Skip to content

Piers Morgan Makes a Stunningly Stupid Argument Regarding Hamass’ Hostage Videos

    Really, it is just amazing how dumb this is:





    The most galling part is that he seems to think he was being clever when he said it.

    How dumb is this comment? Let us count the ways.

    First off, we don’t necessarily believe every photo and video of a hostage coming from Hamass is exactly what it purports to be. If a photo or video does not contain strong evidence of it being recent, we don’t assume it is recent even if Hamass says it is. So, unless the image has the person holding up a recent newspaper’s front page or something like that, we don’t pretend to know when it was taken. And each time, Israel is careful to verify as much as it can, independently.

    Second, ordinary people understand that anyone, even a liar, is more credible when they say something that hurts their cause. For instance, if O.J. Simpson confessed to murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, that would have been infinitely more credible than every one of his denials. Because duh.

    Indeed, this is such an obvious truth it is written into the Federal Rules of Evidence—and the rules of evidence in every state this author is aware of. Remember the TV version of the Miranda warnings that say that anything you say can and will be used against you? Well, that is exactly right—if you say something outside of court that hurts your position in any way, it can and will be used against you, in a civil or criminal case, even if it might ordinarily be hearsay.

    The rule against hearsay specifically allows for this, stating in Federal Rule of Evidence 804(3) that hearsay is still admissible if it is a statement is more or less manifestly against that person’s interest. We are glossing over a lot of complexity when we say that, but this means that if you are on trial for allegedly murdering someone, you can bring in evidence that a different person confessed to the crime, because it was against that person’s interest to say it. This is because, in the eyes of the people who write the rules, such statements are more likely to be true. Because duh.

    Furthermore, in Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) says that any statement made by a party to a case can be used against that party—and only against that party, not in his or her favor. So, for instance, imagine in a civil case where the plaintiff claims that a defendant was driving drunk and caused an accident. Imagine further that this defendant told the police that he ‘had a few drinks’ but also that the plaintiff ran a red light and she caused the accident. The first statement made by the defendant to the police—that he had a few drinks—could be admitted into evidence under this rule, but his statement that the plaintiff ran a red light and caused the accident could not. Again, we are glossing over a lot of complexities in the law, but the rule is justified by the belief that it is much more credible for a person to say something that hurts their case, which is why the rule applies asymmetrically.

    Recommended

    So, yes, when a liar says something that hurts them, it is instantly more credible.

    And yes, Hamass is filled with liars, to the point that even Ted Lieu, not exactly an arch conservative, recognized this and called out the Los Angeles Times for being stenographers for Hamass. And if you go to that post, you will see how many people, including this author, caught Hamass lying about an Israeli attack on a hospital supposedly killing 500 people. Really, truly, lies are absolutely ubiquitous on the pro-Hamass side of this war, including people repurposing old footage from completely different events in different countries and photos, the New York Times publishing apparently doctored images of bullets in Palestinian children, and the same paper publishing pictures of an allegedly starving Palestinian child who was actually suffering from an unrelated genetic disease and was being treated in Italy for it six months ago. They even cropped out of one picture an image of his brother, who looked perfectly normal:

    The last one is particularly galling because it means that the New York Times is either publishing pro-Hamass claims without even the minimum of skepticism or curiosity, or they published them knowing that they were false. Because it really takes only a minimum amount of skepticism to start seeing these kind of pictures are not what pro-Hamass advocates claim. Even before the inevitable revelation that the picture of an allegedly starving child isn’t what it purports to be, have you ever noticed that these allegedly starving children are almost always shown being held by parents that are well-fed? Indeed, many of those parents are a bit on the chubby side—not exactly morbidly obese, but not exactly starving, either. Every parent this author knows—including his own—would gladly jump in front of a bullet to protect their children from harm, but somehow these parents are letting their children starve while they look healthy.

    Some have tried to explain that away by claiming that children show signs of starvation more quickly than adults. Even if that is true, medically, that assumes that the parents and the children would be cut off from food at the same time. But that wouldn’t happen in a loving home. For instance, look around your home. Imagine if for any reason you could no longer buy or otherwise obtain new food. Does that mean you immediately start starving? No. Even if you are not a ‘doomsday prepper’ you still have food in storage, and you likely have some of it that can remain fresh even if you lose refrigeration, too. And even if you have to flee from your home, the loss of food is rarely 1) sudden and 2) complete. Food is more often scarce than completely cut off.





    And again, every parent this author knows would literally take a bullet for their children. So, in any scenario where food is scarce, a loving parent will go hungry while making sure their children still eat. A loving parent would show signs of starvation before their children because they would actually be starving first. Therefore, when you see an alleged ‘starving’ Palestinian child held by a healthy mother (or occasionally father) you have to assume either 1) the picture is not what they are telling you it is, or 2) the parent in the picture doesn’t actually love their children. We tend to assume it is the first possibility. So even if you don’t know what is actually wrong with an allegedly ‘starving’ Palestinian child pictured with a healthy parent, you can safely assume that you are not actually seeing a starving child.

    And if someone wants to argue that ‘ackshully, the parents decided to eat while letting their child starve,’ have at it, but we don’t think that makes the Palestinian cause look better.

    On the other hand, when you see video of a hostage being held by Hamass starving to death and being forced to dig his own grave—a literal war crime captured on video—reasonable people who don’t normally trust Hamass can reasonably believe that the video is probably genuine—even if we are not sure how recent it is and might doubt other elements in the video (such as how recent it is).

    On to reactions:

    The cut off text:

    The other is visual evidence of a war crime. Try harder.

    That is true, but if Hamass put out alleged video evidence of Israeli war crimes, we wouldn’t accept it as true unless an independent, trustworthy source verified it.

    We doubt he was thinking at all.





    The cut off text:

    But this is actually about something else entirely – not simply the suffering of one side versus another in this conflict, but the way the western media and the world reacts to and portrays this conflict. 

    The case of the child in the New York Times article, which turned out to be deceptive, and misleading, using the child’s appearance and medical condition to make it seem like Israel was deliberately starving children, was met with outrage and universal condemnation, even after it was shown to be false.

    Alternatively, this video which shows the undeniably horrid state of a hostage, being deliberately starved, and his captors in Hamas and Islamic Jihad not only not denying it, but flaunting it, is met with deafening silence. 

    The only narrative constantly trying to be enforced here is that Israel must remain the villain. Whether that means believing and accepting Hamas Propaganda at face value, or ignoring Hamas atrocity even as its flaunted proudly for all the world to see. 

    These past two years, and the war Israel has been fighting, has revealed more about the west, than it has about the west’s enemies.

    We initially thought that the attack on October 7, 2023 would be a ‘mask off’ moment. We thought maybe the world would finally see Hamass with clear eyes and support for them would drop off a cliff. We were shocked and more than a little disappointed to see so many rally to their side after they started this war with a war crime. We thought women in particular would be repelled by the side that used rape as a weapon.

    The cut off text:

    There is good reason for pro-Israel voices, and others, to be skeptical of casualty data coming out of Gaza, particularly from the Hamas-run Health Ministry, and more broadly, from any governing branch under Hamas’ control.

    Beyond the examples raised by other people in this thread, one crucial and often-overlooked point undermines the credibility of Hamas’ casualty figures: the absence of a significant number of martyrdom notices of fallen members. In previous conflicts between Israel and Palestinian factions, groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) publicly honored their dead fighters. Martyrdom notices were standard, quick to be published, both as a cultural and ideological tool. They were issued to glorify the fallen and reaffirm the narrative of so-called resistance. But in this war, that practice has largely disappeared.

    Hamas has published martyrdom notices for top members like Yahya Sinwar, Muhammad Deif, Marwan Issa, and some senior commanders. 

    Yes, some obituaries have surfaced online on affiliated Telegram channels or from family members on Facebook, but these are unofficial. Hamas and PIJ have not released formal notices like it has in past wars.

    Why the sudden silence?

    The most plausible explanation is this: Hamas and PIJ have suffered devastating losses, possibly between 20-30 thousand fighters. That’s far higher than in any previous round of fighting. Publicly acknowledging this would expose the extent of their military losses and undermine the narrative they’re aggressively pushing, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

    It’s important to understand that the Health Ministry does not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. It simply reports aggregate deaths. The current Ministry of Health’s claim stands at around 60,000 fatalities. If a little more than a third of those are fighters, it may alter the international perception of the war. 

    For example, if 25,000 fighters belonging to armed factions have been killed and the TOTAL number of Palestinian deaths is overestimated by 10%, the number of genuine civilian fatalities drops to around 29,000. That’s still tragic, but it challenges the narrative of indiscriminate slaughter and genocide that Hamas is promoting.

    Will we ever know the true number of combatants killed? It will be difficult to know while Hamas/PIJ are in control of the data. These are not transparent actors; they are terrorist organizations fighting for survival, and I suspect they are manipulating casualty figures as a tool of information warfare.

    I could elaborate further, but I hope this provides an argument as to why the Ministry of Health’s statistics, including Hamas’s silence about its fighters who have been killed, should be treated with heavy skepticism.





    The cut off text:

    let’s be polite and call it creative. If you can’t tell the difference, maybe stop pretending to be the Sherlock Holmes of Twitter and stick to what you do best — shouting over people on TV.

    But we really have to question his decision to be polite.

    Well, we think we can spot a problem in their premise.

    In case you are wondering, his picture is of a genuine post that is still up:

    But to be fair to Morgan, his defense could be ‘I believe both the video and everything Hamass says about civilian casualties!’ It’s a stupid defense, but it is consistent.

    The cut off text:

    At least he can’t block me twice for pointing out the obvious.

    We are offended that we haven’t earned a block from him yet. We have got to up our game.

    As Hank Hill might say, Morgan has something to work for.





    The cut off text:

    It’s also interesting that Piers instinct is to come out to bat here for Islamic rapists and jihadists in order to launder, soften, dilute and steer us away from the horrific impact of the Holocaust style treatment Jewish hostages are receiving at the hands of Hamas

    Finally, this from an anti-Hamass account:

    *Stifles laughter.*

    RELATED: Neera Tanden Claims She had Biden’s Signed Authorization to Use the Autopen (LAWSPLAINING)

    A Deal in the Works? Ghislaine Maxwell Reportedly Moved to Minimum Security Prison (LAWSPLAINING)

    WATCH As the Company That Employed the ‘Coldplay Cheaters’ Runs an Absolute Clinic on Damage Control

    BREAKING: Tulsi Gabbard Blows Open Russiagate With Document Dump

    BREAKING: An NYT Interview With Biden Just Undermined Thousands of His Late Pardons (A Deep Dive)

    ‘First Do No Harm:’ Fisking John Oliver on the Transgender/Sports Issue


    Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives.

    Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Twitchy VIP today and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.





    twitchy.com (Article Sourced Website)

    #Piers #Morgan #Stunningly #Stupid #Argument #Hamass #Hostage #Videos

    Related posts:

    Federal Appeals Court Rules Takings Clause Creates Cause of Action Even Without Additional Federal or State Legislation

    Update on Potential Condemnation of New Jersey Church to Build a Park and Pickleball Courts

    Neera Tanden Claims She had Biden’s Signed Authorization to Use the Autopen (LAWSPLAINING)

    Voluntary migration or displacement? Gazans face catastrophic reality