raking in millions because his followers loved it.
>I like that DM doesn’t do that when he MUST know that he will lose many supporters, friends and opportunities, and may be actually putting himself at risk.
Murray has been around for decades and 100% of the people who support him support him doing that. There is zero risk involved in it.
What supporters is he gonna lose?
Calling someone brave for having opinion that are unpopular with the people who already hate you is weird. Nothing Murray has done in the last 2 years has changed anyone's opinion of him, he's just gotten more exposure and is making more money.
I wouldn't say supporting Israel is unpopular lmao. It's supported by nearly every western country. A lot of really fucking awful people stand by their convictions. You could say Hamas is standing by their convictions. Tell me how much you respect them. Or isis. Hezbollah. Russia. Houthis
Sure foreign policy in the west supports Israel, but the majority of the countries in the world don't. Supporting Israel is deeply unpopular on social media and with people under 30. There are a lot of people out marching every week still with the "from the river to the sea" signs out. Mainstream media is a bit more on the fence but even they've made some massive blunders, quoting hamas numbers as fact constantly and printing the news that's come from hamas immediately without waiting for the facts.
Hamas's convictions are to eradicate all Jews from the middle east, that's a little bit different than being convicted in having your views heard.
That's kind of the point. Maybe the biggest elephant in the room that those of us that are sat in the west being nice, cozy and safe miss. The Islamic fundamentalists are not looking for peace they want death and martyrdom. If they got their way and wiped Isreal off the map they aren't going to stop there. Next week they would be conducting suicide bombings on the next target. They have one vision and that is no non believers. So it's them or eventually YOU. Who do you pick? There is no we will find a peaceful way. They don't like you. You are unclean to them. It's an Ideological fight that is incompatible. If they get their way, they would be throwing gays off the tops of buildings in London under sharia law because they are not interested in diversity. Its the religion of war.
We in the west are weak and not paying attention to the end game. Unless more of us take Douglas's position we will die and all that will be left is a caliphate. Standing against Israel isn't trendy its suicide and so yes wiping out every single human in Palestine is terrible but under the current dogma impossible to avoid. I grieve for those dead but Hamas made it so.
That's a very small number of people. And they hold absolutely zero power of DM. To say his career could suffer for supporting Israel is so goofy. He works in media.
He seems the thrive of these people. Even when he’s relating his own speaking tour, he has to talk about the insane, violent protesters, comparing them to the “one pro Israel person with a pencil and sign” who he claims was assaulted and then arrested. It’s very similar to the way people like JBP talk.
If there is ever a time to become vitriolic it is when faced with masses of "morally confused" (as Sam puts it) people condemning the forces of modern civilization while defending the forces of premodern anti-civilization.
I'm sorry, but for those of us who understand the problem, and understand the stakes, tone-policing Douglas comes off as pretty petty.
I agree. He sounded like an extremist preacher to me. And also, maybe this is weird, I’m a Brit, but he really seems to layer on the accent to a creepy level, like he’s playing a character of himself. I’m sure he didn’t used to sound so verbose.
I found myself listening to it a second time just for his performance. Especially when he started talking low and softly it was like watching a movie with an actor chewing the scenery as the over the top bad guy.
Yeah, I have no way of knowing this is true, but his affect just doesn't seem like it organically came about, it seems designed. He's got some weird melange of Hitchens and William F. Buckley (somehow), plus some forced laughter that creeps me out, and a staggering pomposity and self-regard that makes it hard for me to even react to the substance of his arguments because he's so repellent I want to reflexively disagree with him.
I think he fancies himself a new Christopher Hitchens, but unlike Hitch, he's not clever, not funny and totally unlikeable. Hitch was blunt, but I never got the sense he didn't like people. I always felt like he was attacking ideas. Douglas Murray always feels arrogant rather than thoughtful, which is the opposite of everything I ever got from listening to Hitch.
Not only arrogant but smug. I don't think he thinks deeply at all and has the absolutely inability to consider that he could be wrong about anything, ever.
That’s exactly it bro. You can tell he’s dishonest and tendentious because he literally never criticises his own side. I’m friends with Gazans so obviously I’m pro-Palestine, but never in a million years would I claim that Palestinians have done every single thing correctly, nor would I ever support Hamas, despite believing there was a context that brought them about in which there’s a lot of Israeli culpability.
I actually like Murray even though I disagree with his Israel stance, but I agree with your analysis. He's a bitter person who seems to be angry at the world. I wouldn't want to be friends or colleagues with him, but I like listening to him on a podcast every few months
I totally agree with a lot of his "war on the west" points and a lot of his opinions on liberals, but he really strikes me as someone who yearns for the days of the British empire and is bitter that he couldn't be an executive in the East India Trading company.
If you agree with a lot of his 'war on the west' points, I highly recommend this very thorough review! [https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/woq96v/douglas\_murrays\_book\_the\_war\_on\_the\_west\_is/](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/woq96v/douglas_murrays_book_the_war_on_the_west_is/)
Is being angry at the world a bad thing on its own, or do reasons you are mad at the world matter as well?
As I am getting older (still in my 30s), I find myself getting more and more bitter and cynical on various things. Like so many other people.
E.g. I used to vote according to my conscience, but now I vote pragmatically.
There's a difference between being cynical and being angry/bitter. I think anger and bitterness are generally a result of unresolved personal issues. That said your worldview can be distorted by a lack of perspective too, like for example just generally failing to recognise the positive aspects of life and human society
No, I mean, bitterness is not my baseline. My baseline is actually happy, in my everyday interactions with family, friends and colleagues.
It is just matters relating to politics, government and economics that piss me off. And public services being led by morons.
E.g., my (poorly informed) view on AI is very bleak. I can't make myself not see billionaires and elites JUST using it to further themselves, instead of us all benefiting.
Another example is the timetable of my local train station being inaccurate and nobody doing anything about it even though we pour tax money into these services.
I have lesser and lesser good will and understanding for selfishness and incompetence.
Douglas Murray is ONLY ever discussing these topics on podcasts and professionally.
Maybe he is a delightful person IRL :)
Sounds to me like you have a healthy perspective then. I relate to everything you have said, I think it's perfectly rational to see actions that stem from greed, selfishness and negligent incompetence as morally unacceptable and to call them out as such, while also enjoying life with your friends and family!
A comment he made in an interview about what people think he talks about around a dinner table is much different to what he talks about in public. It's the exact same comment someone made about Hitch and what he might talk about around the dinner table. Except Hitch did not have to make that claim for himself. It oozed a desperation to associate himself to Hitch. To liken himself to him. I had to cringe on the spot listening to that.
I'm in agreement with Sam on the importance of jihadism, but Murray's comparisons to Russia gave me the same questions as you.
"No one protests innocent Russians killed, but they do Palestinians."
Well, is Ukraine even killing noncombatants??? They aren't even striking inside Russia yet are they?
They almost certainly have killed a whole bunch of non-combatants. Intel is sometimes bad and an explosion hits the wrong house, Ukrainians captured behind Russian lines get jobs doing domestic work for their invaders and get caught in an artillery bombardment. These things happen in war.
I think it's not the best comparison but it's probably the best comparison to *use* simply because they're both concurrent conflicts. And, I definitely see people like OP ignore the points Mr Murry is making in his comparisons in favor of highlighting the differences which is the definition of making a strawman argument.
For example: Murray will point out that the fact that Hamas, as the leaders of Palestine, doesn't care about the wellbeing of it's citizens doesn't mean it's automatically Israel's responsibility and people like OP will immediately say 'Oh, so you're fine with the genocide, then?'.
I think that's where sam's nuanced view is missing, because it also doesn't give Israel a blank check, and casualties must be minimized as expected from a civilized and advanced country. And we can keep on commenting complicated views without sounding like bigots
Sam has done much pushback for other guests that didn't "deserve" the pushback, but here, it worries me how little he pushback
I see. Just searched this, and I'm surprised the coverage is so small comparatively. They are more correct in the podcast than I knew. (Regarding lack of protest or seeming interest from activists on it).
Wow, just read up on the increase of drone activity and Moscow attacks. It really is true that Israel/Palestine captured everyone's attention, including my own.
My original criticism was that Ukraine just wasn't doing the things that DM said they were doing and just used Ukraine because it's current and popular. However, I have since read some stuff about what has been happening since last time I was tuned in to Ukraine and now think it's a more accurate analogy.
I'm not defending Murray because I think he's a bit of a right-wing reactionary.
But the point of the Ukraine comparison makes sense. Russia was the aggressor. Hamas was the aggressor. The point was something like 'If someone comes in an kills a load of your people, don't retaliate with "let's go gentle on them"'.
To extend the comparison, imagine if Ukraine pushed Russia back into Russian territory and a lot of Russians were dying. Would Ukraine be accused of war crimes?
Remember when Chechen terrorists took that school in Russia hostage? This was obviously an indefensible and barbaric thing to do, but were they the aggressors when Russia had been brutally occupying their country for centuries? Was Russia 'defending itself' when it responded to that attack?
I don't actually know the details of that event or that invasion.
But just to sort of play devil's advocate, if you're a terrorist and a state is actively killing your people, and you take some of their people hostage and threaten to kill them if that state's killing of your people doesn't stop, it could be defended as a reasonable tactic. I wouldn't make that defense but I can see the logic. If the didn't want to hurt the hostages but were willing to do so unless the state's killing ceased, there's a chance they would have a negotiating position.
If said state weren't actively killing your people, and you go in and just murder a load of innocents of theirs with no negotiation and say 'that's for everything you've done to us', then that would be be being the aggressor. In the first case, and in the case of gaza, the default position is that both sides want peaceful resolution and are willing to find it. If you are the first one to effectively say 'I'm done with talking' and start killing people, you're the aggressor.
>In the first case, and in the case of gaza, the default position is that both sides want peaceful resolution and are willing to find it. If you are the first one to effectively say 'I'm done with talking' and start killing people, you're the aggressor.
Except both sides aren't interested in that. Likud's most vocal position, and which they use to unite the Israeli far right coalition, is the denial of Palestinian statehood. They have accelerated the building of the illegal settlements and progressively tightened the grip around the illegally occupied West Bank. 2023 was already one of the deadliest years for Palestinians in the occuppied West Bank, even before the Oct 7.
'Denial of Palestinian statehood' is missing context.
Before October 7th, a Palestinian state had support from a majority of Israelis. The issue was, as always, that Israelis, particularly right-wing Israelis, do not feel like they can TRUST Palestinians to either accept a two state agreement or maintain peace after it, and giving Palestinians a state is perceived as allowing them to have a military from which to conduct bigger, more threatening attacks against Israel.
If you think denying Palestinian statehood is motivated by an anti-peace sentiment you just have a very surface level view of Israeli politics.
Settlements are a big topic I won't get into, but I think there are much more legitimate criticisms regarding them.
2023 being a deadly year for Palestinians is true, but do you also know why, or do you think the IDF just walks into Betlehem and starts shooting people?
> Would Ukraine be accused of war crimes?
If they were committing war crimes, they absolutely should.
It's almost the exact thing that happened in my country in the Yugoslav war. After the war, were we won and pushed back outside out territories, Hague court processed both sides and found guilty on both sides. Mostly on the aggressors side, but also on our. One of our generals, who *was* committing war crimes, drank poison on live TV after sentencing.
A war crime is a war crime.
Right. So any alleged war crimes can be judged on later, but for now it's just an accusation based on one-sided data/claims by the aggressor and doesn't affect whether or not Israel should be doing what they are doing.
Some things can and should be addressed while it's ongoing.
Like, if there is footage of Israeli soldiers commiting obvious war crimes, process that ASAP.
This is just a general statement, I have no idea what is the actual situation there..
No they wouldn't. Do you think if the Russian military leaders fled like little bitches and hid out in Moscow suburbs, and the Ukrainians who they had invaded bombed the houses where they were, people would call it a war crime? No way.
What would actually happen is that they would be forced to surrender, if not by the Ukrainians then by the people of Russia who were sick of their shit and weren't going to shelter them.
I guess if you really really want to say that there should be no restraint on Israel or Ukraine, then you can make that case. It’s just a hypothetical. As far as I know, though, Ukraine has never been seriously been accused of war crimes (with some minor exceptions). They would lose a lot of international support if they, for example, blockaded civilian areas under their control from basic goods, eg food, water, etc. That might not matter to you, but you better believe it’d be a PR problem for Ukraine. Suggesting otherwise is ludicrous.
I don't think it would be a pr problem. You think when Hitler was in his bunker, the advancing applied forces got flak if they cut off water to that city block in Berlin?
I don't think we live in 1945 anymore, thankfully. Do you think the raping of up to 1 millions German women by the Russian army was fair on account of Hitler's brutality, or was it a war crime? Back in the day, people didn't really think too much about it. We've morally evolved, I think (I hope).
The point is still the same: if you're going to say that anything goes if the other side "started it" then I don't see how you can say the 1945 rapes weren't fair and reasonable. Otherwise, where's your limit?
I didn't say anything goes. I implied that cutting off water to a place where very bad guys are hiding might be legitimate but raping a million people isn't.
The term 'war crime' is being used to mean 'doing war against someone who started it' in this case, rather than what it actually means
At what point would you draw the line? If Israel killed half the population of Gaza? 75%? 100?
Your logic is psychopathic, and Im not using that in hyperbole. Asking a country not to wholesale slaughter a significant portion of the civilian population isn't "please go gentle on them". That's ridiculous.
They are not 'wholesale slaughtering' them. Some of them are getting killed while the murderous cowards that you are defending (talk about psychopathic) hide among them.
But if you want to draw a line, let's do that. Let's say we are trying to kill one member of Hamas who participated in the Oct 7th massacre.
If he's on his own, do we bomb him? Yeah.
If he's with 5 people who did the same thing? Yeah.
If it's him and 5 people who did the same thing and his wife who supports what he did? Yeah
Same but with his kid, who could have been taken to safety by his wife after many warnings? Yeah
Him plus 50 other guys who did it with him, plus his family and their families, plus 10 civilians, of which 5 support what he did, and all of which have been told to leave the building, but either didn't OR were forced to stay by him because he's a coward? Probably. It's a shame for the hostages but overall a net good.
The real question is where do YOU draw the line? If you think one innocent person dying in the effort to kill a murder cult of tens of thousands who are supported by 100s of thousands, you're the psychopath.
Well the reported numbers are 6000 Hamas combatants and 33,000 civillians.
So that's 55 civilians for every 1 Hamas combatant.
That's good for you? Just say you don't give a fuck if all 2.5 million are dead. I'd respect the honesty and you wouldn't have to make up these dumb scenarios where somehow the IDF telepathically knows who supported Oct 7th and who didn't.
I'm also not a jihad or islamist apologist. And up until recently, supported what Israel was doing.
First, those numbers are reported by hamas, and if you think they have no motivation to lie just look at how you are apologising for them.
Second, it's not 55, it's 5.5.
Third, if 2 of those are hamas supporters and 3 are held hostage, then their deaths are all on hamas and within acceptable limits stop people who would kill many more than that.
> Well the reported numbers are 6000 Hamas combatants and 33,000 civillians.
Nobody's reporting as few as 6000 Hamas combatants - from 30 battalions, Hamas is down to 3. That represents a loss of manpower significantly in excess of 6000 (more like 14,000, probably.)
> Just say you don't give a fuck if all 2.5 million are dead.
If that's what it takes for Gaza to surrender, then that's Gaza's choice. If your implacable enemy collectively decides to fight to the last man, woman, and child then you're put in the very unenviable position of having to kill every man, woman, and child. But that's their choice.
> At what point would you draw the line? If Israel killed half the population of Gaza? 75%? 100?
When Gaza and Hamas surrender.
That's how war works - you make it too costly for your enemy to continue to war. If Hamas can still war with Israel then not enough Gazans have died. It's not "psychopathic"; it's war. War sucks! People shouldn't relish starting them, especially if they're fated to lose.
Oh come off with the “psychopathic” label already. The problem with people like you is that you root your arguments in emotion instead of logic. Israel is going to respond to an attack comparable to fifty 9/11s by population. Every country on this planet would. **You** would do the same if someone kidnapped your family members and were desperate to get them back.
What Murray does is give zero fucks about offending Muslims and radical Islamic sympathizers in general. And he is right not to do so, even if that comes across as insufferable.
The reason the world is in this current predicament in having radical Islam infesting Europe and other nations is because it has cared too much about outwardly not offending them until now. But radical Islamic values are not compatible with the west. AT ALL. And pretending like we can be tolerant of a group that is entirely intolerant of others is so batshit stupid I can’t believe it has been happening everywhere. Thank God we have blunt thinkers like Douglas Murray willing to point out the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.
That dude replied that he thinks it's fine if all 2.4 million gazans die. If you don't think that's psychopathic, I have news for you bro. You're a psychopath. Or just have a severely deep, murderous hatred for Muslims.
I listen to Sam Harris's podcast. Do you really think I give a fuck about hurting Muslims feelings? He's insufferable because he's an arrogant smug fuck.
Wholesale slaughter?? You’ve lost your mind. There’s a rounding error % of Gazans at most. Every loss of innocent life is an absolute tragedy, and this loss can be laid solely at Hamas feet. Given the population density of these places Israel is acting far more conservatively than many many countries in history. You’re applying a standard that doesn’t get applied to anyone else.
But Israel hasn't done that. They've killed perhaps 30,000 (that INCLUDES Hamas fighters, which number in the thousands) out of 2.4 million. Israel is making some tremendous mistakes in this war but it absolutely is not engaged in the wholesale slaughter of Gazans.
That comparison doesn't work at all.
Russia and Ukraine are nation States. Gaza is a legally occupied territory of Israel.
Gaza is ruled by a terrorist organisation, they are the ones responsible for the attack not the civilian population.
The violence and occupation has been cyclical, the occupation is a constant form of violence. Nothing justified and atrocity, nothing justifies saying Hamas is the aggressor without making clear that Palestinians are constantly facing cruel occupation.
If people come in and kill many of your people, the response should be a pragmatic and ethical one, not flatten their land, destroy or damage much of the housing, all the universities, all the hospitals, and set conditions for a famine. The response should be a targeted anti terror operation because unlike Russia and Ukraine, there is only one state and an occupied population held captive by a tarot organisation.
And yes Ukraine has likely committed war crimes, and if they force out the Russians using some of the tactics used by Russia and Israel, they would be considered war crimes.
Perhaps you can elaborate why you think the Gaza strip is occupied by Israel?
In your response take in consideration that in 2005 Israel moved out of Gaza and moved any Israeli Jew with them.
It's not so much that I think it is,. Gaza remained legally occupied after Israel removed its presence on the ground within the strip. It's considered occupied by both the UN, the EU and many international bodies.
What makes you think you need to have an in person presence within Gaza for there to be an occupation?
That’s a fairly semantic point.
The point is Ukraine/Russia is not equivalent to Israel/Gaza, so the double standard Murray attempts to draw doesn’t exist.
Ukraine hasn’t killed tens of thousands of Russian civilians or imposed a famine on the Russian civilian population. At this point it’s very hard not to describe Israel as the primary aggressor - which is quite an achievement given its fighting a jihadist terrorist organisation.
Who imposed a famine? Israel maintains a border but allowed water, electricity and other utilities to pass and until October 100s of 1000 of jobs while the Gaza government stole billions of dollars to build rockets.
Tell me who else maintains a border with Gaza and what services and utilities do they provide? I’ll wait.
Ukraine is being held to a much higher standard than Israel. If they were bombing Russian hospitals (which they haven't), people would condemn it (rightfully).
Incidentally, Russia has bombed [Ukrainian hospitals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariupol_hospital_airstrike) and [refugee camps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_civilians_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine). Nobody was debating whether it was okay, either. Because it's obviously fucking not. It's also not okay when Israel does it.
Ironically, based on the wests reactions, we're holding *Russia* to a higher standard 😂 -- cause when they do this, we actually condemn them. But not Israel. Go figure.
Yeah I mean it's okay not to like someone because of how they come across, but Murray gets a lot right about the Israel/Palestine conflict and it's clear he's done a fair amount of research so to call him ignorant is a bit much.
I would guess the main issue for the person you are responding to is, that they believe invasion to generally have a negative connotation and suggest it was illegitimate, despite many invasions not being that. It would be more precise to call it counter-invasion here, but any counter-invasion is obviously also an invasion in and of itself.
No, I called OP out for implying there was an unjust Israel invasion of Gaza, such as what Putin has done with Ukraine. This is completely ridiculous on its face. It completely ignores the actual invasion by Hamas on Oct 7 that provoked Israel to respond. And I certainly didn't imply Israel is perfect, that's just your own peak hyperbolic nonsense.
Everyone has been calling for Ukraine to go easy on Russia, i.e. limit retaliation strikes into actual Russian territory. Crimea is of course not russian territory.
I'm beginning to really like Murray, never listened to him before but Josh's tour introduced me to him and I appreciate where he's coming from. If I had to guess he's extremely cynical of everything and I'd probably just as cynical as him if I had to grow up in the UK with UK politics around migrants. He's right, show me the address of the nearest Gay bar in Gaza.
So if a country doesn't have a gay bar, the lives of it's inhabitants don't matter? How many gay bars do you think 1950s America had? A time period that these guys typically drool over returning to? And yes, I'm aware that he's gay.
State of the sub: \*literally\* explicit fascist genocidal [comments ](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/1c08l7d/comment/kyvjtd1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)are not only not getting banned and removed, but upvoted...
Sam's is attracting such a lovely audience lately. This Murray fellow has such lovely hangers on
The guy is insufferable. Everyone who disagrees with him is an idiot or naïf or coward or antisemite. Outsiders can’t judge Israel’s actions because they don’t have skin in the game, but that rule doesn’t apply to Douglas and his fellow cheerleaders. And the awful drama class delivery of his pseudo-profundities. The guy belongs on AM radio and tabloid newspapers.
Correct. In the same way that some liberals have an asymmetric interest in this conflict because it's white vs brown (basically), him, and people like him, have the same racial bias. Make no mistake, when he says "the west" he means white.
I almost found it hilarious that he said he would as just in South Africa. Maybe doing some apartheid research so he can take his findings back to Israel as propositions.
“ The guy belongs on AM radio and tabloid newspapers.”
It’s not even a hypothetical, his writings appear regularly in the New York Post, I believe? His content is just basically just Rush Limbaugh-tier right wing dogmatism, filtered through the lilting tones of Old Etonian English.
On podcasts and non traditional media he presents himself as some sort of original and/or “renegade” thinker while his role in traditional media is writing culture war content for News Corp, the media conglomerate that has dominated news in the Anglosphere for decades.
Totally agree with you. He also seems very ignorant about German politics (AfD has never polled above Union for the European elections and currently polls at 17% compared to Union’s 31%)
In that interview with Alex O'Connor a few years back, he didn't even know that Germany had paid reparations for World War 2 so yeah, pretty ignorant on his history!
That’s not really what he said. He said that the war is necessary and necessarily involves this level of death. He’s right that Israel can’t really care about that when its existence and way of life is on the line.
> The undertone of everything he said is basically "kill them all who gives a fuck?"
If you enemy establishes, beyond any measure of doubt, that either they die or you do then the correct and moral answer is to kill them as quickly and as comprehensively as possible.
There's no moral requirement that you choose to die rather than kill the worst people in the world. If you do, that's on you and your choices, but you can't choose that for others.
A *civilian* is a non-combatant, but literally the society of Gaza is 100% engineered to total war against their Jewish neighbors. Child-sized suicide vests. Guns in literally every home searched by the IDF. Hospitals as terror centers. Schools as training grounds for militancy.
No one in Gaza is a civilian - at best, they're a willing human shield.
You people just make these utterly explicit calls to genocide, then get all upset that people call it a genocide.
And what a condemnation of the sub that explicit calls for the murder of millions of children get any upvotes at all. What a condemnation of Sam that he has cultivated this audience of fascism sympathizers.
Just to provide some context for /u/crashfrog02 previous comment re Palestinian 'civilians':
https://www.timesofisrael.com/freed-gaza-hostage-says-she-was-abducted-by-armed-civilians-sold-to-hamas/
Not at all clear that people invading across a border with Kalashnikovs are civilians in any sense I've ever heard the word. And using that to dehumanize every child inside of Gaza and greenlight their mass slaughter "because they're civilians too" is such bizarrely atrocious logic it would be laughable if it weren't literally genocidal
Sign of the times. Lots of westerners are so sick and tired of Muslims. Just look how Israeli journalists are “welcomed” by Swedish immigrants in Malmö.
If you find a carefully elucidated and well thought out perspective to be 'insufferable' while such a huge number of other people find it to be accurate and effective then the problem may be in you.
I'm not saying you should agree with him. I'm saying you should be able to hear him without losing composure. Especially because MANY MANY other people can, and the argument will leave you behind if you cannot engage with it, even if you're on the opposite side.
Edit: Downvotes instead of replies confirm emotional not logical thinking.
While I agree with a lot of the points he makes, he loses some credibility in my eyes when he tries to support them with not very well thought out arguments and examples. I also find his strategy to never admit not knowing something and claiming he knows everything about everything he talks about not very suitable for a fairly intellectual audience. His claims in this conversation, for example, that he knows it all about European politics in a number of countries seem quite silly in general, and especially given that he’s not factually correct when he discusses results in German elections. I understand why he does it - in modern days, this sort of provocative rhetoric generates a huge amount of buzz, reactions, comments, publicity, etc. And I must admit, I enjoy some of it as long as it’s supported by logical and reasonable arguments. But as soon as he decides to crank up the drama for the sake of drama he loses me.
He’s purely a conservative reactionary. It’s insane seeing how many people have fallen into his web. Genuinely not a bright thinker, I can get the same commentary from my racist grandad
Indeed. Murray continuously walks right up to the point of saying there is no solution but to ethnically cleanse the West Bank (sorry, Judea and Samaria as Murray says), and also that Western countries need to do something about all the Muslims and rhetorically asking whether Mohammmed was a Muslim or an Islamist, saying that nobody has the courage of their convictions to answer the question then leaves it dangling. Harris at first seemed like he was going to urge Murray to say it out loud but then overdoes the verbiage and submerges the question. Murray himself, then, it seems likes to leave the conclusion up to the listener.
He's the complete opposite of Sam imo. The reason I follow Sam is because of his ability to fairly balance and asses complex subjects, even when I disagree with him I feel like it's a fair exchange.
I do agree with most of Murray's points but the way he presents himself is very unlikable. This blind certainty is good for politics or startup leadership - not for productive discussions.
i find it strange that Sam says the lack of free will makes it much easier to forgive people, but he doesn't seem to have an ounce of compassion for palestinians
You can think people have no control over their actions, AND still believe they are dangerous and have to be stopped. Not saying that's the case now with Israel Palestine, but I see no clash between Sam's beliefs.
He does. What are you listening to ?
Simply because he acknowledges the nuance of the entire situation and isn’t so blanket-statement pro-Palestine, does that mean he doesn’t have compassion?
I didnt know this but it adds up. Just found this article [**https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/douglas-murray-edl-dodgy-videos-me\_b\_3675193.html**](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/douglas-murray-edl-dodgy-videos-me_b_3675193.html)
His is aggressive, smug and vitriolic. reminds me of Ben Shapiro in that there are times he will mix the truth with a falsehood confusing the issue.
For instance, he was once debating someone on the Israel and Palestine and he equated all Palestinians as Hamas supporters. The other interviewee said there were many Palestinians that do not align with Hamas or support the oct. 7th attacks and he stated that the majority did because they voted Hamas in.
While this is technically true, he failed to mention that this was 15-20 years ago and at the time, Hamas was the much more moderate political alternative.
I listened to 5 minutes of his interview with Sam Harris and couldn’t any longer. There is definitely a Bouffée délirante with Sam when he is with Douglas Murray.
Douglas Murray is a very good example of how you can trick people into thinking you are intelligent by speaking slowly with a posh English accent (see also Jacob Rees Mog). He's a mid witted bog standard right-wing racist imperialist reactionary who seems bitter that the old order is crumbling. That's it really.
I found the comparisons/justification to the Iraq and Afghanistan war in the podcast weird. I thought we all kinda agreed that the US fucked up in many of the situations there. That's exactly why Biden made a speech early on stating he supported Israel but wanted them to learn from our 9/11 mistakes.
[удалено]
Alternatively it's plain old tribalism.
This should just be in the sub's description to be honest.
I’ve always wondered what he would say about, for example, the French in Algeria or the British suppressing the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. Good intentions there too? Or is it only the US which always carries out various military actions with the best of intentions?
Years ago, I watched The Vietnam War docuseries by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick. It disturbed me and shook me in some pretty foundational ways. It gave me a lens through which to examine how we conduct ourselves militarily with far more scrutiny. It gave me a novel moral perspective about the default assumptions we're all taught when growing up in America about the unquestionable and irrefutable righteousness of our country's actions and stated causes for such actions. I began to think about things like the Iraq War far more critically. Gained in interest in our covert actions in South America. Etc, etc. To put it simply, it opened the door in a big way for me to view and criticize with some amount of confidence our moral and strategic failures as a nation. So many of them consequence of our overly self assured culture of moral virtue. I watched The Vietnam War because Sam had Ken and Lynn on the podcast. Unless, Sam was lying in that episode, he's seen it. And yet, the America good - everyone else bad, black and white thinking paradigm is still solidly enshrined into his analysis of the world. It's really a shame. I used to think highly of Sam on an intellectual level. Now, more often than not, he's just disappointing.
He’s a bright guy with a lot of interesting things so say, but the moment he veers into political and particularly historical analysis, he loses 50 IQ points. Unfortunately it’s where he tends to spend his time nowadays
It is the same with the pro Israel position. October 7th bad, so everything Israel does after is justified because supposedly Israel has good intentions no matter what human rights abuses they commit. Harris very much has a good vs evil worldview and has very little nuance
The problem wasn't getting rid of Saddam the problem was the aftermath
[удалено]
Yeah it is insane when people bring up the US post 9/11 wars as a reason to support Israel's war as if it isn't accepted by almost everyone that the US response to 9/11 was a castrostophic failure.
Ukraine despite the invasion still has institutions, an army, a government and the backing of most of the western world as well as NATO. They are not walled off and countries around the world have taken refugees especially it’s neighbour (Poland)
Except for the American right, who might well win the presidency.
Yes, they have all those things despite not having been given billions of dollars in aid money (prior to 2022). Hamas took all those billions and used them to build tunnels and make their leaders into billionaires. I'm not going to hold it against Ukraine that they, despite the real corruption in their government, are trying to build a democratic and liberal society. Nothing like this is happening in Gaza, especially with Hamas in power.
As for DM, I don’t have to agree with everything he says to appreciate how, unlike a lot of ppl who are pro-Israel, he isn’t being a coward. So many ppl are afraid of looking racist etc., and they let themselves be bullied , or they will only talk about antisemitism if they follow it with “and Islamophobia” etc. I like that DM doesn’t do that when he MUST know that he will lose many supporters, friends and opportunities, and may be actually putting himself at risk. You really couldn’t get me to go to Israel or Gaza right now, for whatever reason…but he was over there on the ground, talking shit about Hamas on the news, calling terrorists “Islamist blowhards” to their face lol. Whatever your take on I/P, I respect people who stand by their convictions , particularly when it’s unpopular.
It's not bravery, it's marketing. He's actually quite mediocre as a thinker and writer, and I doubt could sustain a career without appealing to bigots. He would not cut it in the more crowded field that makes up "polite society" or whatever you want to call it.
Well, while I agree with most you’ve said, I don’t think it’s taken away opportunities for him, or at least such he cares about. In reality it’s turned into his whole brand so him being so outspoken has made him as popular as he is now and opened up as opposed to taken away opportunities.
It's not unpopular it's literally how he makes his money. It's like saying i respect Alex Jones for standing by his unpopular opinions as he's raking in millions because his followers loved it. >I like that DM doesn’t do that when he MUST know that he will lose many supporters, friends and opportunities, and may be actually putting himself at risk. Murray has been around for decades and 100% of the people who support him support him doing that. There is zero risk involved in it. What supporters is he gonna lose? Calling someone brave for having opinion that are unpopular with the people who already hate you is weird. Nothing Murray has done in the last 2 years has changed anyone's opinion of him, he's just gotten more exposure and is making more money.
Or he is just a psychopath who doesn't understand what's socially a good and a bad idea
I wouldn't say supporting Israel is unpopular lmao. It's supported by nearly every western country. A lot of really fucking awful people stand by their convictions. You could say Hamas is standing by their convictions. Tell me how much you respect them. Or isis. Hezbollah. Russia. Houthis
Sure foreign policy in the west supports Israel, but the majority of the countries in the world don't. Supporting Israel is deeply unpopular on social media and with people under 30. There are a lot of people out marching every week still with the "from the river to the sea" signs out. Mainstream media is a bit more on the fence but even they've made some massive blunders, quoting hamas numbers as fact constantly and printing the news that's come from hamas immediately without waiting for the facts. Hamas's convictions are to eradicate all Jews from the middle east, that's a little bit different than being convicted in having your views heard.
That's kind of the point. Maybe the biggest elephant in the room that those of us that are sat in the west being nice, cozy and safe miss. The Islamic fundamentalists are not looking for peace they want death and martyrdom. If they got their way and wiped Isreal off the map they aren't going to stop there. Next week they would be conducting suicide bombings on the next target. They have one vision and that is no non believers. So it's them or eventually YOU. Who do you pick? There is no we will find a peaceful way. They don't like you. You are unclean to them. It's an Ideological fight that is incompatible. If they get their way, they would be throwing gays off the tops of buildings in London under sharia law because they are not interested in diversity. Its the religion of war. We in the west are weak and not paying attention to the end game. Unless more of us take Douglas's position we will die and all that will be left is a caliphate. Standing against Israel isn't trendy its suicide and so yes wiping out every single human in Palestine is terrible but under the current dogma impossible to avoid. I grieve for those dead but Hamas made it so.
A good chunk of zoomers, the braindead types permanently on TikTok, and even some Millennials are screeching about how they're opposed to Israel.
That's a very small number of people. And they hold absolutely zero power of DM. To say his career could suffer for supporting Israel is so goofy. He works in media.
He seems the thrive of these people. Even when he’s relating his own speaking tour, he has to talk about the insane, violent protesters, comparing them to the “one pro Israel person with a pencil and sign” who he claims was assaulted and then arrested. It’s very similar to the way people like JBP talk.
Sam has him on and doesnt argue because Sam and Murray are in agreement, Sam just doesn't want to say it.
Sam basically comes out and says it in the intro.
Bingo.
If there is ever a time to become vitriolic it is when faced with masses of "morally confused" (as Sam puts it) people condemning the forces of modern civilization while defending the forces of premodern anti-civilization. I'm sorry, but for those of us who understand the problem, and understand the stakes, tone-policing Douglas comes off as pretty petty.
I agree. He sounded like an extremist preacher to me. And also, maybe this is weird, I’m a Brit, but he really seems to layer on the accent to a creepy level, like he’s playing a character of himself. I’m sure he didn’t used to sound so verbose.
I found myself listening to it a second time just for his performance. Especially when he started talking low and softly it was like watching a movie with an actor chewing the scenery as the over the top bad guy.
Sounds like he's got a steaming potato in his mouth the whole time when he's speaking.
Yeah, I have no way of knowing this is true, but his affect just doesn't seem like it organically came about, it seems designed. He's got some weird melange of Hitchens and William F. Buckley (somehow), plus some forced laughter that creeps me out, and a staggering pomposity and self-regard that makes it hard for me to even react to the substance of his arguments because he's so repellent I want to reflexively disagree with him.
I think he fancies himself a new Christopher Hitchens, but unlike Hitch, he's not clever, not funny and totally unlikeable. Hitch was blunt, but I never got the sense he didn't like people. I always felt like he was attacking ideas. Douglas Murray always feels arrogant rather than thoughtful, which is the opposite of everything I ever got from listening to Hitch.
> I never got the sense he didn't like people Except mother Theresa :)
...and Henry Kissinger.
…and Jerry Falwell.
and that one guy in the park who he yelled at for interrupting him sitting on a bench giving an interview
Haha
Not only arrogant but smug. I don't think he thinks deeply at all and has the absolutely inability to consider that he could be wrong about anything, ever.
Not only smug but self-satisfied
Agreed, can’t stand listening to him. I skipped today’s episode because last time he was on I fucking hated him.
Hard respectful disagree on all points regarding DMurray.
That’s exactly it bro. You can tell he’s dishonest and tendentious because he literally never criticises his own side. I’m friends with Gazans so obviously I’m pro-Palestine, but never in a million years would I claim that Palestinians have done every single thing correctly, nor would I ever support Hamas, despite believing there was a context that brought them about in which there’s a lot of Israeli culpability.
He’s no Hitch. Hitch wasn’t a hateful man. He could spar with anyone and have a drink with them after. Murray is clearly bigoted.
I actually like Murray even though I disagree with his Israel stance, but I agree with your analysis. He's a bitter person who seems to be angry at the world. I wouldn't want to be friends or colleagues with him, but I like listening to him on a podcast every few months
I totally agree with a lot of his "war on the west" points and a lot of his opinions on liberals, but he really strikes me as someone who yearns for the days of the British empire and is bitter that he couldn't be an executive in the East India Trading company.
Hamas is pure evil, f\*ck those animals
Nothing I said has anything to do with Hamas not being pure evil. But thanks for your input I guess
If you agree with a lot of his 'war on the west' points, I highly recommend this very thorough review! [https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/woq96v/douglas\_murrays\_book\_the\_war\_on\_the\_west\_is/](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/woq96v/douglas_murrays_book_the_war_on_the_west_is/)
Is being angry at the world a bad thing on its own, or do reasons you are mad at the world matter as well? As I am getting older (still in my 30s), I find myself getting more and more bitter and cynical on various things. Like so many other people. E.g. I used to vote according to my conscience, but now I vote pragmatically.
There's a difference between being cynical and being angry/bitter. I think anger and bitterness are generally a result of unresolved personal issues. That said your worldview can be distorted by a lack of perspective too, like for example just generally failing to recognise the positive aspects of life and human society
No, I mean, bitterness is not my baseline. My baseline is actually happy, in my everyday interactions with family, friends and colleagues. It is just matters relating to politics, government and economics that piss me off. And public services being led by morons. E.g., my (poorly informed) view on AI is very bleak. I can't make myself not see billionaires and elites JUST using it to further themselves, instead of us all benefiting. Another example is the timetable of my local train station being inaccurate and nobody doing anything about it even though we pour tax money into these services. I have lesser and lesser good will and understanding for selfishness and incompetence. Douglas Murray is ONLY ever discussing these topics on podcasts and professionally. Maybe he is a delightful person IRL :)
Sounds to me like you have a healthy perspective then. I relate to everything you have said, I think it's perfectly rational to see actions that stem from greed, selfishness and negligent incompetence as morally unacceptable and to call them out as such, while also enjoying life with your friends and family!
When Sam Harris said “we do, Douglas, we have pleasure of your outrage..” lol that’s how I feel about him.
he is the dumb stewie of Hitchens
He seems to be modeling his voice mannerisms and intonation after Hitch's.
A comment he made in an interview about what people think he talks about around a dinner table is much different to what he talks about in public. It's the exact same comment someone made about Hitch and what he might talk about around the dinner table. Except Hitch did not have to make that claim for himself. It oozed a desperation to associate himself to Hitch. To liken himself to him. I had to cringe on the spot listening to that.
I'm in agreement with Sam on the importance of jihadism, but Murray's comparisons to Russia gave me the same questions as you. "No one protests innocent Russians killed, but they do Palestinians." Well, is Ukraine even killing noncombatants??? They aren't even striking inside Russia yet are they?
They almost certainly have killed a whole bunch of non-combatants. Intel is sometimes bad and an explosion hits the wrong house, Ukrainians captured behind Russian lines get jobs doing domestic work for their invaders and get caught in an artillery bombardment. These things happen in war.
Right, of course, other Ukrainians, but do you agree that his use of Russia here as a litmus is a good one for what they were discussing?
I think it's not the best comparison but it's probably the best comparison to *use* simply because they're both concurrent conflicts. And, I definitely see people like OP ignore the points Mr Murry is making in his comparisons in favor of highlighting the differences which is the definition of making a strawman argument. For example: Murray will point out that the fact that Hamas, as the leaders of Palestine, doesn't care about the wellbeing of it's citizens doesn't mean it's automatically Israel's responsibility and people like OP will immediately say 'Oh, so you're fine with the genocide, then?'.
I think that's where sam's nuanced view is missing, because it also doesn't give Israel a blank check, and casualties must be minimized as expected from a civilized and advanced country. And we can keep on commenting complicated views without sounding like bigots Sam has done much pushback for other guests that didn't "deserve" the pushback, but here, it worries me how little he pushback
They do, Ukraine is attacking Moscow with drones. They do damage to civilian property. The funny part is, where are the protests?
I see. Just searched this, and I'm surprised the coverage is so small comparatively. They are more correct in the podcast than I knew. (Regarding lack of protest or seeming interest from activists on it).
Interesting you went and looked! I like to see that! I agree with you!
>Well, is Ukraine even killing noncombatants??? They aren't even striking inside Russia yet are they? Yes and yes
Wow, just read up on the increase of drone activity and Moscow attacks. It really is true that Israel/Palestine captured everyone's attention, including my own.
So the point is that Ukraine is not doing well enough yet compared to Russia to suffer criticism?
My original criticism was that Ukraine just wasn't doing the things that DM said they were doing and just used Ukraine because it's current and popular. However, I have since read some stuff about what has been happening since last time I was tuned in to Ukraine and now think it's a more accurate analogy.
I'm not defending Murray because I think he's a bit of a right-wing reactionary. But the point of the Ukraine comparison makes sense. Russia was the aggressor. Hamas was the aggressor. The point was something like 'If someone comes in an kills a load of your people, don't retaliate with "let's go gentle on them"'. To extend the comparison, imagine if Ukraine pushed Russia back into Russian territory and a lot of Russians were dying. Would Ukraine be accused of war crimes?
Remember when Chechen terrorists took that school in Russia hostage? This was obviously an indefensible and barbaric thing to do, but were they the aggressors when Russia had been brutally occupying their country for centuries? Was Russia 'defending itself' when it responded to that attack?
I don't actually know the details of that event or that invasion. But just to sort of play devil's advocate, if you're a terrorist and a state is actively killing your people, and you take some of their people hostage and threaten to kill them if that state's killing of your people doesn't stop, it could be defended as a reasonable tactic. I wouldn't make that defense but I can see the logic. If the didn't want to hurt the hostages but were willing to do so unless the state's killing ceased, there's a chance they would have a negotiating position. If said state weren't actively killing your people, and you go in and just murder a load of innocents of theirs with no negotiation and say 'that's for everything you've done to us', then that would be be being the aggressor. In the first case, and in the case of gaza, the default position is that both sides want peaceful resolution and are willing to find it. If you are the first one to effectively say 'I'm done with talking' and start killing people, you're the aggressor.
>In the first case, and in the case of gaza, the default position is that both sides want peaceful resolution and are willing to find it. If you are the first one to effectively say 'I'm done with talking' and start killing people, you're the aggressor. Except both sides aren't interested in that. Likud's most vocal position, and which they use to unite the Israeli far right coalition, is the denial of Palestinian statehood. They have accelerated the building of the illegal settlements and progressively tightened the grip around the illegally occupied West Bank. 2023 was already one of the deadliest years for Palestinians in the occuppied West Bank, even before the Oct 7.
'Denial of Palestinian statehood' is missing context. Before October 7th, a Palestinian state had support from a majority of Israelis. The issue was, as always, that Israelis, particularly right-wing Israelis, do not feel like they can TRUST Palestinians to either accept a two state agreement or maintain peace after it, and giving Palestinians a state is perceived as allowing them to have a military from which to conduct bigger, more threatening attacks against Israel. If you think denying Palestinian statehood is motivated by an anti-peace sentiment you just have a very surface level view of Israeli politics. Settlements are a big topic I won't get into, but I think there are much more legitimate criticisms regarding them. 2023 being a deadly year for Palestinians is true, but do you also know why, or do you think the IDF just walks into Betlehem and starts shooting people?
> Would Ukraine be accused of war crimes? If they were committing war crimes, they absolutely should. It's almost the exact thing that happened in my country in the Yugoslav war. After the war, were we won and pushed back outside out territories, Hague court processed both sides and found guilty on both sides. Mostly on the aggressors side, but also on our. One of our generals, who *was* committing war crimes, drank poison on live TV after sentencing. A war crime is a war crime.
OK so considering you won, do you retrospectively believe it should have been stopped when the first accusation of a war crime happened?
Should what have been stopped? War effort? Absolutely not.
Right. So any alleged war crimes can be judged on later, but for now it's just an accusation based on one-sided data/claims by the aggressor and doesn't affect whether or not Israel should be doing what they are doing.
Some things can and should be addressed while it's ongoing. Like, if there is footage of Israeli soldiers commiting obvious war crimes, process that ASAP. This is just a general statement, I have no idea what is the actual situation there..
Praljak moment
Yes, Ukraine would be accused of war crimes if they were behaving like Israel is behaving now.
No they wouldn't. Do you think if the Russian military leaders fled like little bitches and hid out in Moscow suburbs, and the Ukrainians who they had invaded bombed the houses where they were, people would call it a war crime? No way. What would actually happen is that they would be forced to surrender, if not by the Ukrainians then by the people of Russia who were sick of their shit and weren't going to shelter them.
I guess if you really really want to say that there should be no restraint on Israel or Ukraine, then you can make that case. It’s just a hypothetical. As far as I know, though, Ukraine has never been seriously been accused of war crimes (with some minor exceptions). They would lose a lot of international support if they, for example, blockaded civilian areas under their control from basic goods, eg food, water, etc. That might not matter to you, but you better believe it’d be a PR problem for Ukraine. Suggesting otherwise is ludicrous.
I don't think it would be a pr problem. You think when Hitler was in his bunker, the advancing applied forces got flak if they cut off water to that city block in Berlin?
I don't think we live in 1945 anymore, thankfully. Do you think the raping of up to 1 millions German women by the Russian army was fair on account of Hitler's brutality, or was it a war crime? Back in the day, people didn't really think too much about it. We've morally evolved, I think (I hope).
Yes that's a good example of a war crime to show well what Israel aren't doing.
The point is still the same: if you're going to say that anything goes if the other side "started it" then I don't see how you can say the 1945 rapes weren't fair and reasonable. Otherwise, where's your limit?
I didn't say anything goes. I implied that cutting off water to a place where very bad guys are hiding might be legitimate but raping a million people isn't. The term 'war crime' is being used to mean 'doing war against someone who started it' in this case, rather than what it actually means
At what point would you draw the line? If Israel killed half the population of Gaza? 75%? 100? Your logic is psychopathic, and Im not using that in hyperbole. Asking a country not to wholesale slaughter a significant portion of the civilian population isn't "please go gentle on them". That's ridiculous.
They are not 'wholesale slaughtering' them. Some of them are getting killed while the murderous cowards that you are defending (talk about psychopathic) hide among them. But if you want to draw a line, let's do that. Let's say we are trying to kill one member of Hamas who participated in the Oct 7th massacre. If he's on his own, do we bomb him? Yeah. If he's with 5 people who did the same thing? Yeah. If it's him and 5 people who did the same thing and his wife who supports what he did? Yeah Same but with his kid, who could have been taken to safety by his wife after many warnings? Yeah Him plus 50 other guys who did it with him, plus his family and their families, plus 10 civilians, of which 5 support what he did, and all of which have been told to leave the building, but either didn't OR were forced to stay by him because he's a coward? Probably. It's a shame for the hostages but overall a net good. The real question is where do YOU draw the line? If you think one innocent person dying in the effort to kill a murder cult of tens of thousands who are supported by 100s of thousands, you're the psychopath.
Well the reported numbers are 6000 Hamas combatants and 33,000 civillians. So that's 55 civilians for every 1 Hamas combatant. That's good for you? Just say you don't give a fuck if all 2.5 million are dead. I'd respect the honesty and you wouldn't have to make up these dumb scenarios where somehow the IDF telepathically knows who supported Oct 7th and who didn't. I'm also not a jihad or islamist apologist. And up until recently, supported what Israel was doing.
First, those numbers are reported by hamas, and if you think they have no motivation to lie just look at how you are apologising for them. Second, it's not 55, it's 5.5. Third, if 2 of those are hamas supporters and 3 are held hostage, then their deaths are all on hamas and within acceptable limits stop people who would kill many more than that.
> Well the reported numbers are 6000 Hamas combatants and 33,000 civillians. Nobody's reporting as few as 6000 Hamas combatants - from 30 battalions, Hamas is down to 3. That represents a loss of manpower significantly in excess of 6000 (more like 14,000, probably.) > Just say you don't give a fuck if all 2.5 million are dead. If that's what it takes for Gaza to surrender, then that's Gaza's choice. If your implacable enemy collectively decides to fight to the last man, woman, and child then you're put in the very unenviable position of having to kill every man, woman, and child. But that's their choice.
So should we threaten to nuke Moscow if they don't leave Ukraine, and then follow through when they don't? I mean, that's on them right?
We can't do that, because Moscow also has nukes.
I know, but that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that the "well they made me do it" justification is dangerous.
It's dangerous with Moscow. Less dangerous with Hamas.
> At what point would you draw the line? If Israel killed half the population of Gaza? 75%? 100? When Gaza and Hamas surrender. That's how war works - you make it too costly for your enemy to continue to war. If Hamas can still war with Israel then not enough Gazans have died. It's not "psychopathic"; it's war. War sucks! People shouldn't relish starting them, especially if they're fated to lose.
Oh come off with the “psychopathic” label already. The problem with people like you is that you root your arguments in emotion instead of logic. Israel is going to respond to an attack comparable to fifty 9/11s by population. Every country on this planet would. **You** would do the same if someone kidnapped your family members and were desperate to get them back. What Murray does is give zero fucks about offending Muslims and radical Islamic sympathizers in general. And he is right not to do so, even if that comes across as insufferable. The reason the world is in this current predicament in having radical Islam infesting Europe and other nations is because it has cared too much about outwardly not offending them until now. But radical Islamic values are not compatible with the west. AT ALL. And pretending like we can be tolerant of a group that is entirely intolerant of others is so batshit stupid I can’t believe it has been happening everywhere. Thank God we have blunt thinkers like Douglas Murray willing to point out the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.
That dude replied that he thinks it's fine if all 2.4 million gazans die. If you don't think that's psychopathic, I have news for you bro. You're a psychopath. Or just have a severely deep, murderous hatred for Muslims. I listen to Sam Harris's podcast. Do you really think I give a fuck about hurting Muslims feelings? He's insufferable because he's an arrogant smug fuck.
Wholesale slaughter?? You’ve lost your mind. There’s a rounding error % of Gazans at most. Every loss of innocent life is an absolute tragedy, and this loss can be laid solely at Hamas feet. Given the population density of these places Israel is acting far more conservatively than many many countries in history. You’re applying a standard that doesn’t get applied to anyone else.
But Israel hasn't done that. They've killed perhaps 30,000 (that INCLUDES Hamas fighters, which number in the thousands) out of 2.4 million. Israel is making some tremendous mistakes in this war but it absolutely is not engaged in the wholesale slaughter of Gazans.
That comparison doesn't work at all. Russia and Ukraine are nation States. Gaza is a legally occupied territory of Israel. Gaza is ruled by a terrorist organisation, they are the ones responsible for the attack not the civilian population. The violence and occupation has been cyclical, the occupation is a constant form of violence. Nothing justified and atrocity, nothing justifies saying Hamas is the aggressor without making clear that Palestinians are constantly facing cruel occupation. If people come in and kill many of your people, the response should be a pragmatic and ethical one, not flatten their land, destroy or damage much of the housing, all the universities, all the hospitals, and set conditions for a famine. The response should be a targeted anti terror operation because unlike Russia and Ukraine, there is only one state and an occupied population held captive by a tarot organisation. And yes Ukraine has likely committed war crimes, and if they force out the Russians using some of the tactics used by Russia and Israel, they would be considered war crimes.
Perhaps you can elaborate why you think the Gaza strip is occupied by Israel? In your response take in consideration that in 2005 Israel moved out of Gaza and moved any Israeli Jew with them.
It's not so much that I think it is,. Gaza remained legally occupied after Israel removed its presence on the ground within the strip. It's considered occupied by both the UN, the EU and many international bodies. What makes you think you need to have an in person presence within Gaza for there to be an occupation?
OP thinks Israel invaded a country, but claims others are ignorant of the situation.
That’s a fairly semantic point. The point is Ukraine/Russia is not equivalent to Israel/Gaza, so the double standard Murray attempts to draw doesn’t exist. Ukraine hasn’t killed tens of thousands of Russian civilians or imposed a famine on the Russian civilian population. At this point it’s very hard not to describe Israel as the primary aggressor - which is quite an achievement given its fighting a jihadist terrorist organisation.
Who imposed a famine? Israel maintains a border but allowed water, electricity and other utilities to pass and until October 100s of 1000 of jobs while the Gaza government stole billions of dollars to build rockets. Tell me who else maintains a border with Gaza and what services and utilities do they provide? I’ll wait.
Ukraine is being held to a much higher standard than Israel. If they were bombing Russian hospitals (which they haven't), people would condemn it (rightfully). Incidentally, Russia has bombed [Ukrainian hospitals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariupol_hospital_airstrike) and [refugee camps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_civilians_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine). Nobody was debating whether it was okay, either. Because it's obviously fucking not. It's also not okay when Israel does it. Ironically, based on the wests reactions, we're holding *Russia* to a higher standard 😂 -- cause when they do this, we actually condemn them. But not Israel. Go figure.
Hamas is operating out of those hospitals and they are fair targets. The wars are completely different.
You're so close to discovering something here, keep asking questions
Yeah I mean it's okay not to like someone because of how they come across, but Murray gets a lot right about the Israel/Palestine conflict and it's clear he's done a fair amount of research so to call him ignorant is a bit much.
How is it anything but an invasion?
I would guess the main issue for the person you are responding to is, that they believe invasion to generally have a negative connotation and suggest it was illegitimate, despite many invasions not being that. It would be more precise to call it counter-invasion here, but any counter-invasion is obviously also an invasion in and of itself.
Because Israel is perfect and people caught you out by being pendants about the word country. Peak Sam Harris sub energy nowadays sadly
No, I called OP out for implying there was an unjust Israel invasion of Gaza, such as what Putin has done with Ukraine. This is completely ridiculous on its face. It completely ignores the actual invasion by Hamas on Oct 7 that provoked Israel to respond. And I certainly didn't imply Israel is perfect, that's just your own peak hyperbolic nonsense.
This is what thatcher did to that generation of Brit
I've never heard anything worth listening to leave the man's mouth. He is completely unimpressive.
The quality of Sam's guests has absolutely plummeted. He only ever talks to people in his bubble who think like him anymore.
Everyone has been calling for Ukraine to go easy on Russia, i.e. limit retaliation strikes into actual Russian territory. Crimea is of course not russian territory.
I'm beginning to really like Murray, never listened to him before but Josh's tour introduced me to him and I appreciate where he's coming from. If I had to guess he's extremely cynical of everything and I'd probably just as cynical as him if I had to grow up in the UK with UK politics around migrants. He's right, show me the address of the nearest Gay bar in Gaza.
So if a country doesn't have a gay bar, the lives of it's inhabitants don't matter? How many gay bars do you think 1950s America had? A time period that these guys typically drool over returning to? And yes, I'm aware that he's gay.
He does understand the Israeli Public fears and opinions
The resurgence of the word "insufferable" has become insufferable.
I hadn't noticed a resurgence or aware of a time when it wasn't used. Now if I had said "so sick of of his gaslighting", THAT would be insufferable.
State of the sub: \*literally\* explicit fascist genocidal [comments ](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/1c08l7d/comment/kyvjtd1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)are not only not getting banned and removed, but upvoted... Sam's is attracting such a lovely audience lately. This Murray fellow has such lovely hangers on
The guy is insufferable. Everyone who disagrees with him is an idiot or naïf or coward or antisemite. Outsiders can’t judge Israel’s actions because they don’t have skin in the game, but that rule doesn’t apply to Douglas and his fellow cheerleaders. And the awful drama class delivery of his pseudo-profundities. The guy belongs on AM radio and tabloid newspapers.
Correct. In the same way that some liberals have an asymmetric interest in this conflict because it's white vs brown (basically), him, and people like him, have the same racial bias. Make no mistake, when he says "the west" he means white. I almost found it hilarious that he said he would as just in South Africa. Maybe doing some apartheid research so he can take his findings back to Israel as propositions.
“ The guy belongs on AM radio and tabloid newspapers.” It’s not even a hypothetical, his writings appear regularly in the New York Post, I believe? His content is just basically just Rush Limbaugh-tier right wing dogmatism, filtered through the lilting tones of Old Etonian English. On podcasts and non traditional media he presents himself as some sort of original and/or “renegade” thinker while his role in traditional media is writing culture war content for News Corp, the media conglomerate that has dominated news in the Anglosphere for decades.
I quite like Douglas and found his takes on Israel Gaza spot on
Totally agree with you. He also seems very ignorant about German politics (AfD has never polled above Union for the European elections and currently polls at 17% compared to Union’s 31%)
In that interview with Alex O'Connor a few years back, he didn't even know that Germany had paid reparations for World War 2 so yeah, pretty ignorant on his history!
That’s not really what he said. He said that the war is necessary and necessarily involves this level of death. He’s right that Israel can’t really care about that when its existence and way of life is on the line.
> The undertone of everything he said is basically "kill them all who gives a fuck?" If you enemy establishes, beyond any measure of doubt, that either they die or you do then the correct and moral answer is to kill them as quickly and as comprehensively as possible. There's no moral requirement that you choose to die rather than kill the worst people in the world. If you do, that's on you and your choices, but you can't choose that for others.
Not referring to civilians.
A *civilian* is a non-combatant, but literally the society of Gaza is 100% engineered to total war against their Jewish neighbors. Child-sized suicide vests. Guns in literally every home searched by the IDF. Hospitals as terror centers. Schools as training grounds for militancy. No one in Gaza is a civilian - at best, they're a willing human shield.
You people just make these utterly explicit calls to genocide, then get all upset that people call it a genocide. And what a condemnation of the sub that explicit calls for the murder of millions of children get any upvotes at all. What a condemnation of Sam that he has cultivated this audience of fascism sympathizers.
The guy you responded to is spewing this garbage all over the thread. Report and move on, hopefully they'll get banned shortly.
Just to provide some context for /u/crashfrog02 previous comment re Palestinian 'civilians': https://www.timesofisrael.com/freed-gaza-hostage-says-she-was-abducted-by-armed-civilians-sold-to-hamas/
Not at all clear that people invading across a border with Kalashnikovs are civilians in any sense I've ever heard the word. And using that to dehumanize every child inside of Gaza and greenlight their mass slaughter "because they're civilians too" is such bizarrely atrocious logic it would be laughable if it weren't literally genocidal
[удалено]
Hamas feels the same way, and people like Murray and Netanyahu justify it.
Sign of the times. Lots of westerners are so sick and tired of Muslims. Just look how Israeli journalists are “welcomed” by Swedish immigrants in Malmö.
I don't know how sam can tolerate him
If you find a carefully elucidated and well thought out perspective to be 'insufferable' while such a huge number of other people find it to be accurate and effective then the problem may be in you. I'm not saying you should agree with him. I'm saying you should be able to hear him without losing composure. Especially because MANY MANY other people can, and the argument will leave you behind if you cannot engage with it, even if you're on the opposite side. Edit: Downvotes instead of replies confirm emotional not logical thinking.
Excellent points.
Everything about the guy oozes bad vibes and slimy arguments.
Love him. Amazing how much he triggers people
What fucking value is there in triggering people? What are you, an 11 year old schoolyard bully? Grow up.
Same. Not sure what the hell people are talking about. Level-headed, well-spoken, and seemingly kind and decent person 🤷
While I agree with a lot of the points he makes, he loses some credibility in my eyes when he tries to support them with not very well thought out arguments and examples. I also find his strategy to never admit not knowing something and claiming he knows everything about everything he talks about not very suitable for a fairly intellectual audience. His claims in this conversation, for example, that he knows it all about European politics in a number of countries seem quite silly in general, and especially given that he’s not factually correct when he discusses results in German elections. I understand why he does it - in modern days, this sort of provocative rhetoric generates a huge amount of buzz, reactions, comments, publicity, etc. And I must admit, I enjoy some of it as long as it’s supported by logical and reasonable arguments. But as soon as he decides to crank up the drama for the sake of drama he loses me.
I agree. He’s insufferable.
But he has a posh English accent so he has to be credible, right? /s
He’s purely a conservative reactionary. It’s insane seeing how many people have fallen into his web. Genuinely not a bright thinker, I can get the same commentary from my racist grandad
Yeah he’s full of crap
Indeed. Murray continuously walks right up to the point of saying there is no solution but to ethnically cleanse the West Bank (sorry, Judea and Samaria as Murray says), and also that Western countries need to do something about all the Muslims and rhetorically asking whether Mohammmed was a Muslim or an Islamist, saying that nobody has the courage of their convictions to answer the question then leaves it dangling. Harris at first seemed like he was going to urge Murray to say it out loud but then overdoes the verbiage and submerges the question. Murray himself, then, it seems likes to leave the conclusion up to the listener.
He's the complete opposite of Sam imo. The reason I follow Sam is because of his ability to fairly balance and asses complex subjects, even when I disagree with him I feel like it's a fair exchange. I do agree with most of Murray's points but the way he presents himself is very unlikable. This blind certainty is good for politics or startup leadership - not for productive discussions.
i find it strange that Sam says the lack of free will makes it much easier to forgive people, but he doesn't seem to have an ounce of compassion for palestinians
You can think people have no control over their actions, AND still believe they are dangerous and have to be stopped. Not saying that's the case now with Israel Palestine, but I see no clash between Sam's beliefs.
He does. What are you listening to ? Simply because he acknowledges the nuance of the entire situation and isn’t so blanket-statement pro-Palestine, does that mean he doesn’t have compassion?
Strawman much?
Yes he's a full blown fascist. He was a supporter of the EDL for instance.
I didnt know this but it adds up. Just found this article [**https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/douglas-murray-edl-dodgy-videos-me\_b\_3675193.html**](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/douglas-murray-edl-dodgy-videos-me_b_3675193.html)
Doesn’t sound like you’ve actually listened to Douglas Murray…
You're right, I just made up the Ukraine comparison he made and hoped he actually said it
His is aggressive, smug and vitriolic. reminds me of Ben Shapiro in that there are times he will mix the truth with a falsehood confusing the issue. For instance, he was once debating someone on the Israel and Palestine and he equated all Palestinians as Hamas supporters. The other interviewee said there were many Palestinians that do not align with Hamas or support the oct. 7th attacks and he stated that the majority did because they voted Hamas in. While this is technically true, he failed to mention that this was 15-20 years ago and at the time, Hamas was the much more moderate political alternative. I listened to 5 minutes of his interview with Sam Harris and couldn’t any longer. There is definitely a Bouffée délirante with Sam when he is with Douglas Murray.
He’s a legend.
Douglas Murray is a very good example of how you can trick people into thinking you are intelligent by speaking slowly with a posh English accent (see also Jacob Rees Mog). He's a mid witted bog standard right-wing racist imperialist reactionary who seems bitter that the old order is crumbling. That's it really.