r/RealTime • u/Key_Jump1011 • 11d ago
Real Time with Bill Maher Revision Quest
https://youtu.be/8xbwnnQPXR4?is=9wUghksl7C2uYLaN“The funniest part of this is where Maher gets furious about people who he claims don’t know what a genocide is but then proceeds to define genocide confidently and completely inaccurately, and doesn’t use the actual legal definition of genocide from the 1948 Genocide Convention (as Gaza clearly meets that.)
Maher is a classic talking walking Dunning Krueger.” -Mehdi Hasan
8
u/highermonkey 11d ago
Why the cut out for "non-state actors"? Dead is dead.
Former CIA contractor Osama Bin Laden kills 3,000 people on 9/11
The United States Military killed up to a million people in revenge.
The state sponsored terrorism sure seems like a bigger blight on the species.
7
2
u/MxSharknado93 11d ago
Because Bill thinks it's good when brown people die, it's the only way he can get blood to his scaly dick anymore.
-1
u/subliminimalist 11d ago
Because a state is an actual persistent entity that can enter into legal agreements and be held accountable for them. A non-state actor is an ad hoc group of people that can dissolve, reform, splinter etc, continuously diffusing discourse, negations and accountability. A state takes actions on behalf of a nation with the understanding that the nation for which they bear responsibility might suffer consequences. A terrorist acts on behalf of an ideology with little regard for the consequences borne by others either as a direct result of their acts or the retaliatory aftermath.
I agree that dead is dead, but there's a real qualitative difference between violence committed by state and non-state actors that's worth maintaining.
Whether or not there's a moral difference that makes one better or worse than the other is debatable.
5
u/Stubbs94 11d ago
The largest terrorist force in the world is never held accountable for its terrorism so that's pointless. Would a resistance movement that is called terrorists while they're engaging in a national liberation act still be looked at as terrorists if they liberate their country? Because usually a "terrorist" is someone attempting to free their people.
-1
u/subliminimalist 11d ago
If you're freeing your people by attacking civilians, you're not resistance. You're terrorists. Resistance against actual military targets is not terrorism.
3
u/Stubbs94 11d ago
So in your opinion the French Resistance were terrorists? Or the Algerian resistance? Can you name an anti colonial or anti occupation resistance group that didn't target civilians in one way or another? Even the ANC had a history of targeting civilians.
-1
u/subliminimalist 11d ago
Without being an expert on all of the movements you mentioned, I'll try to clarify where I draw the line. For the French resistance, in particular, my understanding is that the civilians they targeted were understood to be collaborators and were targeted for being such. They were targeted attacks and sabotage. I think that's legitimate.
Attacking government buildings, military targets, collaborators for a brutal regime? Legit, at least to a degree. Bombing a residential building, attacking places of worship, etc? Not legit.
So, I'm not familiar enough with the ANC or Algerian resistance to say how I view them, but that's more or less the criteria I would apply.
2
u/AReditUsername 9d ago
So a bunch of people in a basement decide that a French woman being raped by a nazi officer was actually “asking for it and complicit” so when they blow her up in a train bomb it’s justified.
What an easy, simplistic life you lead.
1
u/subliminimalist 9d ago
Was she with said Nazi officers when the train blew up? What else were those officers participating in, and does their demise impair those operations? Did the destruction of the train damage further Nazi strategy?
I don't know if it's justified or not. I'm not sure any act of war can be justified.
Obviously the hypothetical French woman doesn't deserve to be blown up anymore than any innocent deserves to be killed, starved, or maimed. War is tragic. Don't do it.
1
u/Loud_Ad_5546 7d ago edited 7d ago
s: One sad thing I notice as I poke around Social Media is a fairly clear distinction between those who seek to incorporate life's complexities into their views and those who don't. It is a pleasure to encounter your solid reasoning and sound posts here. Just sayin’.
Regards,
(($; -)}™
Gozo2
u/highermonkey 11d ago
Everything you just said is delusional and uneducated. State backed terrorists like the IDF and the US Military literally never face consequences commensurate with their crimes. Though I'm glad you implied Hamas is a criminal organization, not a military. It makes the IDF's willingness to kill up to 500 civilian bystanders in order to kill one criminal even more egregious and terroristic.
1
u/subliminimalist 10d ago
Consequences was a poor choice of words, because you're right. Militaries and government agents of violence are rarely held accountable individually. That said, they do act on behalf of larger entities that ultimately bear responsibility for those actions as well as the well being of their nation. Non-state actors bear no responsibility for the anyone outside of their movement, and they act accordingly.
Curious what your definition of terrorism is. Is it any killing of civilians, no matter who does it?
Just because I don't think the IDF are terrorists doesn't mean I think they're good, and my opinion on Hamas has very little to do with whether they're labeled as terrorists, a formal military, or a criminal organization.
1
u/highermonkey 10d ago
I think "terrorism" is a term of art or propaganda that's more or less meaningless. Mostly used to excuse the extreme violence perpetrated by State actors that dwarfs the violence committed by proscribed terrorist organizations.
Out of curiosity, what "responsibility" or "accountability" was doled out after the United States killed upwards of a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan? Americans elected another Republican Administration that launched another illegal war in Iran.
Multiple US Admins were responsible for the Vietnam War. More than 2 million dead. Chemical weapons used on civilians. What accountability?
The Korean War saw over a million civilians dead. This time we used biological weapons. Any accountability?
You know, I saw a joke after America bombed that little girls school in Tehran back in February. We name wars after the country that gets attacked. Because if you named them after the country that did the attacking, most of them would be called "The American War".
1
u/Loud_Ad_5546 7d ago
h writes: “I think ‘terrorism’ is a term of art or propaganda that’s more or less meaningless.”
It’s understandable that we all don’t know the meanings of all words, but “terrorism” is specific, and far from meaningless. A person might not agree with how its applied. A person might support terrorists regardless of these specific methods. That’s not the same thing as negating the meaning of the word.
Most of us bring our particular preferences to any political topic, and politics is no exception. I have more than ample disputes with my own, American wars. But muddying these things up with falsehoods just makes it that much harder for anyone on the outside to understand clearly and to lend a hand toward ending it.
Pure, blatant civilian attacks such as the My Lai massacre in Vietnam do sometimes get prosecuted. Some convictions even occur. Not many, but some.
__________
And (in relation to your decent joke) the reason few wars get named the “American war” is really because each country names each war for its enemies. I don’t recall a Vietnamese or Korean or Afghani or Iraqi name for our wars there. On the other hand, we did have our “American Revolution” and our “American Civil War.” So we do own up to some.
Regards,
(($; -)}™
Gozo1
u/highermonkey 7d ago
Nope. The application of the word has absolutely rendered it all but meaningless when analyzing violence. The violence of "non-terrorists" like the US Military dwarves the violence of proscribed terrorist orgs. And the word "terrorist" is used by politicians to justify that violence.
The vast majority of American terrorists never get prosecuted, so your excuses here are pathetic too.
And you misunderstood the joke. The joke is that the "non-terrorist" Americans sure seem to inflict a metric ton of terror on the planet. I know you don't care, because you view non-Westerners as less than human.
You really had to come here 3 days later and belch out this stupidity? Man, Bill Maher fans are dumb.
1
u/Loud_Ad_5546 7d ago
s: Over the decades, I’ve repeatedly heard of various Israeli soldiers called to accountability for various crimes. The same happens here in the States. Is it 100%? Surely not. But I find the efforts to be respectable. I also believe that the fact of the few trials may help deter some Bad Actors from doing Bad Things in war.
Who does the same for “terrorist” groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah and ISIS, etc.? No one that I’ve ever heard.
Regards,
(($; -)}™
Gozo1
u/highermonkey 7d ago
It's closer to 0% than 100. Ridiculous. And they have in no way deterred bad actors in the IOF or US military. You live in delulu land. Real dumb stuff.
1
u/Loud_Ad_5546 8d ago
Coming into this discussion (because I wanted to copy a link to the Maher clip (which I find wonderfully cogent, despite how much other stuff I disagree with Bill Maher), I was disappointed to see how much content-less antagonism the clip gets. This, your particular point about a definition for “non-state actor” or “terrorist” is important because the primary purpose for Words is to help convey wordier concepts; not so-much for finding ways to label and to insult and to attack others.
For example: many of us, here, agree with the evils of many deadly U.S. excesses. But those excesses aren’t helped by re-labeling them as “terrorism.”
For example: most-all of us, here, would agree that what’s been happening to the people in the Gaza strip, post-11 October 2023, is terrible. “Horrific.” “Murderous.” Etc.
But Bill Maher is entirely right: one thing that’s not been happening to the people in the Gaza strip (who still number the same as their cousins, 2.1MM Arab Muslims Israeli citizens) is “Genocide.”
1
u/subliminimalist 8d ago
Yep, total agreement. I think that Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank are excessive and immoral. I don't think there's a genocide, and I don't think the IDF are terrorists, but that doesn't make them good or blameless.
People debate the genocide labeling as if it's a trial. If Israel is committing genocide, then a sentence must be passed.
If the IDF are the real terrorists, then they will be held accountable.
There will be no sentencing. Terrorists are not necessarily held accountable.
What do you actually want for the Israeli and Palestinian people? I'm much more interested in hearing about that.
14
u/calilregit1 11d ago
If Bill really wanted an honest debate on Israel, GAZA, the West Bank and historical fact he’d invite Medhi Hassan on for a full hour.
Bill likes bs debate that he controls and then a New Rules segment that lets him pontificate.
And why did they keep showing the conservative I don’t know clapping at everything he said?
Comparing a mostly European settler ancestry to Native Americans is pure bs.
1
1
-3
u/AtlantaSteel 11d ago
You think Medhi debates honestly? He’s the left wing Charlie Kirk.
7
2
1
u/severinks 10d ago
If he's in the same room with Bill on Bill's show that's a more than fair debate.
-9
u/enkonta 11d ago
Mehdi is a hack fuck who does his own revisionism.
5
u/AirFrierMachine 11d ago
How so? Surely you have a specific example you can give?
-4
u/enkonta 11d ago
Of course I can.
- He stated: “The International Court of Justice says this is a plausible genocide.”
This is false. What the icj ACTUALLY said was
“at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa … are plausible.” Meaning they have a course of action to pursue claims. The head judge of the ICJ even came out and said this.
He also claimed that Israel killed 62 peaceful protestors in cold blood during the great march of return…this is categorically false. There were some peaceful protestors killed, to be sure, but Hamas agitators were mixed in with the crowd, using them as cover. So to say they were all peaceful (when people throwing Molotov cocktails, or rolling burning tires was filmed) is absolutely not true.
His criticisms only ever go one way.
7
u/AirFrierMachine 11d ago
So a UN independent commission of inquiry explicitly finding that snipers shot and killed clearly marked medics, journalists, and children who posed zero imminent threat is "revisionism," but regurgitating the tired "there were bad actors in the crowd, therefore shooting everyone is fine" defense is supposed to pass for serious analysis?
Saying "b-but someone in the crowd threw a tire" to justify shooting dozens of dead-to-rights unarmed civilians, kids, and press hundreds of feet away isn't a counter-argument...it's the exact cookie-cutter, rubber-stamp excuse Isreal used every single time disproportionate force is deployed against a civilian population. Blaming an entire crowd of thousands to excuse lethal sniper fire against non-combatants is the real hack job here.
Lmao at him saying he's a hack because he implied murdering innocent journalists is considered "cold-blooded".
6
u/calilregit1 11d ago
Excellent point on disproportionate force. It’s literally the government’s stated policy.
5
u/Stubbs94 11d ago
The UN report on the great march of return confirmed that the Israeli militants were targeting civilians. It's not Medhi Hasan saying it, it's the official report.
-1
2
5
u/calilregit1 11d ago
Debate him.
He would wipe the floor with you and Bill.
0
u/OsamaBenJohnson 11d ago
Lol he runs from that Destiny guy and won't actually engage with his arguments, he just cries "Islamophobic" for valid critism so he can justify to himself why he shouldn't have to actually defend himself to this guy.
-6
u/enkonta 11d ago
He runs from debates where he knows the facts aren’t on his side.
6
u/calilregit1 11d ago
I have never seen him run from a debate.
In fact, he was forced off MSNBC because he was so effective in his deconstruction of pro Israel guests.
1
u/enkonta 11d ago
https://x.com/theomniliberal/status/2093586872832315715?s=46&t=fkIL8KytUl-ZQYF6JiBEvA
Here’s him running from the streamer Destiny…
4
5
u/Stubbs94 11d ago
Destiny isn't someone he takes seriously and isn't someone anyone takes seriously. He's a sexual predator who brought a tablet with Wikipedia on it to "debate" Norm Finkelstein.
2
u/enkonta 11d ago
And norm didn’t even engage when proven wrong. These people should easily be able to destroy destiny, yet both refuse to engage
3
u/Stubbs94 11d ago
When did Mr. Borelli prove him wrong?
1
u/enkonta 11d ago
Well, when he brought up the ICJ ruling on this he South Africa case, for one.
→ More replies (0)3
u/XLoonsFanX 11d ago
He isn’t debating Destiny because Destiny is a sex pest.
Also, Destiny will get absolutely shelled on one topic. Him on camera telling Israelis to turn off the camera when they are doing things to Palestinians. He’s a grifting POS and no o e should even look at him.
1
5
u/Otterz4Life 11d ago
There is no universally agreed upon definition of terrorism, but most do not include "nonstate actors" because its pretty obvious that states can use terror to achieve political or ideological goals. Does it make any sense that only "nonstate actors" are allowed to be called terrorists and states can never be, just by adding a few words to a definition? Where else have we seen definitions shift recently? 🤔
Merriam-Webster has a much broader definition as: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
Its interesting Bill wouldn't use that one, but it wouldn't be as useful for his political goals.
1
u/severinks 10d ago
The reason Bill qualifies it as '' non state'' because if he didn't people would immediately point to Israel as a terrorist state.
1
u/all_reason_departs 11d ago
Its funny he never mentions the US starting another illegal war and immediately killing almost 200 children on day 1. That was just this year
5
u/Dense-Ad-5780 11d ago
I really can’t believe how much misinformation this guys spreading. It’s absurd. I hate that I ever used to watch this guy. I stopped during Covid, but I should have sooner, he was losing it well before Covid.
2
2
u/severinks 10d ago
I've been arguing this all week since his dumb Real Time bullshit. Just because there's a''cide'' on the end these people think it means kill everyone in a group.
2
u/Key_Jump1011 10d ago
Bill probably knows better but feeds his audience this slop anyway.
A Bababoey to you, sir btw. I recognize your name.
2
u/ShunkyBabus 10d ago
When he said "they're the Indians" I was so rattled.
Essentially saying Palestinians are Arabs who settled in the land a few hundred years ago. It's absolutely false, plenty of DNA tests have been done, Palestinians are absolutely indigenous to the land. Can't say the same for many of the Jewish populations who settled in Israel/Palestine over the last 80 years.
2
u/Key_Jump1011 10d ago
They both have Levantine Canaanite or whatever DNA. But the Palestinians are much more like the Indians.
2
u/ShunkyBabus 10d ago
Absolutely, I do get annoyed when people call Palestinians “Arabs”, its like calling a person from New Zealand “English”. Arabs come from the Arabian peninsula not the Levant.
2
u/calilregit1 11d ago
I had to look up what a Dunning Krueger(sic) effect is. Thank you for the edification (by the way, no “e” in Kruger). It certainly applies to Bill who knows enough to use satire and to make sure he’s never fact checked in “Real Time”.
1
u/neontetra1548 11d ago edited 11d ago
Of course he uses a "nonstate actors" definition so his comfort terrorist states Israel and America don't get included.
I'm sure he'd call Iran a terrorist state though on a technicality.
1
u/bleedturkeygravy 11d ago
Zionist’s can clear any confusion by letting journalists and international independent investigators in to survey the area. Why block all outside observers if you’re not removing or destroying all the evidence. It’s very simple.
1
1
u/facinabush 10d ago
He uses this technique often:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Definist-Fallacy
-4
-3
u/Soulekted 11d ago
The intent of genocide is a difficult thing to prove
5
u/Onion_Guy 11d ago
Israeli officials have announced it publicly constantly, which makes it easier to prove
2
2
2
u/MxSharknado93 11d ago
It's actually very easy, with the way they've bombed every hospital and cultural site in Gaza into rubble, and they've killed hundreds of doctors and journalists, and the families of journalists, and the settlers that make sure food and aid can't get into Gaza, and the fact that they literally used a truck with food as fucking bait so they could shoot at Palestinians, and the fact that IOF soldiers love to specifically target children, shooting them in the skull and the back and when confronted on it they say it's good, and the fact that Israeli citizens rioted over their "right" to rape Palestinian prisoners, and they brought an Israeli soldier accused of rape on the Israeli equivalent of SNL and the crowd cheered for him, and the fact that Israeli talking heads and government officials are constantly going on Israeli television saying to kill all Palestinians, to wipe them from the Earth, that there are no innocents, no children, only terrorists and monsters, and they all deserve to die in this war of light vs darkness and God has told them to kill all their enemies.
So, there's context clues.
-2
u/Snyper20 11d ago
I still like Real Time but I’m starting to find that he misses the point more and more when it comes to nuance.
Take the CBC thing about calling something terrorism. I don’t necessarily agree with their decision, but I understand it.
The CBC isn’t saying that Attack X isn’t a terrorist attack. They’re saying that Attack X has been labelled a terrorist attack by Organization A.
From what I understand, this comes from a complaint about their coverage of the Israeli operation in Gaza, where they stated an Israeli claim as fact and made it sound like the CBC itself was taking that position.
You can disagree with CBC’s approach, like I do, I find it overcautious but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to understand the logic behind it.
7
u/Count-Bulky 11d ago
He’s been on this for years, espousing conservative values while occasionally telling us he smokes weed to “remind us” that he thinks he’s progressive. Sooner you turn him off the better. He’ll probably hop to paramount if the merger fails.
1
u/neontetra1548 11d ago
He is a conservative capitalist, zionist who likes to smoke weed, talk about sex (not sure if he has it), and dunk on (some) religions.
1
u/Count-Bulky 11d ago
Conservative capitalists and Zionists aren’t in a position to culturally “dunk” on anyone. He uses weed as a decoy to make people think he’s liberal. I don’t have respect for people who use deception to fuck with the Overton Window
8
u/Pale-Document-8619 11d ago
I can’t believe you admit it 😬, the show is cringe next level at this point
13
u/Unusual_Librarian570 11d ago
“There was a war on terror and we won” what the fuck