reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I fully support the right of self-defense in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as in the US and Britain against invaders. The US government is the biggest terrorist. Israel must abandon Zionism to achieve peace by treating all people equally. Hamas should recognize Israel in return. Refusing to accept apartheid is like rejecting the Zionist state.

The speaker is asked if their organization will engage in peace talks with the Israelis. They respond by saying that they don't view it as peace talks, but rather as capitulation or surrender. They question who they would even talk to, suggesting that it would be a conversation between the oppressor and the oppressed. They argue that talking without the presence of weapons is still not enough because they have never seen a successful conversation between a colonizer and a national liberation movement. They emphasize the importance of their struggle for dignity, respect, and human rights.

Milstein told Tony how critics of Israel should be handled. Speaker 1 discusses tactics: “Terrorize us, and we are How do we put them on the run, though? Doing it by exposing who they are, what they are, protect with their racist, protect with their people, that they're dying in democracy.” They question whether there is a good role to simply name them as antisemites, saying, “Not just antisemites. It's too simple.” They argue we need to present them “for what they really are.” They add, “To Christian, their right to democracy. That's all we need to do. Yeah.”

The speaker criticizes the Israeli army, calling them a well-trained terrorist organization. They mention an incident from four years ago when Israel began bombing Gaza, dropping 100 tons of bombs on the first day. The speaker argues that this act was terrorism, as it occurred during a shift change when children were on the streets. They also suggest that Israel maintains control over different populations while projecting a liberal image.

Il n'y a pas de différence entre un enfant de sept ans nourri de haine envers les Juifs, l'antisémitisme et l'idéologie du Hamas, et un terroriste ordinaire. C'est juste une question de temps. Mieux vaut agir avant. Translation: There is no difference between a seven-year-old child fed with hatred towards Jews, antisemitism, and Hamas ideology, and an ordinary terrorist. It's just a matter of time. It's better to act before.

The speaker is asked if they support Hamas killing 700 Israelis, including children, and kidnapping children. They respond by saying that the question is framed to make them look bad. They clarify that they do not support the United States, but they believe that the Israeli government is the real terrorist. The speaker is then asked a yes or no question about supporting the 700, but their response is not provided in the transcript.

The speaker discusses the assassination and the legality of it. They mention that while there may be a legal justification for it, the way it was carried out raises suspicions and makes Israel look like Hamas. The speaker suggests that a better approach would be for Israeli forces to go in as uniformed police or troops, surround the area, and try to arrest the targets. If they resist, then force can be used. The speaker believes that the current method of assassination, pretending to be hospital employees, is tactically unwise and only strengthens the criticism against the IDF's actions in Gaza.

The speaker states their love for Jews and Israel has nothing to do with the question of whether people are killing or murdering a hundred children a day. Another person calls the speaker a terrorist.

I fully support the right to self-defense. If I were in Palestine, Iraq, or Afghanistan, I would engage in violent resistance against foreign aggression. Similarly, I would defend my homeland if it were threatened. I refuse to condemn terrorism without acknowledging that the U.S. government is a significant perpetrator. Hamas's refusal to recognize Israel mirrors the African National Congress's stance against apartheid. For genuine peace, Israel must abandon its Zionist ideology that dehumanizes others. If Israel embraces all people, including Palestinians, with equal rights, I would challenge Hamas to recognize Israel. Until then, I see no difference between Nelson Mandela's fight against apartheid and Hamas's resistance to the Zionist state.

Les Ukrainiens ont tué des milliers de personnes innocentes, et l'Occident n'a pas pris cela au sérieux. Hier soir, Joe Biden a enfin autorisé les Ukrainiens à utiliser des missiles. Il est huit heures et demie à Paris, et je n'entends rien sur les missiles Scalp de France ni sur les Storm Shadow britanniques. Que faisons-nous ? --- Ukrainians have killed thousands of innocent people, and the West has not taken this seriously. Last night, Joe Biden finally allowed Ukrainians to use missiles. It is eight-thirty in Paris, and I hear nothing about France's Scalp missiles or Britain's Storm Shadow. What are we doing?

In this video, the speaker discusses the concept of terrorism and its definition. They highlight the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion and define terror as violent acts committed by groups to intimidate a population or government. The speaker also mentions the presence of over a thousand military bases in one nation and a conversation with someone named Ahmed, who identifies as a terrorist fighter.

What's happening in Palestine is not war, but dehumanization, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. People are defending themselves against this injustice. The US taxpayer funds this, adding to the frustration. Action is needed to stop this.

Hamas deserves applause for their actions against field hands who threatened them. The speaker supports this and believes the recent events were not terrorism, but rather freedom fighters fighting for freedom. They emphasize that none of the people who died were innocent.

The discussion centers on the war's cause and how to handle the terror organization Hamadah, which is still holding hostages. One speaker argues that military action should target the terrorists, not civilians, insisting that civilians such as children and women be protected and questioning how police can detain robbers without harming staff or customers who may be used as human shields. The other speaker counters that civilians should not be harmed and that legitimacy comes from the international community, not any single government. A proposed solution is to go to the UN, work toward a two-state solution to establish a Palestinian state, and then collaborate with Palestinians to fight terrorists; without this cooperation, victory is doubtful. The other adds that the war will end only when the terror organization releases the soldiers and relinquishes weapons. A final remark questions the extent of belief in propaganda, suggesting few Israelis accept it.

I fully support the right of self-defense in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as in the US and UK if facing aggression. The US government is the biggest terrorist. Hamas should recognize Israel, but Israel must abandon Zionism and treat all people equally for peace. Hamas should follow Nelson Mandela's example in rejecting apartheid.

Support the right of self defense without any doubt. I would be involved myself in violent resistance if I were a citizen of Palestine or Iraq or Afghanistan. So I absolutely 100% defend the right of self defense, and I will never shy away from that. I will not join the long list of embarrassments who condemn terrorism while forgetting to acknowledge that the biggest terrorist on the planet is the United States government for all its terrorism around the world. Has a right to defend itself? Absolutely. Every country does, and it that's exactly why the hypocrisy and the lies of Israel are so transparent. Hamas doesn't recognize the right of Israel to exist. I say that Israel, if it wants to be a genuine partner in any kind of peace, needs to destroy its whole ideology of Zionism. Zionism that makes other people goyim who do not deserve to be in the holy land. But until that time, I see no difference between Nelson Mandela and Hamas in refusing to accept apartheid or the Zionist Israeli state.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about condemning the killing of civilians. Speaker 1 defends Israel's actions, claiming they have the right to defend themselves. Speaker 0 argues that terrorists also claim the same right. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that Hamas and Bin Laden were not defending themselves. Speaker 0 questions how an occupier can defend itself in the first place. Speaker 1 tries to respond but is interrupted. Speaker 0 continues to argue that an occupier cannot claim self-defense. Speaker 1 acknowledges Israel's mistakes but defends their actions against terror attacks. Speaker 0 questions if killing civilians is justified, and Speaker 1 argues that Hamas can be targeted if they hide among the public. Speaker 0 dismisses this argument as a fallacy and questions the necessity of bombing densely populated areas.

A British NHS doctor and a speaker engage in a heated discussion about categorizing a terror attack. The doctor defends the Palestinians' right to resist an occupation, while the other speaker argues that the attack was terrorism. The doctor mentions Islamic standards in warfare and claims that killing innocent civilians goes against those standards. The conversation becomes tense as they discuss videos showing the perpetrators boasting about their actions. The doctor insists that resistance is a right in Islam and international law, while the other speaker finds it offensive and questions the doctor's credibility as a healthcare professional. The doctor refuses to condemn the attack and blames the powers supporting Israel for the situation. The conversation ends with the other speaker expressing disbelief and questioning the doctor's suitability as an NHS doctor.

The speakers discuss the issue of terrorism and the use of drone strikes. They argue that a disproportionate response is necessary to stop terrorism, but emphasize that civilians should not be targeted. They criticize the high number of civilian casualties caused by drone strikes and compare it to the actions of a war criminal. They question the morality of using remote-controlled drones to kill innocent people in the pursuit of terrorists. The speakers also mention that some terrorists cite US foreign policy as their motivation for carrying out attacks. They conclude by calling for an end to the normalization of these actions.

The real reason of this war is the terror organization; Hamadah is still holding our hostages. What we need to do about the terror organization? 'My answer is very clear. The terrorists. Not of the children. Not of women.' 'If you do not kill the staff, bank staff, and the customer, you cannot catch the robbers.' We do all we can not to hurt the citizens. 'To kill more than 70,000 civilians. No. There are more than there are more than the terrorists.' 'My solution is that go to the UN, work with the UN, and agree the two state solution to establish a state of a Palestinian.' 'If you do not work with the Palestinian together, you can never win the war over terrorists.' 'But this specific war will end when the terror organization will release all our hostages and will give up his weapon.'

Killing others is sometimes legitimate under law. Non-Islamic systems killing others is considered legitimate, but when Islam talks about its own version of Islamic law, it is labeled terrorism, which is a double standard. Islam is a system that addresses all aspects of life, like the Norwegian system, which has its own version of jihad. Jihad means fight. There is a Norwegian version of jihad and an Islamic version. The latest stage of Islamic jihad involves finding them wherever you find them, which is considered offensive jihad.

The speaker defines terrorism as "the systematic and deliberate attack, the murder, maiming, and menacing of innocents, of civilians for political goals." They note that you can tell a lot about terrorists, but what happens when they come to power is telling. The speaker asserts that "those who fight for freedom and come to power do not impose terrorism." Conversely, "those who fight in terroristic means, end up as being masters of terrorist states."

Speaker 0 describes the Gaza war as a response to the horrors of October 7, noting he has been to Gaza since the war began and that entering is restricted (the IDF is the only way in). He describes Gaza as a flattened place and calls the situation a disaster for the future of Israel and for the Palestinian people, with 70,000 deaths mentioned. He asserts the catastrophe is a disaster for families of the dead and for children. Speaker 1 counters that tens of thousands of civilians murdered represent a disaster for the future of Israel, but emphasizes that the real crime in Gaza is killing people who did nothing wrong. He critiques the idea that people are labeled anti-Semitic, arguing that naming accusations can silence legitimate concerns, and insists the real problem is the harm in Gaza. Speaker 0 turns to the question of Israel’s right to exist and Zionism, asking whether the respondent believes in the narrow definition of Zionism as the state of Israel having the right to continue existing. Speaker 1 pushes for definitions, distinguishing between “right to exist” and “should continue to go on as a nation state.” He asks for clarification on what the right to exist means, noting the term’s use as a political construct and questioning what “right” means in this context. Speaker 0 reframes, asking whether Israel should continue to exist, and whether the respondent seeks Israel’s destruction. Speaker 1 responds that he does not seek Israel’s destruction and does not want anyone to be killed, particularly innocents, and emphasizes a stance against killing innocents as a basis of Western civilization; he states he does not identify as a Zionist and does not understand the term, urging a definition. He reiterates he does not want Israel destroyed or to use nuclear weapons. Speaker 0 mentions the broader historical frame of Zionism, asking again about the right to exist in narrow terms. Speaker 1 again questions the usefulness of the term and emphasizes a preference for universal standards, arguing he believes in human rights that derive from the creation of people by God, rather than ethnic or group-specific rights. He asserts he supports universal human rights for all people, regardless of ethnicity or religion. In sum, the dialogue moves from the Gaza war’s human cost and the resulting disaster for civilians and future prospects, to a debate over Zionism and Israel’s right to exist, and culminates in a commitment to universal human rights and opposition to collective punishment or destruction of innocents.

The speaker was asked what they would say to those who think a shooter is a hero because he killed a healthcare executive who he believed was presiding over a system that kills thousands of Americans by denying them coverage. The speaker responded that they don't know what to say, but that one should try to make an argument and convince people to change the system that way, as violence is not the answer. The speaker stated that they don't think there is anything heroic about the shooter's motives.

The Palestinian movement used hijacking airplanes as a tactic without causing harm to anyone.