Bill Maher UNLOADS on liberals over relentless support of Hamas: 'Are you f*****g kidding me!'
Bill Maher sharply criticized 'liberals' he accused of sympathizing with Hamas, expressing disbelief with the exclamation, 'Are you f***ing kidding me?'.
The 69-year-old comedian accused the left-wing of aligning their loyalties with Hamas and failing to condemn radical Islamic terrorism, arguing during a recent podcast episode that many anti-Israel protestors would ironically be among the first killed by the terrorist group.
'All the protestors who are protesting in Gaza against Hamas? They've all been killed. They killed protestors and women,' Maher said, before launching into a tirade against his ' woke ' audience.
The latest episode of Maher's Club Random podcast, which aired on YouTube Monday, featured a conversation with right-wing political commentator Tim Pool.
During the conversation, the Real Time host revealed that he has faced backlash from the 'far-left' ever since he began frequently and vocally criticizing Islam.
'One of the main reasons why the far left started to really hate me is because I call out Islam as what it is, extremely illiberal,' Maher said during the episode.
'That's what's so ironic about liberals being so supportive of Hamas, is because you're liberals and these are the people, I'm sorry, but this ideology, Islam, even in its more benign forms - yes, I agree, the vast majority of Muslims, not terrorists, of course,' he added.
'Islamists, which is the word we use to describe people who are not terrorists, but kind of agree with the things terrorists are doing, that's a much higher number.'
To further his point, the comedian added that far-left protestors in the US who support Hamas wouldn't survive a second if they were sent to live under Islamic regimes in the Middle East.
'Most Muslim societies live under some form of sharia law, which no westerner who thinks that Hamas is so great could ever live under,' he continued.
'Your fundamental rights that you take for granted here in America, you would not have.'
He went on to reference the protests erupting across the US, arguing that if similar demonstrations took place under Hamas rule, participants would be killed - claiming the terrorist group targets women and protestors alike.
'I mean, do I have to say anything more than just - if it was just that issue, how women are treated,' Maher added. 'Are you f***ing kidding me?'
In the very same episode, Maher also argued that the left-wing of the Democratic Party is alienating voters by focusing on what he called 'ridiculous' social issues and promoting 'woke policies'.
'They seem like committed to just going to absurd lengths just for sh**s and giggles, just for the f*** of it,' he said.
Maher has been outspoken about Israel amid the ongoing violence in Palestinian territories and frequently discusses Middle Eastern politics on his HBO show.
In October 2024, he accused American singer Chappell Roan of supporting Hamas and downplaying the October 7, 2023 attack on Israeli soil, as reported by Times of Israel.
During a lengthy monologue on his political talk show last year, Maher criticized both the star and Gen Z for relying heavily on social media as their primary source of news.
'I know you're moved by what you see on there [TikTok], we all are. The dead Palestinian bodies. But it's odd that your generation didn't seem nearly as moved by the Jewish bodies on October 7,' Maher said.
'Chappell, you're not wrong that oppression is bad or that Palestinians, and many other Muslim populations are oppressed and deserve to be freed - you just have it completely ass backwards as to who is doing the oppressing.'
In September 2024, Maher blasted Kamala Harris for her policy on the Middle East after she called for an end to the war in Gaza.
The former-Vice President told a trio of journalists from the National Association of Black Journalists that a ceasefire and hostage deal must get done in the Israel-Hamas war.
While calling for a two-state solution, she said the goal was to ensure 'the Israelis have security and Palestinians in equal measure have security, have self-determination and dignity.'
Maher condemned Harris for her take, arguing that it wasn't a real solution and that it would be better to say nothing at all if she couldn't offer a plan of substance.
'I mean, everybody who talks about Israel these days is just so full of s**t,' Maher said.
"'I don't want children to die.'" Duh. Who does?' he added. 'None of us want children to die. None of us want this war to go on, but it's not addressing what the problem is.'
'Here's what Kamala Harris said this week about what we should do when the war is over: "No reoccupation of Gaza, no changing of the territorial lines of Gaza" and an ability to have security in the region for all concerned in a way that we create stability." I feel like if that's what you have to say, don't say anything. Just shut up.'
In April 2024, Maher tore into college-age protestors as performative publicity seekers, warning that 'no-one likes you', in a withering putdown on his HBO show.
The comic and pundit blasted demonstrators, who have brought chaos to 'normies' with sit-down protests on major roads and college campuses.
He dubbed the Palestinian keffiyeh headscarf the modern equivalent of the Che Guevara T-shirt and scorned their 'cosplay as revolutionaries' while disrupting the lives of those who have to work for a living.
'Hey, if it makes you feel good to cosplay as revolutionaries. Knock yourself out. Burn yourself out. Just don't drag Gaza into it,' he said.
'Also, throwing stuff on paintings is just stupid. No one sees mashed potatoes on a Monet and thinks he's got a point, I should recycle my cans.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
44 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Iran on brink of rejecting US proposal on nuclear programme
Iran is on the brink of rejecting US proposals on the future of its nuclear programme after the US draft insisted that Tehran would have to suspend the enrichment of uranium inside Iran and set out no clear route map for lifting US economic sanctions. The US proposals were the first in written form since five rounds of indirect talks started, but Iranian diplomatic sources said the US proposals gave no ground on Iran's demand to continue to enrich uranium inside the country. 'Iran is drafting a negative response to the US proposal, which could be interpreted as a rejection of the US offer,' a senior Iranian diplomat told Reuters. The US proposal for a new nuclear deal was presented to Iran on Saturday by Omani foreign minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi, who was on a short visit to Tehran and has been mediating talks between Tehran and Washington. A complete breakdown in the talks would trigger European moves to impose heavier UN sanctions on Iran and a possible joint US-Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites, a move that could see Iran in turn launch reprisals. Faced by such a catastrophe, Iran is likely to try to temper its response to the US plans so that further talks are possible. The best compromise available would a US statement that Iran in principle is permitted to enrich uranium but in practice will not do so, at least inside Iran, for an indefinite period. The US has said it would allow Iran to join a Middle East consortium to enrich uranium, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, but this could not take place on Iranian soil. A regional consortium for a civil nuclear program would require huge trust between the countries involved and continued external inspection. At one point it seemed that Donald Trump would allow Iranian enrichment at low levels so long as US inspectors – not just UN teams – were given access to Iran's nuclear sites, but that solution seems to be fading. Speaking on a visit to Cairo, the Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi revealed little about the progress of the talks, but said Iran would be replying to the US proposals shortly. Iran did suspend enrichment for two years from November 2003, but in 2005 it rejected the European plan to use imported low-enriched nuclear fuel for its reactors. In Egypt Araghchi met with Raphael Grossi, the director of the UN nuclear inspectorate the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), expressing his displeasure at a draft IAEA report prepared for the agency's next board meeting that highlights how Iran has continued to enrich uranium at high levels of purity contrary to the agreement the nation signed in 2015. France, Germany and the UK intend to use the report to press for a board vote leading to UN sanctions being reimposed in September. The Iranians claim the draft IAEA report contains nothing surprising or new, but accuse the west of pressurising the inspectorate to develop an increasingly propagandistic tone. The report found that Iran carried out secret nuclear activities with material not declared to the UN nuclear watchdog at three locations that have long been under investigation. Araghchi said: 'Western pressures should not affect the IAEA and the IAEA must maintain its independent and technical identity. Some countries want to put pressure on Iran through the IAEA, and we hope that the IAEA will not fall into this trap.' He added: 'Iran's enrichment is completely peaceful and a scientific achievement that we have achieved through our scientists. The Iranian nation has paid heavy prices to achieve this achievement, and the blood of a number of our nuclear scientists has been shed for this issue. 'If the goal of the negotiations is to ensure that Iran does not seek to obtain nuclear weapons, we can reach an agreement in this regard, but if unacceptable and unrealistic goals are pursued in this regard and the goal is to deprive Iran of peaceful nuclear activities, there will definitely be no agreement.' Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign policy commission, said: 'If a proposal is based on ignoring the principle of enrichment, it is not at all presentable, not acceptable, not admissible, not worthy of attention, and not negotiable.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Man convicted over Koran-burning in London says ruling is assault on free speech
A man who burned a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London has branded his prosecution 'an assault on free speech' as campaigners argued the ruling 'signals a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes'. Hamit Coskun was found guilty on Monday of a religiously aggravated public order offence, having shouted 'f*** Islam', 'Islam is religion of terrorism' and 'Koran is burning' while holding the flaming religious text aloft earlier this year. The 50-year-old had argued his criticism was of Islam in general rather than its followers, but District Judge John McGarva said he could not accept this, finding that Coskun's actions were 'highly provocative' and that he was 'motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims'. Coskun was convicted at Westminster Magistrates' Court of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress', motivated by 'hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam', contrary to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section five of the Public Order Act 1986. Turkey-born Coskun, who is half- Kurdish and half-Armenian, travelled from his home in the Midlands to carry out the act in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, on February 13 and in court argued he had protested peacefully and burning the Koran amounted to freedom of expression. His legal fees are being paid by the National Secular Society (NSS) and the Free Speech Union (FSU), both of which criticised the ruling and said they intend to appeal 'and keep on appealing it until it's overturned'. In a statement issued through the FSU, Coskun said: 'This decision is an assault on free speech and will deter others from exercising their democratic rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression. 'As an activist, I will continue to campaign against the threat of Islam. 'Christian blasphemy laws were repealed in this country more than 15 years ago and it cannot be right to prosecute someone for blaspheming against Islam. Would I have been prosecuted if I'd set fire to a copy of the bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.' Conservative shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick, posting on social media platform X, said the decision was 'wrong' and 'revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed'. Judge McGarva, who issued a fine of £240, rejected the idea that the prosecution was 'an attempt to bring back and expand blasphemy law'. In his ruling, he said burning a religious book and making criticism of Islam or the Koran are 'not necessarily disorderly', but added: 'What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language.' The judge said Coskun, who is an atheist, has a 'deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers', based on his experiences in Turkey and the experiences of his family and that it was 'not possible to separate his views about the religion from his views about its followers'. The judge said: 'A criminal conviction is a proportionate response to the defendant's conduct. 'I am sure that the defendant acted in a disorderly way by burning the Koran very obviously in front of the Turkish consulate where there were people who were likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress and accompanying his provocative act with bad language. 'I am sure that he was motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims. I therefore find the defendant guilty.' NSS chief executive Stephen Evans described the verdict as 'a significant blow to freedom of expression' and one which 'signals a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes'. Mr Evans said the conviction 'suggests a troubling repurposing of public order laws as a proxy for blasphemy laws'. He added: 'This jeopardises freedom of expression by establishing a 'heckler's veto' that incentivises violent responses to suppress views deemed offensive. 'Such an erosion of free speech is detrimental to community relations. Social cohesion is best achieved not by restricting rights but by fostering their free exercise.' An FSU spokesperson said they will take the case 'all the way to the European Court of Human Rights' if necessary. They added: 'Religious tolerance is an important British value, but it doesn't require non-believers to respect the blasphemy codes of believers. On the contrary, it requires people of faith to tolerate those who criticise and protest against their religion, just as their values and beliefs are tolerated.' Humanists UK said that while the 'defendant's views, revealed in the course of the trial, are bigoted, and all decent people would be repelled by them', he had not expressed 'anything publicly that was prejudicial against Muslims' meaning in their view the ruling 'does raise concerns'. The organisation said the 'bar to successful prosecutions in cases like this is drawn too low' and warned public order legislation must not be 'used to disproportionately target speech – even offensive speech – on religious matters, thereby chilling legitimate criticism and expression'. In footage captured on a mobile phone by a passerby that was shown to the court, a man approached and asked Coskun why he was burning a copy of the Koran. Coskun can be heard making a reference to 'terrorist' and the man called the defendant 'a f****** idiot'. The court heard that the man approached Coskun allegedly holding a knife or bladed article and appeared to slash out at him, chase him and spit at and kick him. The man said: 'Burning the Koran? It's my religion, you don't burn the Koran.' Coskun had posted on social media that he was protesting against the 'Islamist government' of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who the defendant allegedly said 'has made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a Sharia regime', prosecutors said. The Prime Minister's official spokesman declined to comment on the case but said there are no blasphemy laws in England nor are there any plans to introduce any.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Pro-Gaza protester who harassed minister can avoid criminal record
A pro-Gaza protester who harassed a minister will avoid a criminal record if he does not reoffend within the next year. Hiba Ahmed, 26, and Ayeshah Behit, 31, left justice minister Alex Davies-Jones feeling 'terrified' after confronting her during the 2024 general election campaign. They had filmed a confrontation with Ms Davies-Jones, the Labour MP for Pontypridd, in her constituency. Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring found both defendants guilty of harassment but sentenced them to a conditional discharge and fine at Cardiff magistrates' court. Ahmed, an architecture student at the University of Cardiff with no previous convictions, was given a 12-month conditional discharge. Her conviction will not show up in criminal records checks if she does not offend within the next year. If she does reoffend, she can be sentenced for this offence and the new one. Behit, who has a conviction relating to a protest in Cardiff in 2024, received an 18-month conditional discharge. They were both ordered to pay £650 costs and a £26 court surcharge at a rate of £20 per month. During the trial, Ms Davies-Jones told the court that as she made her way to the campaign meeting place with some young Labour members she saw Behit and Ahmed with leaflets describing her as a 'full-blown supporter of this genocide', referring to the Israel-Hamas conflict. 'They asked me about the ceasefire and why I had abstained. I clarified I hadn't abstained, I wasn't in the country, I was paired in that vote,' she said. Ahmed and Behit then followed them down the street shouting: 'Why do you support genocide, why are you murdering babies Alex Davies-Jones?' Video posted on social media Later in the day, the defendants put posters on the walls of the Labour office in the town that referred to politicians 'enabling genocide'. They also placed stickers in black capital letters reading 'Alex Davies-Jones how many murdered children is too many?' on the office and a poster that said 'Alex Davies-Jones supports genocide' on a bus stop. A video of the confrontation posted on social media described Ms Davies-Jones as racist. Judge Goldspring told Ahmed and Behit: 'This conduct was clearly designed to cause alarm and distress to her.' He said their actions went 'beyond the boundaries' of freedom of speech and was 'beyond robust scrutiny or political process'. Ahmed said she and Behit,both of Treforest, had wanted to raise awareness of Ms Davies-Jones's actions on Palestine ahead of the election. She said the action taken against her 'wasn't really about her, it was about Palestine'. Behit said: 'My intention was to show a different perspective. It was never about Alex as a person.'
