Last Neanderthals Podcast
Stories that shape futures. Last Neanderthals is a podcast dedicated to learning, evolving and becoming our best selves. Evolve with us!
Last Neanderthals Podcast
Trump’s Conviction, Media Narratives, and All Eyes On Rafah
Can a former president convicted on 34 felony counts still win a presidential election? We're tackling this explosive issue, exploring how Trump's legal troubles might shape his 2024 campaign and voter sentiment. We'll dissect the strategic use of the term "convicted felon" by his opponents and speculate on what this unprecedented situation means for America's global image. Plus, how will Trump's and Biden's pro-Israel stances influence their chances in the upcoming election?
Ever wondered how political narratives are crafted and controlled? We dive into the power of media, both social and mainstream, and scrutinize the U.S. government's stance on TikTok and freedom of speech. Contrasting American and Chinese narrative strategies, we highlight how cultural influence and economic power shape global perceptions. Through our discussion, we illuminate the often covert battle for narrative supremacy and its implications for democracy and independent thought.
Lastly, we turn our focus to the moral and ethical dilemmas sparked by the viral AI-generated "All Eyes on Rafah" image. We explore accusations of performative activism and emphasize the necessity of genuine support and peaceful resolutions. Through a series of thought-provoking comparisons, we call for consistent logic and empathy, condemning double standards in valuing human life and stressing the importance of diplomacy over violence. Listen in as we advocate for a broader understanding and long-term solutions for enduring peace.
Evolve With Us!
Last Neanderthals Socials
YouTube: Last Neanderthals Podcast
Instagram: @lastneanderthals
Twitter: @lstneanderthals
TikTok: @Lastneanderthals
Spotify: Last Neanderthals Podcast
Apple Podcasts: Last Neanderthals Podcast
Khushal’s Socials
Instagram: @khushal_yousafzai
LinkedIn: @khushal_yousafzai
Wali’s Socials:
Instagram: @walikhanah
So first of all, I think we should talk about Donald Trump, the man who has just been convicted of 34 felonies. That's a lot, I know, but it's basically all coming off. That one thing, all from that hush money payment. How have they?
Speaker 2:managed to get there.
Speaker 1:I don't know, it's probably different things like maybe corporation fraud, tax fraud, electoral fraud, all different types of things, I don't know Stuff like that all from one thing.
Speaker 2:So what do you think of that I?
Speaker 1:think. I don't like Trump, but it just seems like they're finding something to go after. Do you know what I mean? What do you think?
Speaker 2:I think so too. I think he's a favourite for the election because Biden is so incompetent, especially his pro-Israeli stance. He's extremely unpopular.
Speaker 1:Trump has the same stance, though. That's the thing. I think Donald trump is definitely the favorite, I think, for the election.
Speaker 2:The thing trump has the same stance, but he's not like because he's not been in a leadership role people haven't. He's in the like. He doesn't get like accountable because you know he's not the president. If it was the other way around, I trust me trump would be also.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but also I think it's more so because, uh, trump's voters don't really care like most uh people who vote for democrat, for the democratic party. A lot of them probably care about the issue and would want to side with palestine. However, republican voters are probably more likely to side with the conservatives, so for him it doesn't make a difference if he's pro-israel probably but I think, just biden being um pro-israel, I think it affects him a lot so he's not popular at all.
Speaker 2:So a lot of people what the what? Like the pbd guy, patrick bett davidson and I listened to their podcast. They were saying like they really like wanna basically make him unpopular as possible. Like he said that the narrative that they will be running with through this election election campaign convicted felon, and it was quite funny, they they had a very interesting uh. So this used, like you know, after it, when people tweet all the political opponents, they all use the word convicted felon and when, also, when trump gives a speech right and towards, towards the end, the first woman that asked a question she said said oh, why should people vote for a convicted felon?
Speaker 1:So they're going to be running the word convicted felon is going to be like you know, the thing is they've just cemented his place in the history books like even more than it already was. There's been very few presidents in America, but there's only been one president who then also got convicted as a criminal, and if he wins the election, then the next president of the united states could be a convicted felon.
Speaker 2:That's crazy that's crazy, you know. Yeah, that was my. I wanted to really ask you this question. I I forget america, everyone looking from outside, what are they?
Speaker 1:it's crazy, this is this is what's so interesting about it. Like if I was america, if I was like part of the system there, even if because the the charge does seem quite trivial, like the hush money payment, I wouldn't do it bro. I wouldn't convict him because not only is he an ex-president, he is also running for president again. So like, is it worth it? You know, if he had made the money through his own, paid the money through his own account, I don't think he would have been convicted. But it's actually because he paid it through his corporation that he got convicted.
Speaker 2:But to be devil's advocate. People will say, like whether he's going to be the president or not, no matter, like it doesn't matter. Law is the law. It was illegal it is true, it's a good point, but like it's a bit embarrassing for you if, if they're gonna play the crooked game and making like showing that america is the strongest country and we are like the superpower.
Speaker 1:yeah, it's not a good look, it's kind of to be fair, it does go like very well with the um, freedom and the democracy stuff because like not only did we convict a former president, but also a convicted president could become the next president, so even criminals can become Presidents. It's crazy.
Speaker 2:It can backfire If Trump wins right. Yeah, that narrative. That would be crazy. You can be a convicted felon and can become President. People will look at. I don't know people are already looking at. America is very divided and you know, not taking it as seriously. You see bricks doing their own thing. Everyone's like. You know we don't want to be under your rule anymore. I don't know man I think he's gonna.
Speaker 1:He's saying he's gonna appeal it but, like all the juries unanimously said, he was guilty. So I don't know how, how he's going to be successful in that, but if I was him, I wouldn't even appeal it. Bro, you go down in the history books, you still get to be president and you get remembered forever. But to be fair, it's not a good thing, it's not a good thing to be remembered whether positive or not?
Speaker 2:that's crazy. That's crazy. That's crazy, man. Another question that Not question concern the right wing were, you know, maybe rightfully so concerned About that. If Trump is still going to win and he's still the favourite in the polls Based on the predictions from, like you know, the not Republican, the Democrats right Like, say they know like Trump is going to win PBD and those guys were saying that there could be threat to Trump's life. Like, and also Tucker Carlson. He said like Trump should increase his security, he should double it. So because they think that they're trying to do anything possible, like, if they can stoop this low, how much lower can this, you know, go? Like you know, if he's gonna still win, regardless of him being a convicted felon, yeah, no, that doesn't wave their.
Speaker 1:That's an interesting point, but I think one thing to consider is, like how much is he actually against the system versus how much is he just against these like, uh, some particular people in powerful positions, like maybe a couple, like powerful judges or something like that, because I don't think he's like a jfk type of figure who's really going against the system or is going to make like some crazy type of change, like I don't know. I just don't see him as that type of guy. What is he doing that is so radically opposed to the american way of life or system for them to take that measure?
Speaker 2:yeah, I mean he is a bit like amran khan where he like he's got this narrative of beef, of being anti-establishment, but then when it actually comes to doing things against like that, like striking proper real action where you're making systematic changes, right I mean it can also still cause disruption if you're, if you're narrative, let's say you're speaking against the establishment and things of that nature. But if you like, if there is no systematic action towards it, then you're right. Like is he? Is he like he's not really a revolutionary is he?
Speaker 1:I don't can. Can american presidents serve more than yeah? They can't even serve more than two terms. So even if he wins this election, after four years he'll be gone, unless their concern is that he's gonna, like, turn america into an authoritarian state and that's why they need to get rid of him before he tries to take over as a dictator. But I don't know. Is that even? Is that possible, who knows?
Speaker 2:I don't know what the. I think the democrats are also very afraid of um, you know, being also becoming convicted felon after trump becomes in charge. I think they're more afraid of getting because because they tormented trump right while they've been in power.
Speaker 2:By the way, trump did the same thing. People forget that trump was no angel when he was in power. The amount of abuse he gave to the opposing side. He made a new trend of like populism and toxicity, where the more brash you are, the more insulting you are. You know so I don't know, man, it's, it's. You ask a very good question.
Speaker 1:What do you think? I don't know either, I don't think Was his last term really that different compared to prior presidents? Of course people will say he was a bad person, he was racist and all of that stuff, stuff. But was it so radically or like revolutionary that it would cause people to go to such extreme measures? I, I don't really think.
Speaker 2:I don't really think it was I mean, they you don't want um. Was there a? Yeah, he was impeached against him yeah, and then then people went to that. Um, and then people went to that what's that?
Speaker 1:building called what was it called. No, what was it called?
Speaker 2:Capitol building. I feel like that's from a film or something. But anyways, you know when they basically it was an attack on democracy. So I don't know, they might see him as just A fragile democracy. Maybe, I think't know, they might see him as just a fragile equity.
Speaker 1:Yeah maybe I think that could be the case, but then I don't see why these conservatives would support him in that case.
Speaker 2:And also their approach doesn't seem democratic either.
Speaker 1:Yeah, exactly, it'll be really interesting to see what happens, but I think he's definitely still the favourite for the election. But one of the interesting things is I wonder why he paid that hush money. Because there's been so many controversies about him, I don't see why that one thing would have derailed his election campaign so much. That one thing would have derailed his election campaign so much. That's like you, bro. The thing came out about those voice recordings. Around the same time came out about him saying they grabbed them by that. Yeah, yeah. So why? Why is this the thing where he was like, oh, I've got to draw the line there because I probably said such a vulgar, social, racist things and that's?
Speaker 2:I don't know yeah he got away with all of it and now he's becoming a convicted felon. He wasn't even in power. Everyone counted him out back then. Everyone did. No one expected him to win. It's interesting.
Speaker 1:It's interesting because him and Imran Khan's political rise is almost at the same time. Do you think the world is going more towards populist leaders like that?
Speaker 2:I think so. I think also with the rise of social media. I think it doesn't matter how much work you do. I think what matters is how much. It's all about marketing. It's all about marketing.
Speaker 2:It's all about narratives yeah, I think Trump's just got the narrative Like he wanted to end Obamacare. I don't think if that was a good decision. No one's speaking about that. You should be outraged If you're anyone Free health. If someone's against free healthcare, you seriously need to question those people. Even within uk, like privatizing nhs, like you know how many poor people yeah, it is crazy, I think.
Speaker 1:I think, um, I think those things about privatizing nhs. I don't know how much weight really was behind that. I don't know if it was actually happening or it was just like, uh, theories behind people, but that would be such a horrible thing to do. I don't know how any party who?
Speaker 2:was that would then get into power ever again this is why I didn't understand with trump, like in uk, right, like we would be like that would be an absurd thing where trump was actively trying to yeah, I think, I think it's because and I think that's where a lot of resentment came- yeah, I think it's because people saw a lot of problems with the obamacare thing like, uh, the way it was set up and everything, and also with with america.
Speaker 1:They don't really like in the uk. We have like quite a lot of socialist policies in america. They don't, they want to be like this all big capitalist country, everyone's out for themselves, basically, so it makes more sense. We're in the uk, we've been used to the nhs for like so many decades now that anyone who tries to get rid of that would be like a villain real life villain.
Speaker 2:Yeah, what do you think is future of america? Do you think it's going to remain united states united or do you think, um it's, it's the collapse of it?
Speaker 1:could be. It could be, it could be. I I think I think people have said this about amer America a lot of times throughout its history that, oh, it's going to collapse. Now this is it, but I don't know. I feel like, more so than ever before, this seems like America is in a bit of a weird state, because now you've got these BRICS nations separating from them, you've got countries that are not using the dollar anymore. You've got countries that are not using the dollar anymore. You've got what's going on with Israel and Palestine, where now Arab countries are going against America, european countries are going against their stance, and there's just so much uncertainty in their economy as well that it could possibly be.
Speaker 2:But again, it is unlikely, but I feel like it's more likely than it has ever been before yeah, and social media really exposes a lot of regimes not just America, many, many regimes, like the kind of horrible things that are taking place around the world, like like Sudan. We would not have heard about these things if it wasn't social media, and that's why I think the US has banned TikTok.
Speaker 1:I don't think they have yet, but they're working on it their work.
Speaker 2:Is it not completed?
Speaker 1:they gave them. They gave TikTok a thing saying like you either have to sell it or change your rules or you will get banned.
Speaker 2:I don't think it's banned yet, yeah well, that just goes to show it's all about narratives. You know, if america loses the narrative, I think they really know the cost of that.
Speaker 1:Like yeah, exactly matters. It really matters and that that's really important for the second thing that we're going to talk about in a minute.
Speaker 2:But carry on, sorry talk about in a minute, but carry on. Sorry, yeah, like it's um. Like, for example, pbd was saying this and I really agree with him. They were the most popular, they were the most listened to podcasts after the trump thing that happened. People don't want to listen to mainstream media anymore. They're losing that control. Mainstream media was pretty much it's controlled by the government, let's be honest, right. And these independent media platforms they, you know it's real, that is real freedom of speech. They don't like it. You know they don't like it. And I and I wonder what they're gonna do with um bless you. And I wonder what they're gonna do with these other social media, like I mean, you look, you look at Instagram, you speak against the genocide and, boom, you're getting a warning. So you know, it is crazy, like for people to say that all like destiny.
Speaker 2:I was listen to destiny and Tate's argument. Destiny was saying all America's are, they've more focus on, like, getting the goods across the expo and thingy, that's where they're the best at, that's where most of their energy is spent. Yeah, I agree with that. But he was also, at the same thing, saying, oh, the narrative thing, controlling the media, that's really not their thing. The reason why they're a superpower is all because of, like, what do you call it? It's all because of their trade and how competent they are or have been and I agreed with tate in that thing either. You know that? No, then they're putting billions into the narrative, but it's if both of them were true at the same time, like it wasn't one or the other.
Speaker 1:So I don't know why they were just rejecting each other completely into like dogmatic but anyways, yeah, that sounds like such an ignorant statement to say that they're not really bothered about the narrative. What do you think? Why do you think there's so much focus on, like Hollywood and the media and the media being controlled in America? If the narrative is important to any country in the world, it is America. Every act they do, they try and play themselves off like the good guys, like the war in vietnam, the war, uh, in iraq, every single thing, or where the good guys, that's the. That's how they're able to get away with these things by framing themselves as the good guys and controlling the narrative. So to say that is that is actually such an incredibly ignorant statement to me.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's an absurd statement, Because what America tells you is culture. Like we are the good guys, we have freedom of speech. You come here, american dream, da-da-da-da. That's their currency. Where you know the china is. They got different. Like they're selling you the economic benefits. Right, we're going to get you out of crisis. We're going to give you a bunch of loans, but later on we're going to control you because you won't be able to pay them. They're going to gain leverage that way, but whereas us and all these countries, the western countries, they're really selling the culture of this freedom and entertainment and you can be a dreamer again. If they lose that narrative, they're like, you know what?
Speaker 2:like everyone starts to realize yeah, he starts to realize, like these guys have funded so many wars, like you know what you call it they're responsible for. You know, like the, the, the amount of weaponry they have sold, causing geopolitical conflicts? I don't know?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think they've caused the most destruction out of any state or empire ever in history, because they're so technologically advanced and also because they're so trigger happy and they love just bombing places and sending their weapons everywhere. Um, for example, one bomb in hiroshima, one bomb in nagasaki caused so much damage and then you talk about the vietnam wars and all of these different wars like it's so ridiculous. I can't believe what an ignorant statement that is for someone who is known as a political streamer to make. For example, a country like China. They care about the narrative as well.
Speaker 1:Most countries do but they care about it more so internally. They care about the narrative that is shown to their citizens, this narrative of like power and all of this stuff and economic opportunity. But in america, the narrative that they need is worldwide. That's why there's they're so always talking about like the united nations and nato and democracy. We're spreading democracy to all of the world. Do you not think that that is about narrative? Do you think these people really care about like, oh, we're gonna go to this foreign country and make it democratic so they have these democratic values and they can vote and they can be like us? No, they don't care at all. The democracy. Giving them democracy is just a cover for their actual goals, which in different countries is different things. In some countries it's probably like getting the oil, in other countries it's different things. But for them to use that cover of democracy, how can you say they don't care about the narrative?
Speaker 2:Yeah, and also dollar dollar to use dollar like dollar is just a paper that's it has value because country says it has value. But if countries are like no, I don't value all your, whatever currency you're running, whatever trade you're running, I don't. I don't value the culture because it's fake. There is no real freedom of speech. If you're anti-establishment, like jeff kennedy, you get assassinated. When people catch on to these things, there is, you know, the empires fall that way and I think, um, you said it perfectly there. I think that sums up the conversation perfectly. To say that they don't care about narrative is extremely silly.
Speaker 1:They've positioned themselves and keep calling themselves the leaders of the free world and all of this stuff. That's the only reason every country adopts the dollar and keep using it. I don don't know, it's very silly. And then, speaking of narrative, uh, recently this story on instagram really blew up the all eyes on rafa uh ai image. So what? What did you think about that? What were your thoughts on that?
Speaker 2:I think it's really good because more than 40 million people posted it. A lot of people had a problem with it being an AI image, but I'm like there were people like I'm seeing people on my Instagram that until since the 6th of October, 7th of October.
Speaker 1:It was the 7th of October.
Speaker 2:The 7th of October, the 7th of October, right Since 7th of October, they have not said a single word. I've not seen a single post. But I've seen that story and I was, I'm happy, I'm happy I saw some, some activists that have been, you know, speaking out, speaking out for Palestine. They were like, oh like one second I think so this activist, you know.
Speaker 2:I think they post a lot of you know great content. I don't know them personally, but anyways, some of you spoke out a bit too late in my opinion, but I'm trying to be not judgmental. Whenever he gets the word out further, I will support it. We wanted a ceasefire in october, whilst every organization, magazine, collective, brand were putting out your neutral, your neutral, politically correct statements, while you guys talk about eight months too late ceasefire that israel, the, the uk and the US just ignores.
Speaker 2:Anyway. We want the life downfall of Netanyahu and his whole bad man crew, white supremacy, the illegal occupation of land, colonialism and western imperialism, and that's on Rafah Congo, sudan, haiti, hawaii, yemen, syria and every oppressed group that is on the brink of survival Because of western greed and selfishness. Actually, I mean now reading again. I agree with it, like it, but Actually, yeah, I think reading I don't see a problem With it, but the fact that she did say that you know A lot of you are speaking out a bit too late, but I'm not going to be judgmental. Um, a lot of people are judgmental she isn't to be fair.
Speaker 2:She said that, but then she went on to be judgmental I, I don't know, because I'm trying to give her grace, right uh, I guess very frustrating, you know, since the?
Speaker 1:yeah, the thing is sorry, go on you can understand it, like people are understandably very angry that other people have not been speaking out, but once they do start speaking out, we cannot then make it a competition of oh, I did it eight months ago, when were you? We can do that. For example, our first ever podcast, which we recorded in October, was with Bilal, where we were calling for a ceasefire and also for the complete right to Palestinian people giving back to them, and we shed light on a lot of these issues that people started talking about later on, however, we're not going to say we did that, where were you, because that doesn't really help anyone. We even if you only started posting this now.
Speaker 2:Well done, welcome exactly, exactly, that's how I feel about it. I'm like, bro, this is great, like I'm not going to be here. Like, oh, where were you when, uh, it was time to post a story about palestine? You know, near october time, I'm like any support at this point, man, yeah, post more. You know, like a lot of these people, they, they were probably afraid they didn't want to lose their jobs again. That shouldn't have been the case. People should have been more brave. But now that if they're coming on your side, you don't put them off. We need everyone On the pro-Palestinian side. They're calling for ceasefire, they're calling for the rights of the innocent Palestinian and they're against this genocide. We need every single number. But if you, like you said, if you to them like, oh, like, I'm more palestinian who? Who are? You don't speak now. Who cares now? And those are performative activists. Those people are, you know they I think people are just.
Speaker 1:I think people are angry and they're letting their emotions do the talking, instead of realizing what is actually best for the people of Palestine. And what is best for them is as many people getting behind their cause or not. It's not a popularity game, or oh, I was here first, I did it first, I'm better than you, I'm more moral than you, I'm more ethical no one cares. As long as the palestinian people finally get their peace and their justice, that that's when we will be happy, and the more people that support them, the more likely that is, and I think it's important to mention that. It seems like now what's going to happen is people are going to scapegoat Netanyahu and his party and act as though they're the only ones responsible for this kind of mentality. But but it's not. This has been going on for over 75 years and some serious thinking needs to be done. Some people really need to look into how we can come to a resolution that is genuinely peaceful and beneficial for the people of Palestine and also the Israeli people now as well, because, although I strongly believe, the way that that state was started and has continued to function over the last 75 years has been reprehensible. It's disgusting. We cannot now also harm and displace people who would have been born in that land, who didn't really have anything to do with it, because there will have been a lot of people born in Israel who do not support what has been happening, and to just kick them out I don't think that's good either.
Speaker 1:So we need to, we need to come to a solution. More than that's not good, that's, that's just not acceptable. We need to come to a solution where all people can live side by side and everyone has their own rights. All Palestinians, haveinians, have the right of return to their homes and their land. And, yeah, I think, I think that's what needs to be done. I am more so and I more so believe in a one-state solution than a two-state solution, to be honest, because I feel like that. That would be where everyone gets their land back. The Palestinians can live in the area, the Israelis live in the area. But you would have to combat a lot of radicalization on not just the Palestinian side, as the media would want you to believe, but on the Israeli side as well, because you see a lot of these videos and stuff coming out and, bro, these people are so radicalized as well. They hate all Palestinians just for being Palestinians.
Speaker 2:So when you say one state, you believe in one state. Solution is that, like a Palestinian state, it's just a state in that land.
Speaker 1:I could not care less what the state is called, but as long as the Palestinian people can live somewhere where they have freedom, where they have autonomy, where they are not continually oppressed and, yeah, they can just live as normal citizens and normal civilians, it can be called Palestine, you can call it Canaan if you want. The issue with it is now is that israel has caused so much suffering for so many people since its inception that I don't know it, can't. You can still have a two-state solution, but you need to restructure it from the ground up Because, like I said, it was founded on genocide. It was founded on ethnic cleansing. 700,000 people were forcefully expelled in the Nakba and many others were murdered murdered. So I don't think it's it's so difficult to tell people to accept that this state that did this to your people will just keep going now, oops, sorry, we did that, but I think yeah. Either the two state solution, which is the more likely of the two, because israel won't want to give up their land or anything, or one state solution.
Speaker 1:I think one state solution is more just. It's more fair, but the reason people won't accept the one state solution is because they want Israel to be a Jewish ethno state. They want to retain the majority of the population as Jewish, no matter what. And if you allow all the Palestinians back in, let's say the whole place was called Israel, but everyone had equal rights, freedom, no oppression to the Palestinians the Palestinian population would be very similar to the Jewish population and if that is the case, you can't have majority Jewish rule and therefore they will just never allow that to happen. Yeah, it is crazy.
Speaker 1:But, going back to the story, I think it was really important because, like you said, it showed people that this is now an acceptable narrative, because a lot of people were scared to post and everything you said on my instagram exact same thing. People had not said a single thing, not posted anything. However, when it came to this, so many people posted it that had not said anything before, and it's just because it shows people like, oh, this is, this is okay, now, like I can do this without getting reprimanded, which is a positive. I don't see how it could be a negative thing. Obviously, there's better things to do.
Speaker 2:You can donate and all that stuff but that doesn't mean that this isn't important as well yeah, you know, before, um, before the 7th of october, no, actually, I think I don't know when my mentality changed. I don't know when it changed, I don't really know the exact date, but you know when. Oh, when blm happened and you know how everyone was posting on stories, the, the black screen things of that nature. I didn't see like I thought it was. I thought it was like very performative and I thought like no benefit came out of it.
Speaker 2:But I think now that understanding media better, I think narrative and and awareness, I think that is such a good thing to do, like posting, uh, you know, a palestinian I don't know flag or the melon or that story on your on your page or whatever right I think that is. You know that that is something that should be supported and I think that's a great thing one can do. I think the narratives, like initially I was like, oh, what is the story gonna do? Right, not with this one, but especially with blm. And then I changed my mind.
Speaker 2:Then I started supporting sharing, petition, things of that nature, um, because you know I was just so hopeless from the afghanistan situation because, you know, I I was like or, and the Pakistan, like, despite people speaking out about search, multiple conflicts, posting on their story. Nothing really came out of it. But I think now I see it, now I truly see, especially with how much it changed things with the BLM movement and now, like you know, just posting things on the stories and this constant, you know, um push to show the palestinian side of the story, I think it has been so beneficial, so beneficial. It's actually really good that people have been posting on their stories and things of that nature, I applaud it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, exactly, exactly. And two things can be true at once. It can be performative for a lot of people, but it can still be important, like it doesn't matter. It's not a competition of my activism is better than your activism. It helps the cause at the end of the day, so that's all that matters.
Speaker 1:I think there is a slight difference in the BLM Black Square thing because of the fact that in the mainstream the tide had kind of already turned towards supporting BLM by the time everyone started posting with black squares and stuff, whereas with this, most of the mainstream, I'd say, still supports israel. You now have people like pierce morgan turning on them and everything. So the tide is beginning to turn kind of, and I think eventually it will fully turn because if there is an independent investigation into this, like the true horrors will only then come out. You have all these people saying oh, they're, uh, they're over, reporting the death count and all of that stuff. The reality, probably, is that they're actually under reporting it because so many people are just labeled as missing instead of dead, because they don't know where they are.
Speaker 1:There's this one thing that came out and the Israel supporters were like oh see, hamas was. The Gaza health ministry was giving you the wrong death count and they had just completely misrepresented the situation. There is reported deaths and there's identified deaths, publishing both of these numbers since the start, and the bbc, or whoever it was, shifted from using the reported deaths to the uh, identified deaths or whatever it's called I forgot the exact word now but basically, for the identified one you, they need to fully identify and have, like um, a lot of information on them, whereas with the reported one they're like um or a lot of information on them, whereas with the reported one they're like very likely to have passed away, but they don't have all the necessary things to actually write them down as like an identified one. So again, it's just that misreporting.
Speaker 2:Using this to say oh look, they're lying, we told you from the start is so disingenuous it's horrible and the thing is like people don't have to, you know, die in order for them to die. You know, like people have lost homes, they don't have schools anymore, they don't have normal life anymore, they have lost limbs, they have lost parents, the spiritual death, the emotional death, the like, it's not just like oh, they, they are not alive anymore, like right, like just like, oh, let's say, it's 10k less or less, it's definitely. We're looking at more than 40k. In my opinion, if you're really gonna put it into words and really be like, how much trauma, how many people are going to have mental health issue for the rest of their life? We're talking about they might as well have killed half.
Speaker 2:Yeah, they might as well have killed more than that, more than that, more than that, actually, I think that's me, that's me being like not exaggerating. Okay, bro, these people, these people, are going to have generational traumas generational. They're going to have generational traumas. Generational. They're going to have generational hatred. Do you know in how many ways they will never live, their life will never be, ever be the same. The kind of images that we see, images the kind of real world images Like people missing arms Right in front of, like they're looking at it, that's their sibling, that's their mom. Think if that was your mother, that was at it. That's their sibling, that's their mom. Think if that was your mother, that was your brother, that was your son. Will you be ever, ever, till the day you die, able to forget that?
Speaker 1:exactly, it's, it's so do you know what?
Speaker 2:I guess it's these fucking it's.
Speaker 1:It's so crazy that we've got to a point where we're discounting so much suffering. The only thing that will like be acceptable to a lot of these people is, if people die, all the families that are traumatized for life. That's fine, but you know what a few thousand less people might have died than they're reporting? You kind of out yourself as a completely unempathetic person when you say stuff like that. How can you be so bogged down about whether it's 40,000 or 35,000 people who have died? So many people are suffering. What are you doing to be focusing on that?
Speaker 1:Focusing on that, I think, for us as humans well, for me personally there is not. There is not too big of a difference between, let's say, a hundred thousand people dying and a million people dying. Both are reprehensible, both are disgusting. I don't know why people play this game of oh, 40,000 have died here, but there was a million that died in that one. So like, let's not talk about this. 40,000 have died here, but there was a million that died in that one. So like, let's not talk about this. 40,000, it's only a drop in the ocean, like, bro, human beings are not numbers. Every single life is valuable, whether it's 10,000 or 100,000. Both of these are extremely sad. They're extremely horrific. For you to discount one because it doesn't like go up to your threshold.
Speaker 1:I saw this one guy on lbc talking and he was like, oh, maybe if they kill a million or two million, then it would be a genocide. And then 10 minutes later he says 10 minutes later, he says what happened on october 7th was a genocide where 1200 people were killed. Like, be consistent, is it the intent that makes it a genocide or is it how many people died? Because, like, you are really outing yourself as not only very stupid but also very disingenuous, like at least some people can be smart. Where, with their disingenuity or whatever that word is, these people can't even be smart because it's so difficult to defend this position that they can't be consistent with their morals. They have to keep chopping and changing to defend what's going on, because no reasonable person would defend it I saw this one pro-zionist story.
Speaker 2:It said like it was talking about, like the uh holocaust I don't know how to pronounce it holocaust and I was like that's terrible, that was a genocide, that's one of the worst things that has happened in humanity, but that was done by nazi germany. What has the palestinians got to do? With this like do you get what I'm saying? It's like, why? Why are we comparing suffering, you know it's suffering is suffering thousand people, ten thousand, even one person.
Speaker 2:You know why is a person getting murdered? Just because some powerful people want to exploit I don't know, trying to get lands and just I don't know power. It is heartbreaking. If you're against war and genocide when it comes to the Holocaust, then it should be for every single conflict any single war any, exactly the world right, just if it's the same thing happened to americans, like the 9 11.
Speaker 2:That was, that was tragic, that was that was a genocidal act, that that should never, ever happen, never, ever. I will never stand for that, even if the whole, let's say, let's hypothetically say the whole muslim world agrees with, like let's say, you know 9-11 which they don't 99.9 against such acts. It's a radical minority, radical terrorists that agree with that stuff anyways. But let's say, right, I'm standing against it. I don't care, I'm anti-war everywhere, anywhere, everywhere, no matter the race, color, skin, like why?
Speaker 1:we just pick and choosing.
Speaker 2:I don't get it, like, why are we just picking, choosing? I don't get it, man. Why are we picking, choosing exactly?
Speaker 1:exactly, bro, these people are so radicalized. Speaking of, we mentioned that destiny guy earlier. In his debate with norman finkelstein he said do you really think israel would go through all the chains of commands and bomb like innocent people? Do you really think they would do that? There's like lawyers involved all of this. And he was laughing at normal Norman Finkelstein and like pretending he was so superior to him intellectually and he knew so much more.
Speaker 1:And then, about a week or two later, israel bombs that world kitchen thing, the aid organization, not once, not twice, but three times. They went from one car to another car because so Israel bombed one of their cars, then people came to rescue them in another car. They bombed that car, then a third car came to rescue them, and then they bombed the third car as well. So the thing that destiny pretended was so ludicrous, so far out of like imagination, that it could never happen. It happened three times and, moreover, they had given their coordinates to Israel beforehand, so that Israel knew what was going on, and they just did it, not once, not twice, but three times. This is what I mean. This is not something where you can just scapegoat Netanyahu, as they're doing now. There is a much broader issue here.
Speaker 2:That needs to be addressed. 100, I think you couldn't have said it better. Yeah, it's um, did you see?
Speaker 1:that in speech about what did you say?
Speaker 2:fire, oh, I mean encouraging israel for ceasefire and, you know, like, dismantling hamas. You know, in a certain way, that you, you know the people can get along and I think you know the narrative shift you talked about, I think, is getting to that. They're very, they're very like, you know, people are very close, just people who believes in humanity by the way, it's not just pro-Palestinian people People who believe in humanity, right, whether they're in Europe, whether they're in America, people are starting to catch on right and they know they can't sustain this bullshit. Now, netanyahu hasn't, you know, they haven't commented on it because it's the Sabbath, but yeah, let's see where this goes. But, biden man, for how long like did you say, like you're funding this thing? And now you're like, you're not even like making it like concrete, like we can't have this anymore. We suggest netanyahu, we are suggesting do you think they're gonna really listen?
Speaker 1:to your suggestion this is the what are we?
Speaker 1:this is the case where you can do that thing, where you can say, oh, now you're calling for a ceasefire. And that is because they are complicit, people who are staying silent, who weren't posting on their stories, just normal people, the average person. They are not complicit. However, when you have someone like biden sending them arms and stuff, and now they're calling for a ceasefire, then you can make the statements like what, eight months after everything we've just seen, after all the information you had, now you're calling for a ceasefire because he was in a position of power and he was supporting the other side. He was complicit.
Speaker 1:I'd even say the same for people like piers morgan, who are basically doing propaganda for israel this whole time. He has changed his mind now, but for the past eight months, he was like, while 40,000 people were killed, he was wondering what is a proportionate response. While babies were being killed. It's ridiculous. With people like that, you can say that thing of oh, now that the tide has turned, now that 40 million people have posted it on their stories and you know what would be good for for your career in the future, for your prospects in the future, oh, now you've come to this somehow, some way, you've got this light bulb moment.
Speaker 2:Like these people are yeah, you can say that and not be performative or not be like. That is like accountability. Oh, now you're saying this, we, now you need to investigate, like of course we should yeah, exactly, well, well done for doing it now, well done for doing it now.
Speaker 1:But because they've been complicit, they need to be held accountable. Joe biden can cannot just be continued to be like if he wins the election. He cannot be like oh yeah, joe biden, president of the usa. No, joe biden, who is complicit in the genocide of the palestinians. That's how he needs to be remembered forever now 100 or in jail.
Speaker 2:I think that's a, that's not a conviction, that's a murderer.
Speaker 1:Did you see that Nikki Haley woman? She was running for the president. She signed the bombs.
Speaker 2:The bomb, yay, like finish them. That woman is just, you can sense the evil.
Speaker 1:I was going to say that that is literally evil. There is evil. I was gonna say that that is literally evil. There's no other way to describe that to be assigning a bomb that has such a high likelihood of killing not just civilians, such a high likelihood of killing a kid, killing babies again. It's so crazy that we've we've got to a point where we almost disregard the like innocent civilian men in gaza. We always talk about the women and children. How crazy is that?
Speaker 1:all the civilian men, because every man is the hamas all of them that died. They're basically regarded. We have to always talk about the, the children, to to kind of hit home the point. But it is just insane to me that you would do that, knowing the likelihood that it's going to kill an innocent person yeah, like isn't that crazy how we have to constantly mention women and young kids, even though they allow most exactly you know, most men are having to pick up arms because their kids are getting shot.
Speaker 1:They're you know, it's just that that that signing up the bombs thing is so barbaric. It's actually barbaric. I don't have as evil as barbaric. It's disgusting. There's no way you can frame that in a positive light.
Speaker 2:I can't believe like the world has let this happen. I don't get it how the world leaders have.
Speaker 1:There needs to be systematic change from literally bottom to bottom and before someone says it yes, the hostages should be released. Yes, that is horrible as well, and the Palestinian hostages should also be released. We cannot forget that many people are put in prison, tortured, beat, sexually assaulted, and sometimes the crime is as little as waving a Palestinian flag or a little kid throwing a rock, a tank, a little stone, and this is the result. Release the Israeli hostages, but you need to release the Palestinian hostages as well. That's how we get to peace. We need to actually work towards a resolution. One-sided peace for one side while the other people continue to suffer. And then we pretend it's all peace in the west because the side that we're allied with is happy and they're at peace, but the other people are continually being oppressed, living in what many people, including israeli human rights organizations, call concentration camps, and they call israel an apartheid state. That is not peace, that is not justice.
Speaker 2:It needs to be for both sides yeah, if the palestinians can't move, to dream on and, you know, have opportunities to become a doctor, engineer, be something in life, and you know, like, like, how we live here in the uk, if it's not that it's not peace.
Speaker 2:I'm sorry exactly this narrative and another thing I want to say like I sent you that that video by um, by that guy um you know that, yeah was what's his name the guy who's in support of like radicalization and all that stuff yes, radicalization and things like that, like resistance I don't know what he meant by resistance, but like what he was saying. Like they need to get there. Like we need to work towards peace by any means necessary, including violence. But I'm like now, if we start killing innocent israelis, they're going to weaponize. Yeah, like we need to move towards diplomacy. We can't have more innocent people dying. Honestly, like we, you know, we need to be the bigger people. We can't be like, you know, we, we, we can't be like our let's call them enemy. Like the best revenge is like not to be the bigger people we can't be like, you know, we can't be like our let's call them enemy. Like the best revenge is like not to be like enemy. They say right To you know, I know it's difficult.
Speaker 2:Like, even with me, they shot my sister, the Taliban shot my sister. But I wish the best for the children of Taliban and I hope, I pray to Allah, that these people who are terrorists right, that their mentality changes, that they have love and peace in their heart, that they educate their daughters, that they educate their son. I wish the best for them, I pray for them, even though they almost took my sister's life, you know I will never. You know I can't forgive an action of like killing my sister, but I can forgive the pain they have caused me. It's been difficult.
Speaker 2:It was a difficult journey for fucking years I wanted to do the most horrible things, unimaginable things, to them. I would literally picture me punishing them, torturing them in many ways. But for me I'm going to speak from personal experience you know, I want to work towards you. You know, work towards de-radicalizing. I don't want to be like, I don't want to claim the word terrorist, I don't want to claim the word radical and all these things that this so-called pro-palestinian guy was saying. I think he was just angry, right, but no, no, I'm. I'm a muslim and I'm a peaceful person. I'm a peaceful person.
Speaker 1:I'm not radical.
Speaker 2:You know, I'm capable of education, capable of doing great things in this world, and so are all my other Muslim brothers.
Speaker 1:No resistance, according to the UN, for the Palestinian people, armed resistance is actually. It's justified, it's valid, but not against innocent civilians, Like military operations. If you want to do them, fair enough, america has done loads of military operations, so has Israel, so has every other country, but killing innocent civilians is not resistance, it's not a military operation. Leave those people out of it. If you want to do some sort of strategic thing I don't know what it could be yeah, go for it. If that's going to stop like tens of thousands of palestinian people being murdered, it might be for the greater good. That argument can be made. However, killing innocent people is never justified and we know loads of innocent people did get killed on october 7th, so that cannot be justified ever. Um. But another thing that is also just completely ridiculous is when people say, oh, but there was a ceasefire on october 6th. There was a ceasefire before october 7th. I think it was the deadliest year for Palestinian children in history in recent history, in 2023. To say that is just ridiculous. I think over 200 people or something had died prior to October, had been killed sorry, prior to October in Palestine. So again, this narrative that, oh, there was a ceasefire before October 70th is so stupid.
Speaker 1:Both sides have both sides that year committed atrocities and to frame it as though, oh, israel had to respond because this thing has just happened, bro, israel's been doing that for so long. I'm not making this argument, by the way, but if you're going to make this argument, if you're going to use this justification that we can respond to October 7th by killing tens of thousands of civilians, why can the other side not make the same justification and say we can do October 7th because you've been killing tens of thousands of our people prior to that? You expelled 700,000 of our people from this land. It's the same thing. Be consistent with your logic. I'm saying neither of them are justified. No innocent civilians being killed is justified, whereas you're saying, oh, israeli civilians being killed is not justified. But when it's Palestinians, ah, they're human shields. You know what they're? What do they call it?
Speaker 2:Collateral, damage, collateral. And if you tell them, like them, like, oh. If you say in this context or like, let's say there was a criminal in your neighborhood in america, in your bougie beverly hills and they dropped a bomb, they kill him. Oh yeah, your family died too, would that be okay? They're like no, they all shut up. So why are we doing the same like why, why we? Why is it this double standard?
Speaker 1:Thanks for listening everyone and let's hope for better times and an end to the war very soon, Inshallah.
Speaker 2:Take care.
