The Young Turks - Escalation of War

Episode Date: April 16, 2024

Biden counsels Netanyahu to ""slow things down"" after the Iranian attack. Pastor John Hagee says Iran's missiles are the prophetic start of the ""Gog and Magog"" war from the Bible (ends w/ Jesus returning and Jews killed or converted). ‘Go To Amazon And Buy A Spine!’ Sen. Kennedy Claims Biden Has Gone ‘Wobbly’ On Supporting Israel After Iran Attack. Leaked NYT Gaza Memo Tells Journalists to Avoid Words “Genocide,” “Ethnic Cleansing,” and “Occupied Territory”" HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca. Woo! It's up!

All right, welcome to the Young Turks, Jake Ugar and a Kasparan with you guys. Obviously massive news over the weekend. We're going to cover the strikes that Iran had against Israel, the reaction by our clownish politicians to it. We're going to cover the hush money trial of Donald Trump, should he be convicted? who's going to do the convicting, if that's the case, or the acquittal, depending on it. I don't know if there's a glove here or not, and we'll see if it fits. So, and then later in the program, some absurdities as usual.

All right, so let us give you the news with all of its ups and downs, Anna. Well, let's begin with that huge story from over the weekend involving Iran conducting in a retaliatory strike against Israel. Iran's first direct attack on Israel was full of sound and fury. By Israel's count 150 ballistic and cruise missiles, bringing the Middle East to the moment of maximum danger, many predicted. Without admitting it, Israel has been stepping up assassinations of Iranian revolution Guard commanders in Syria and Iraq.

Iranian leaders have been getting increasingly agitated. Over the weekend, Iran for the first time directly attacked Israel, sending a barrage of hundreds of missiles and armed drones that were intercepted by the United States, the UK, and Jordan. Now, the strikes did not come out of nowhere and served as retaliation for Israel's attacks on an Iranian consulate in Syria a few weeks ago. Here's how the attack by Iran went down and what the aftermath was. More than 300 drones and missiles launched at Israel,

including more than 100 medium range ballistic missiles, 30 land attack cruise missiles, and more than 150 one-way attack drones. IDF spokesperson Peter Lerner telling me at an air base on the outskirts of Tel Aviv that cooperation with American forces and others meant that they were able to shoot down most of the threats. But some missiles did make it past their defences. In a video circulating online verified by ABC News,

you can see missiles striking Israel's Nevatum Air Force Base. Iranians claim this was the site responsible for the strike on an Iranian consulate in Syria earlier this month that killed top commanders. The president today meeting with leaders of the G7 to try and stabilize the situation and avoid further escalation. And while U.S. officials drive home, the ironclad support for Israel and its right to defend itself, there are also calls for restraint.

We don't seek a war with Iran. We don't seek an escalated tensions in the region. We don't we don't seek a wider conflict. Now it's important to keep in mind that the way Iran carried out this retaliatory attack was really meant to communicate to the Iranian people that Iran was willing to retaliate. But Iran, in my opinion, made it pretty clear that they do not want to escalate this into a regional war. Why do I think that? Well, first of all, it was the most slow-moving attack against Israel imaginable. They had warned Israel weeks in advance. I remember when the news first broke over the weekend, I tune into CNN, they're like, oh, the weaponized drones, the missiles, they're coming in the next few hours, right? So it was intentionally done

in a way to prevent casualties, to prevent major destruction to Israel, give Israel. and its allies enough time to prepare its defenses. And that's why there were no casualties, no fatalities, and very little, you know, damage in terms of what the, you know, you saw in the video, what the few missiles that did get through the defense system managed to cause. And it was at an Air Force base in Israel. Yeah, so Iran has been saying for some time, we're going to strike back for the consulate attack that Israel did in Syria. So, but this is a critical fact that you should know, not only that, but they told

there, the Arab countries that the missiles were going to fly over and the drones were going to fly over with 72 hour notice. Now they know that once they tell those countries that they're going to tell America, like allies like Jordan are, et cetera, and America is going to tell Israel. So why did they give them this enormous heads up? Oh, we are so mad at you, we are going to fire three. missiles and drones. They know that Israel has Iron Dome, they know that we have an aircraft carrier there.

And by the way, the Arab countries participated in knocking down the drones and missiles, including Jordan, okay? So there's a very good reason why Iran did it that way. Number one, they have to placate their domestic audience as any country has to. So the Ayatollah goes out there goes, oh, we showed those Israelis, we launched all these missiles and drones. You see that, we didn't let them get away with attacking our consulate. and murdering our top general, etc. And then they turn around to America and go, look, guys, obviously we're not trying to start a giant war here.

We gave you a 72 hour notice. We took a couple of hours to fly the drones to Israel. Like we couldn't telegraph us anymore, meaning we don't want a war. So now what Israel does next is critical. It will probably determine everything. And one other thing that's important here, why is this different than the other attacks?

because Israel's been hitting Iranian targets for a long, long time. Whether you say surrogates like Hamas, Hezbollah, I mean, Israel hits those on a regular basis. And I get it because those are the surrogates that are attacking Israel, especially Hamas, right? But then Israel's gone way beyond that many times, including hitting Iraqi, I'm sorry, Iranian officials, as Anna and the news just pointed out, in different countries like Iraq and Syria. But on top of that, they have targeted physicists inside Iran. And they had done assassinations, including a physicist that weren't working on their nuclear program at all. Assassinations in front of a kindergarten as a guy was picking up his children.

They just murdered him. But the difference here is both of these strikes, both the Israeli strike on the consulate and the Iranian strike on Israel, are acknowledged publicly, which the others are not. Israel goes, oh, was another Iranian scientist murdered? I wonder who did it, right? So that is not acknowledged. These are acknowledged. And secondly, a consulate is the equivalent of your home soil.

So this is the first time they're hitting each other on their home soil. So that is why it's an extra degree of concern here. And hence then leads to the question of what is Israel going to do next? And what is our role in America in preventing them from doing something disastrous? Exactly. So we'll get to what Israel is saying in just a moment. But I also wanted to make a point about, you know, I've been seeing some criticism toward the United States and its allies in providing defense capabilities to Israel

to prevent Israel from, you know, suffering from these strikes. And I disagree with those takes completely for a number of reasons. Number one, I don't want to see civilians die as a result of this war, whether they be Israeli civilians, Palestinian civilians, I want them to be protected, Number one. Number two, you want to prevent giving Netanyahu any excuse to broaden this to a much wider regional war, a war with Iran, which make no mistake the United States would be dragged into. And so the fact that there are no casualties is a good thing, because it means that Netanyahu can't point to Israeli civilians dying as the excuse for expanding this war, which is something that I believe, and this is my speculation, I believe

Netanyahu wants to do. Netanyahu wants nothing more than to remain in power. And the way, the easiest way for him to do that is to prolong this war, right? To engage in more conflict, which makes it far more difficult for the Israeli people to oust him, because during wartime, it's incredibly difficult to oust the prime minister of Israel. Yeah. So first, let me Double down on what I said, I love that Israel and America and Jordan and others were able to protect the Israeli civilians. I believe in defense because our whole mission here is to try to save as many civilian lives as possible that they're Israeli, Palestinian, Iranian, etc. But there's a giant difference between defense and offense. So that's why I give Biden a lot of credit because he has said that the U.S. will not join Israel if they're going on the offense. And so that matters. That's real. So credit where credit is due, we'll talk about a little bit more about that in a second. But the reason why what Israel is going to do next is not that clear is, you know, I don't even know that it's even speculation, as Anna just said, it's more analysis than anything

else because Netanyahu over the last couple of decades has said repeatedly that there should be attacks against Iran, not only that Israel should do it, but that America should do it on behalf of Israel. And so that he's not hiding that agenda, he's wanted to attack Iran. for a long time, but there are complications because they also want to attack Rafa, which is the last standing city in Gaza. So they're like, hmm, how do we kill the Palestinians in Rafa and drive them into the desert with no evacuation plan and do a massive humanitarian damage there? What U.S. cables said would be catastrophic humanitarian consequences,

while at the same time starting a giant war with Iran. And I think that there are some cabinet officials that appear to be concerned that they could do both at the same time. And I don't know if there are any cabinet officials who are concerned that Israel and Israeli citizens, a lot of them, could die in this disastrous war. But they're so arrogant, they're so, you know, used to getting everything they want. And I'm a little afraid that this kind of near false attack by Iran gave them more confidence. It's like, oh, we can knock down anything. Yeah, that's because they launched it from hours ahead of time, brother. The next time they do that, they're not going to give you a heads up,

and they're not going to launch them so far away. They've got Hamas, Hezbollah surrounding you, et cetera. So I'm worried about the cockiness of the Israeli right-wing government and the disaster could lead to, but. Yeah, you should be. You should be. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Buy your tickets now. I get a free chili dog. Tilly dog, not included.

The Naked Gun. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. the United States engages in a direct war with Iran. Really, the ball is in Netanyahu's court. Because if Netanyahu continues provoking and Iran decides, you know what, we've done everything we can to prevent this from expanding into a war, a hot war between ourselves, Israel and the United States, we can't take it anymore, we're now, we're all in now, right? You think the United States is just going to sit back and allow

Israel and Iran to duke it out without getting involved? The U.S. would definitely get dragged into that war because don't make the mistake of thinking that Iran would not be, you know, a formidable opponent to Israel militarily. They would be a formidable opponent to the United States militarily, okay? Yeah, it doesn't mean that they're going to come and take Albuquerque. What it means is you see how we got bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan? Exactly. Iran is four times the size of Iraq and has much greater military capabilities than Iraq did. So we will get bogged down in the Middle East for another decade or two, draining trillions of dollars in taxpayer money for a war that no one needs.

It helps no one. It doesn't help Iran. It doesn't help Israel. It doesn't help anyone, but the political career of Benjamin Netanyahu. So it would be criminal if we got involved in this war. We should do everything within our potential to prevent that war, let alone if our troops go and die. there for the most needless war in human history. So somebody just for God's sake get a control over Netanyahu so that we don't all wind

up in World War III to appease his stupid ego. Now Biden, as you mentioned earlier, Jank, is telling Israel and Netanyahu in particular to just take the win, don't escalate this further. A senior administration official emphasized that the United States would not participate in any offensive Israeli response against Iran. Quote, our aim is to de-escalate regional tensions and prevent the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza from becoming a wider conflagration, the senior Biden administration official said. But unfortunately, some of the messaging that we've seen from Israel so far, Israel

at its spokespeople, make clear that maybe de-escalation is unlikely. Let's take a look. We are told that in their phone call last night, President Biden urged Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to slow things down, to think carefully and strategically about the risk of escalation. Iran's government, we are also told, sent a message to the White House as this attack was underway, suggesting that they're finished after this, that they consider this matter to be closed. Now, as for what comes next, the White House says ultimately it is up to Israel to decide whether and how to respond. But officials here tonight tell us that the US will not participate in any counterattack. But Iran has said this was in retaliation for the airstrike on the consulate. They said it was always going to be a limited operation.

There is no intention of continuing it now. So can this end here? And at the same time in the early hours of this morning, Iran's proxy Hezbollah launched more rocket attacks against Israel. So I don't trust Iran. I don't see why anybody should. So it's important to keep in mind that while, yes, Iran provides aid to groups like Hezbollah, there is no indication that Iran is giving Hezbollah the orders to attack Israel. It's kind of like the United States, honestly, arming various countries. After you arm them, you don't have full control over what they do with those arms.

And I think that's been pretty clear with this war in Israel as well. I should also note that an Israeli official told NBC News, quote, Israel can't allow such a large attack over Israel without some kind of response, be it small or large. It's up to the war cabinet to decide now. And remember, that war cabinet is filled with the Baselel Smotritches and the people who absolutely want to engage with a hot war with Iran. So that doesn't give me any peace of mind at all, but right now we're just waiting to see what Israel decides to do, whether they do in fact plan to retaliate.

And if they do retaliate, what is that going to look like? And would that expand this to a broader regional war with Iran involved? Yeah, so we have some indication of that based on what Israeli surrogates are saying, including one that I debated on Pierce Morgan today. So I'll get to that in one second. But first, look, I don't want you to hear only one side of a story. So they say, oh, like Hezbollah has fired rockets at Israel. Yeah, of course, they don't mention that Israel preemptively attacked Hezbollah after October 7th. And now at the same time, Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th.

So there are both sides of this story, the idea that Israel's, you know, which oftentimes are spokespeople, paint this, and so does Rishi Sunak and UK and a lot of other Western governments. So poor Israel has never done anything in their lives. and these mean terrorist Hezbollah guys are attacking them, et cetera. No, I'm concerned about Hezbollah's rockets, but at the same time, I'm concerned that Israel's been occupying the Palestinians for 75 years with no let up at all and has taken more and more land, thereby inflaming the entire region. Occupations are moral cancer in the Middle East that is causing all of these problems.

So the fact that they haven't stopped occupation is crazy. But guys, even if you say, I don't care about the other side, They're the bad guys, I don't care if they all die, all I care about is protecting Israel. Okay, do you think it's going to help Israel to go and attack Iran and have the entire Iranian population rally around the flag and the population, which does not like the current Iranian regime? But the minute they're bombed, what are they going to do? They're going to turn around and go, well, okay, now we've got to fight Israel, so now we're going to support the regime. Look, there's a bunch of raving lunatics. The neocons are back, and they're all over TV going, no, no, I bet if we bomb Iran will be greeted as liberators.

And in fact, I debated one of them today. I'll give Branshaw one who's a member on Twitch or Bradshaw crew one, an explanation here. And then I'll go further. Jank, I watched you're on Piers Morgan today. Now, I find it baffling how people like Emily Schrader want to see more and death, more death and destruction than peace and unity. Now let's be fair to Emily Schrader. She said during our joint appearance on Pierce Morgan that no, she thinks this is going to work out better for Israel because the Iranian people want to be bombed by Israel. Come on, I just.

Okay, look, if you believe that, you've completely lost touch with reality. But here comes the most relevant part because it gives you a sense of what Israel might do. She said, now look, maybe if we just bomb their military bases, then that way, oh, the Iranian people will be psyched that the regime has been hit. That's insanity, not true at all. But it shows how Israeli surrogates are thinking, right? And the message that they want to put out in the world. And so they're saying, we just hit their military bases.

And if not a lot of civilians are killed, maybe that's okay. And by the way, guys, that sounds terrible to me. And it's taking a giant risk with the Middle East. But if they're thinking of that as opposed to wide scale bombing of Iran, it's still better than wide scale bombing, although marginally better. Right now, Israel struck first. Iran has retaliated in the weakest possible way. I totally agree. And look at me saying this sentence, can you believe this? I totally agree with Joe Biden. Take the win. Take the win. No Israelis were killed.

Meanwhile, you killed seven top commanders in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. When are you ever going to let this Netanyahu guy goes? Because he's never going to take the win. All he's going to do is put Israel in greater and greater danger all for his political career. It's maddening. It is. So as this story develops, we'll give you more details. For now, though, we're going to take a brief break.

And when we come back, we'll talk about some of those neocons who were just all over the media over the weekend. And today, you also have some pastors salivating over the end times. It's just devastating. We've got that and more coming up. Don't miss it. I'm Kenanana with you guys also, Nasea Azam and Edgar Hernandez. You guys are awesome. We appreciate you.

They had to join button below. You could do that or you could join or contribute through t-y-t.com slash team. We do need 100,000 members by the end of the year to stay in business. Unfortunately, I don't know if you guys saw the news, but intercepts now on wobbly legs and so is the daily beast. So this industry is a hell of a thing. We're lucky to have all of you guys as are paying subscribers and you're keeping up. and you're keeping us in business and we appreciate you. Let's keep it going. Anna. Well, let's stay on the topic of a potential hot war with Iran. Unfortunately, there are some

people egging it on. Prophatically, we are on the verge of the Gog-Megog war that Ezekiel described in chapters 38 and 39. In response to growing violence in the Middle East and in the Middle East, Iran's retaliatory attack against Israel, evangelical pastor John Hagee claimed that Iran's strike against Israel was the beginning of an apocalyptic war from the Bible, but Hagee actually wants the war to happen as you're about to hear him explain. Let's listen. The Democrats are trying to advise Israel to de-escalate, which is music to the ears of Amazan Iran. We don't need to de-escalate. Hamas started a war murdering Jewish people. Hamas needs to be wiped out, period. You know, the providential timing of God is an awesome thing.

early in the week when I began to feel the way this was going I told our Christians United for Israel organization we're going to have a Washington D.C. fly in. This is an emergency fly in that means you fly in one day instantly and have a meeting with Congress. After the service today I'm going to get on a plane and fly to Washington, D.C. 250,000, more leaders from across the nation are going to converge there also. We're going to go to face the House of Representatives face to face and tell them to stop shuffling papers and actually do something to help Israel. God structured this in just the way that the door is now open and we're going to go

through it like a bulldozer. I assure you that. The door is now open and we will go through it like a bulldozer. Now what's the deal and why is he so excited about the Gog and Magog war? Well this is something we've been talking about on the show when we discuss things like the Israel lobby which should not be mistaken as a Jewish lobby. The Israel lobby consists of evangelicals who look forward to the end times. And the end times would not be good for the Jewish people.

So here's what his organization, Christians, United for Israel has stated, Christian support for Israel is based on the promises of God in scripture that affirm a future for the Jewish people and God's continued faithfulness to the nation, not on prophecies regarding the end times or speeding the return of Christ. But that doesn't actually track with Hagey's excitement for the Gog and Magog war, which like, anyway, considering how serious it is, right? And considering the death and destruction, That name is fascinating, but in the Bible, Gog is the leader of Magog, a place in the far north that many evangelicals believe is Russia. According to Ezekiel's prophecy, Gog will join with Persia, now Iran, and other Arab nations to attack a peaceful Israel like a cloud that covers the land.

Many evangelicals believe this battle will bring on the rapture, the end times event, when God spirits away the good Christians to heaven. before unleashing plagues, sickness, and other horrors on the unbelievers remaining on earth. God, you good Christians must love that idea. Oh my God, we're going to murder everyone and we're going to have plagues and sickness. They didn't believe the things we believe that they're all going to be tortured. We're such good Christians. The door has been open, Jank. So in other words, Israel has to be attacked in order for the apocalypse to destroy everyone except the Christians,

which will be saved by the second coming. As long as the Christians are saved, murder for everyone else, such a wonderful loving God. Remember guys, it's not actually the Bible, it's their interpretation of the Bible, right? Exactly. So like a lot of good Christians read the Bible and go, oh, the Gog and my God stuff seems a little bit outdated and a little kooky. But you know, I love the part where it's Sermon on the Mount where Jesus actually speaks to the New Testament. We talks about taking care of the needy, the poor, and being kind and loving and being the prince of peace. Now think about it, if you're a Christian, you know,

Look, I don't believe the things that you believe. I think God, believe in Gaga, but God is clinically insane. Okay, but if you're a Christian and you think, well, the devil's real and he's in the world. Now, of course, everybody knows the devil's going to come in disguise. He's like, hey, I'm the devil, right? So would he come as someone who is Jewish? That don't seem likely. Would he come as someone who's Muslim?

Well, that'd be a pretty big heads up to the Christian folks. They wouldn't get tricked by that. That seems unlikely. Wouldn't he come as a Christian pastor who's telling you that Jesus was not the Prince of Peace, but that Jesus wanted death and destruction and that he says, we don't want to deescalate. Do you see, if you read the New Testament at all, you're a real Christian, do you think that Jesus would think, well, I don't want to deescalate, I want more more and more people killed? Really, you got that out of the New Testament? He said, we want to wipe them all out.

That's what you got out of the New Testament was that Jesus wanted to wipe everyone out. I want to give you this tweet from Pastor Hagee from over the weekend. He writes, the king is coming again very soon and the church will be called to meet him in the air. Good, why don't you meet him in the air now? Good, go take a plane, jump out of it and meet him in the air. Okay, I ain't got nothing to do with it, but go ahead. But hey listen, if you believe in the voodoo, I don't believe so. I think Hagee, if there is a devil, it's exactly someone like Hagey.

And all the other evangelical preachers telling you how they need private jets and mansions and all that stuff. Imagine Jesus who said give away all of your worldly belongings and follow me. If you were the devil, you would of course be an evangelical preacher telling everybody to obsess about money, to give all of their hard-earned money to those preachers so they can have 12 jets and invade more countries and kill more people. That is exactly what you would do if you were the devil. And guys, look, the reason why I felt that it was important to show you, show you his statement in that video is because of what he also says about his his plan of action, what he is planning to do alongside, in his words, hundreds of other religious

leaders. They're going to Washington, D.C., to lobby Congress to prevent the de-escalation of war in the Middle East. Okay, like, this is why the types of decisions that seem to make no sense get made in D.C. by members of Congress. It's not about doing the right thing. It's not about preventing civilian casualties, civilian deaths. It's about doing right by their donors, by those who are lobbying toward them. And that's why, following Iran's attack, incredibly weak attack, which caused absolutely like no death, no damage in Israel, you have all these neocons lining up in corporate media

demanding for the escalation of more war. It's, guys, it's so devastating, innocent people are going to die if, you know, our government decides to go along with this. Yeah, look, the Anna's 100%. The number, right, the number one problem here is that this stuff works. So I ran into a lot of the Christians United for Israel, that's Hage's organization. So number one, do you know that they raise $100 million annually every single year and handed over to, Israeli groups. And so some of those are that help to settlers that drives even more violence and more conflict.

And second of all, they do these fly-ins all the time. Like if you and I did a fly-in to D.C., it would be hilarious because almost no legislator would meet with us. We don't have money. Because we don't have money, right? So, but these Christians United for Israel fly in all these pastors. And they all come in. I think they're like literally the most, you know, they're almost escaped.

mental patients, right? They come in in their outfits and they're like, God, ma'og, listen to us. God, my God, my God, is coming. And then they're like, yeah, by the way, here's a check. And all the politicians are like, all right, Gog, magog, it is. Who do you want us to murder? Okay. And so these, and unfortunately, when they do these fly-ins, they have a track record of enormous success, because they come packing money and what the politicians believe is a lot of evangelical voters. By the way, I think they're totally wrong about that in today's America.

That used to be very true, but a lot of the right wing has left that camp. And they're in the camp of, no, I'm not interested in going to have my son go to the Middle East and die there for no goddamn reason. So I'm not, I don't want to hear about your stupid Gogamag. So last thing on this, so do they care about Israel? Now we've covered this many times, of course not. But I recently read about a documentary by a Jewish filmmaker. She went and covered these people and wanted to see, hey, why do they love Israel so much? And of course what she found out is they do not love Israel.

One of the pastors said, you don't want me to tell you why I'm helping you. She's like, yeah, I do. Okay, so he finally spits it out. He goes, the Jews are arrogant and God will humble them. Jesus. But first, they need to start a giant war in the Middle East, in Israel itself. So because they have this end times prophecy, not in the Bible at all, made up by a lunatic evangelical preacher in America in the 1970s,

about how Israel has to take over entire area, has to destroy the Alaksa mosque, and then Jesus is going to land in the air, or Hage is going to catch them in the middle, and then they're going to suck up all the good Christians. And by the way, the last part's really important. Murder all of the rest of us, including all the Jews in Israel, and about 8 billion people. And that's what, that's the fantasy that they're looking forward to. I wish God would come down and murder everyone.

Yeah, imagine salivating over that notion and thinking you're the good guy. Yeah. Here we are. though, to the political warhawks in the United States. You may have seen on cable television over the weekend, so let's get to that. Ever since Israel's retaliatory strike against, I'm sorry, ever since Iran launched a retaliatory strike against Israel over the weekend, a rogues gallery of neocon war mongers have been littered all over the cable news.

And unfortunately, many of them are politicians. In fact, why don't we hear from two senators from both sides of the political aisle, egging on more war in the Middle East. In the past 60 days, we have seen President Biden go wobbly in his support of Israel. And today, the White House has already leaked to the press early this morning, that they're not going to participate in an Israeli response. to what Iran just did. Let me say it again.

More sheep is not going to solve the wolf problem. My advice to the president today, for what it's worth, Mr. President, don't stop it. Support Israel. With respect, go to Amazon and buy a spine online. Peace through weakness never works, not with these hard, hard men. A senior administration official tells CNN that President Biden told Prime Minister Netanyahu that the U.S. will not participate in any offensive operations against Iran. Do you think that's the right call or should direct U.S. military action, as some of your colleagues in the Senate are suggesting, should that be on the table?

I don't agree with that, you know, and I'm just, I think we should follow and have Israel's back in the situation. I don't agree with the president. So there you have Democratic Senator John Federman. Prior to him, you heard from Republican Senator John Kennedy, who is a real person, even though he sounds like a cartoon character. Yeah. So isn't it funny that when economic interests are at stake, and here the defense contractors and the oil companies would make a very literal killing

if we went to war, all of a sudden Republicans and Democrats are united again. The unit party shows up right on cue. And so Kennedy, it was a funny line about a spine. But hey, again, if you're MAGA or a progressive that is anti-war, how tired are you of hearing like, oh, if you had a spine, if you were a real man, you'd start World War III. Oh, if you were a real man, you'd kill babies and grandmothers. Really?

Okay, yeah, I'm not interested in that kind of BS. And then Fetterman, from a pretend progressive to now a neocon. Yes. Not just a moderate Democrat or a corporate Democrat, not just a conservative and neo-conservative. He says, I don't agree with the president. We should go on the offense. That's insane. To strike Iran and potentially start a war much larger than the Iraq war.

That's the liar who pretended to be very much on the left wing as he was running. Can I let me just, I really think it's important to reiterate that a hot war with Iran means American boots on the ground. That is what John Fetterman just advocated for. Our men and women in our armed services risking their life in a war that can be prevented. That is what Federman just advocated for. And by the way, you know, we talk about the bribery, the legal bribery, the lobbying that takes place in government. Okay, you look at Kennedy, yeah, he's taken a lot of money from defense contractors just over the last few years. Between 2021 and 2022. Kennedy took nearly $105,000. And then 2023 to 2024, $6,297. I'm sure that money is going

to be ramped up real soon, considering, you know, the defense contractors are totally salivating over the notion of a hot war with Iran. But think about what that means for Americans. Think about what that means for Israeli civilians. Think about what it means for civilians in general in the Middle East. Think about what it means for our men and women in our arms services having to go there, boots on the ground to fight a formidable military. Iran is no joke and we would be caught up in that war for a long time. Demeterman, what a joke. It's embarrassing.

It's embarrassing. I'm a populist. I chew go on TV. I wear sweatshirts and shorts. Let's go start a war for oil contractors and AIPAC and defense contractors. Come get the hell out of you, you loser. You know how much the money this clown is taken from AIPAC? He's been in the center for like three days.

But I mean, how much money did you take per day from APEC? They're shoveling money in his direction and he's a yes, I love corruption. Rand is a fake populist, get the hell out of here. John Fetterman is exactly why voters and especially Democratic voters lose hope in our system. Because every time someone pretends to be on our side, the minute they step into Washington, all of a sudden, they're stuffing their face full of bribes and can't wait to start wars just like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. Did you run his Dick Cheney? Did you go to the people of Pennsylvania and go, oh, yeah, I'm going to start as many wars as I can.

No, you said the opposite, you goddamn liar. I have more contempt for John Fetterman than almost anyone in Washington because of what he pretended to be and what he actually is. Yeah, totally. He's disgusting. I can totally understand that. I mean, the neocons who never had a mask on, they were always mask off. At least they told you from the very beginning who they are. With Federman, it's a completely different story.

The deception makes it even worse. Just real quick, others who waited on this included Steve Scalise, who said in light of Iran's unjustified attack on Israel, I mean, are we just going to pretend like Israel didn't attack Iran's consulate? Okay, fine. every politician, definitely every Republican, and all like the UK Prime Minister, etc. They're all pretending like yesterday was the first day of history. And golly, gee, Iran out of nowhere for no reason decided to attack Israel. But I'll give credit to Joe Biden for not pretending that. Right.

Big credit, okay. So, and you see me criticize him viciously. But here he is, he's doing the right thing saying don't go on the offense. I'm happy to give him the world of credit. And by the way, a lot of the media, I'll give them credit because they are almost all pointing, especially Sienna, and pointing out these are retaliatory strikes, Israel struck first. So, Scalise continues to write, the House will move from its previously announced legislative schedule next week to instead consider legislation that supports our ally Israel and holds Iran and its terrorist proxies accountable. The House of Representatives stands strongly with Israel and there must be consequences for this unprovoked. It's just completely rewriting recent history.

Lindsay Graham doing what Lindsay Graham does best, total war hawk. Prayers for our ally Israel, who's under attack by the Ayatollah and his henchmen. It is long past time for Iran to pay a heavy price for the terrorism they sew throughout the world. And Marsha Blackburn was even more explicit in her calls for violence. She says, POTUS, we must move quickly and launch aggressive retaliatory strikes on Iran. Luckily, Biden not interested in listening to anything Senator Blackburn has to say and has made it clear that the U.S. will not support any offensive attack against Iran because a lot is on the line and a lot of innocent people would die. De-escalating the situation would be the best course of action for everyone involved, except for Netanyahu who wants to hold on to power by.

expanding this war to something that would be far more dangerous for his own people. Yeah, and you had the usual cast of characters. If you're going to have Israel's boots like do you need Richie Torres. So a Democrat from New York, he immediately went to work as a serpent of Israel saying, oh my God, they're purists of driven snow. We have to attack and use American money and military and troops to do Israel's dirty work for them. Oh, okay, A PAC, please add more money, a loser. Okay, now last thing is Marco Rubio because he was my favorite.

Marco Rubio said that the pro peace protesters and anyone on the anti-war side, which includes now a ton of right wingers, he says are pro-terrorist anti-Semites. Did you just call your base anti-Semites? Little Marco. Yeah, did you just call them pro-terrorist? Maga, you're going to sit there and take that for all the guys? because I've seen you guys say 2,000 times online, personally, how anti-war you are and how proud you are that Trump is anti-war and prevents wars.

So did you mean it? Or were you just kidding? Oh, yeah, we're still neo-conservatives. We still pray at the altar of Dick and Liz Cheney. So who are you, Maga? Who are you? Are you anti-war? Or do you want to be the servants of Israel as Richie Torres, Federman?

And literally 100% of the Republican politicians in DC are. So you tell me, but right now Rubio just called you a terrorist and an anti-Semite. So let's see if you're okay with that. When we come back from the break, there's a big intercept expose on a leaked memo in the New York Times. We got to get into the details of that and some of the guidance they've given their reporters in regard to reporting on the war in Gaza. That and more coming up, don't miss it. This was my ass. Back on TYT, Jank and Anna with you guys, also Dura Mata, Jared Rockstrom, and Wackadoodle Dragon.

You guys are awesome for signing up. They hit the join button below you can to tyt.com slash team, Anna. Let's talk about the reporting around the ongoing war on Gaza. Internal New York Times documents obtained by the intercept show that the paper actually distributed an internal memo to its journalists that urge them to avoid using words like ethnic cleansing or genocide in describing the ongoing war on Gaza. And believe it or not, the memo gets even worse. So the Times instructed journalists covering Israel's war on the Gaza Strip to restrict the use of the terms genocide and ethnic cleansing, and to avoid using the phrase occupied territory when describing Palestinian land. But it's occupied territory. By every definition, and by every standard, the United Nations and every other organization calls it occupied territories.

But the New York Times has decided that if they call it occupied territories, it might mean that the occupation is wrong. And they would never want their readers to think something that is true. They want their readers to think that Israel is right, whether it actually is or not. So they skewed in, and look, as Anna gives you the details here, reported by internal New York Times staffers, okay? Keep in mind, is this what an objective news organization would do? Because they claim, oh, we're the most objective. I mean, unless you're Palestinian, in which case you're dirt, you should stay occupied. And we're not even going to use language that is accurate, because you don't deserve it.

You're not really human being like those beloved Israelis. It gets worse. So the memo also instructs reporters, I think this is the worst part. Not to use the word Palestine, except in very rare cases. and to steer clear of the term refugee camps to describe areas of Gaza historically settled by internally displaced Palestinians who fled from other parts of Palestine during previous Israeli Arab wars. No, I mean, this is just literally concealing the reality from their readers and skewing their reporting. So there's like overwhelming bias that favors one side.

And misinforms the public about the other side entirely. Objective. But hold on, I want to say one other thing about this. There's more details, I'll get into in just a second. But I want to make a point that's a broader point about what media does to our society. What I've come to really accept, and it's actually softened me up to people that I vehemently disagree with or have been a little more cruel toward in the past is the media. misinformed us in a lot of ways and it keeps us in a bubble that totally hides or shields

us from one half of the argument, one side of the argument. And so when you come across people who might be just overwhelmingly supportive of everything the Israeli government does, if it's just a normal person, a normal civilian, right, try to take it easy on them and try to to have an actual good faith exchange with them because they might not know about the full extent of this conflict or the historical context of this conflict, especially if they're relying on the paper of record, the New York Times, which is obviously skewing their reporting to overwhelmingly favor one side. Yeah, look, that's why I've been warning you guys about Main Street media now for a very long time. And that's because they skew things and they

take their position, which is often on most issues of pro-corporate, pro-status quo position, and they privilege it and call it objective. Think about what an amazing trick that is. So now my corporate position is the objective position, and if anyone disagrees with the status quo, you're radicals and wrong by definition, because I define my position as the objective one. And here in the case of Israel, they're saying when Palestinians attack, as we'll get to the details in a second, we're to call them terrorists and all these terrible where they use slaughter and massacres, when Israel attacks and kills more civilians, both as a ratio of civilians to combatants and of course overall raw numbers, much more than the terrorists,

do not ever call them terrorists. Okay, look, you could say maybe the word terrorist is debatable in the context of a state actor. Okay, I'm going to have that discussion. Genocide, hey, the UN didn't call it a genocide yet. I think it meets every definition. But okay, you say I'm not ready to do that yet because the UN hasn't said it. Ethnic cleansing textbook ethnic cleansing, but it's too controversial, whatever. Okay, ethnic cleansing is really like you have to call it that.

But okay, but even all of those. But when you refuse to call a refugee camp filled with refugees at refugee camp, you're just basically saying I'm cheating and I'm taking the pro-Israel position right or wrong and then I'm calling it objective and hence anyone who doesn't agree with Israel is now a radical and is detached from reality and is subjective and opinionated and biased whereas our Israel bias that is overwhelming is objective and the truth look I also look I understand why the New York Times might not want to use the word genocide, right? But what was really fascinating to me was the direction that the reporters were given,

like what word they should use instead of genocide. You know what word that is? Massacres. So Jake, massacres is a word that really hits a nerve with me in particular, because it was a word that was favoreded by certain group of people that committed genocide, now widely accepted genocide against Armenians. And that was the Turks. It wasn't a genocide, it wasn't a genocide, it was just massacres.

And it wasn't ethnic cleansing. They just moved them from one area to another. Just like Israel's moving the Palestinians from one area to another. No, brothers and sisters, that's the textbook definition of ethnic cleansing. Moving civilians from one place to another because you want them out of that area and you want to take their land. And then they die along the path, like literally there is no other definition of ethnic cleansing. And so, but New York Times isn't within miles of that. Why?

No rational reason just because Israel. And that's objective. They're a joke, total joke. So there's more. Let's go to what the memo reads verbatim. It is accurate to use terrorism and terrorist in describing the attacks of October 7th, which included the deliberate targeting of civilians in killings and kidnapping. We should not shy away from that description of the events or the attackers,

particularly when we provide context and explanation. But as you alluded to earlier, Jank, the same phrasing is not to be used against what Israel is carrying out against Palestinian civilians in Gaza. The Times does not characterize Israel's repeated attacks on Palestinian civilians as terrorism, even when civilians have been targeted. And by the way, they have also referred to some of what Israel has done as massacres. An intercept analysis found that as of November 24th, the New York Times had described Israeli deaths as a massacre on 53 occasions, and those of Palestinians just once.

The ratio for the use of slaughter was 22 to 1, even as the documented number of Palestinians killed, climbed to around 15,000 people. One anonymous source at the Times also told The Intercept this. I think it's the kind of thing that looks professional and logical if you have no knowledge of the historical context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But if you do know, it will be clear how apologetic it is to Israel. So that's someone who works within the New York Times newsroom who spoke to the intercept for this story.

Yeah, so look, now Israel has killed 30 times the number of innocent civilians that Hamas has. And by the way, their kill ratio of combatants as civilians is worse than Hamas because everybody leaves this out. Hamas actually killed over 300 IDF soldiers on October 7th. Now, that's not to say like that that's a positive thing. No, I don't want anyone dying, including the IDF soldiers, okay? So, and I think October 7th was terrible, it was wrong morally, strategically in every way that you could imagine. So I'm super clear about it, right?

And so, but when you don't mention, hey, that was a two and a half one to one ratio. It's still way more civilians to two and a half is the civilians, terrible. We all agree it's terrible. Now you turn around to Israel and their ratio is way worse than two and a half to one. But the New York Times says, no, that is not terrorism, because. Israel's doing it. So by definition, it must be morally correct, I guess. I mean, you tell me New York Times, what's your excuse? They have a worse ratio. If you're saying Hamas are obviously dirty terrorists, because look at all the civilians,

they killed along with the Israeli soldiers. So now when Israel kills way more civilians as a ratio, along with the Hamas fighters, they're theoretically killing, although they've never really proven it. You say they are not terrorists. There's no excuse for that. None other than we love Israel and loving Israel and letting them do anything they want is the objective position. Last thing. So I don't want people to mistake us as biased because we're not. And I know every New York Times editor is like, they don't even agree with Israel. Of course they're the most biased people on earth, right? You guys are such, anyway. No. No, New York Times from time to time, and we've shown it to you over the last six months here,

has done some good and even some great reporting on Israel. And when they do, we give them credit for it. And I wish they would do that more regularly, right? And remember the people leaking this are New York Times reporters who are trying to do the right thing. Exactly. So don't hate on all the New York Times reporters or even the editors, although that's a target rich environment. But the very top, the management of the New York Times is not anywhere near objective. This fish stinks from the head down, and so they're basically literally ordering their editors and their reporters.

You are under no circumstances to be objective here. You will say that if Hamas does it, they are terrorists, and if Israel does it worse, they're innocent, do not call them terrorists, do not say they've occupied anyone, do not say there's refugee camps. Are we allowed to say the sky is blue and the grass is green? or how many other lies do you want me to print in the New York Times so that Israel can be happier? It's outrageous. Well, to show you how fair we are, when we come back from the break, we're going to talk a little bit about a pro-Palestinian protester who is a complete and utter idiot and is facing the consequences for being a complete nutter idiot. That and more coming up, don't miss it.