Weird how you keep running defense for Dave. I'm not saying Douglas Murray comported himself well, but Dave's arguments are pretty terrible and don't really need a "substantive" rebuttal, as you'd know if you watched Coleman Hughes 3.5 hour debate with Dave where he showed how weak Dave's talking points are.
If you're going to continue cheerleading Dave's bad argumentation, I'm going to take a break from your content until you move on to a more interesting topic with a more "substantive" guest.
Same. And btw - Douglas looking down on Dave has nothing to do with free speech. Everyone should be allowed to speak, but at a certain point, when someone spews nothing but lies and bias, yells others down, you can bet they will be met with condescension. You talk about Douglas' ad hominem attacks but not of Dave's bad manners - talking over and rolling his eyes? Hardly civil.
Yeah, and Dave has an irritating habit of tiptoeing right up to some pretty nasty implications and then pretending that he's "just asking questions" or pointing out "odd coincidences" so he can slime out from under accusations of pushing blatant nonsense.
For instance, with Coleman Hughes, he did everything but outright say that Israel was the primary driver behind the 2nd Iraq war, and that Oct 7th was basically "allowed to happen". However, he's too much of a coward to come right out and say it.
Kind of like how some "journalists" will insult or defame someone by "quoting" an anonymous source, allowing them to put the smear out there without having to own it.
"I'M not saying it. I'm just quoting someone ELSE saying it and presenting it as if it's a legitimate accusation". Cowardly smear merchants, and Dave uses the same tactics with the same type of slimey innuendo.
Douglass Murray let Dave get under his skin, which makes the casual viewer think Dave must be scoring points against Douglass' position, rather than against his patience. So I wish, for the sake of optics, Douglass would either ignore Dave's drivel on Israel, or keep his cool.
Again, Coleman Hughes showed how effective that can be. Konstantin Kisin also did this well. I've seen Douglass Murray absolutely demolish people who needed demolishing, all while staying calm and cool. I'm not sure why Dave gets under his skin like this.
I have yet to watch that whole debate with my full attention because I've been so busy but I look forward to it. Is there anything in my discussion (this clip or the whole 3 hours) with Dave you actually disagreed with?
We focused on the problems pertaining to expertise, misinformation, and bigotry and tbh Dave and Sam (I like them and have had only friendly convos with them in the past) I think have gotten this totally wrong.
My main objection in this context is the focus on tone policing Murray, whom I agree isn't doing himself any favors by letting Dave get under his skin and resorting more to attacking the man than his arguments, rather than the fact that Dave actually has very weak arguments in general when it comes to this issue.
I pointed you to the Coleman Hughes debate, but you can also check out a few conversations Dave has had with Konstantin Kisin for similar rebuttals of many of Dave's arguments. These are each hour to multi hour discussions so I'm not going to try and encapsulate them here, but I encourage you to check them out especially if you appreciate a more civil tone than Murray seems (for whatever reason) to be able to muster with Dave.
One point I will make here, as a veteran, is Dave's really bad takes when critiquing Israel' military operations. These seem to come from a very shallow understanding of combat in urban environments and how everything becomes a choice of what is the "least bad" option. There have been many 3rd party analyses of Israel's approach to fighting Hamas in recent conflicts, and the big 3 that I'm aware of that had actual experienced military personell involved have all concluded that Israel takes extreme pains to minimize civilian casualties while Hamas seems at best indifferent to them or even arguably tries to maximize them.
I can try and dig up links to those reports if you like but I hope you'll look into them yourself (I also encourage you to contrast them with the reports from non-military types, including the one where Amal Clooney, the actor's wife and lawyer, was considered as a potential "expert" member, lol). Dave immediately fails when asked what Israel should be doing different militarily, only vaguely hand waving to "special forces" and bizarrely "law enforcement" before going right back to accusing or insinuating that Israel is recklessly disregarding the dangers to civilians or even maliciously targeting them.....without having the humility to know that he can't articulate a better option, and therefore Israel may very well be doing the best that can be done under the circumstances (circumstances Hamas has largely set).
The above is my "contribution" to the argument that Dave speaks with a lot more certainty and authority on these issues than he has earned. This isn't a "credentialist" argument like Murray seems to make sometimes, but a statement that we all have internet access, just like Dave, so he doesn't have any secret knowledge that we don't have access to, and he has no personal experience or training in military (or law enforcement/counterterrorism as far as I know); making it really puzzling why he's so confident in his military critiques.
You can't learn everything from a Google search. First hand experience is a thing and can't be substituted for. This isn't to say you can't have an opinion, because everyone is entitled to their opinion, but Dave is deep in the Dunning-kruger effect when he talks about military matters and is really cocky in his ignorance. If Murray is falling into "you're not an 'expert' so your opinion isn't valid" territory, then Dave is well into "I read stuff on the internet so I know all I need to know about complex issues" territory (I'm specifically referring to his military critiques here).
For your own interest look up historical examples of civilian to combatant casualty ratios in comparable environments. We have data from WW II all the way up to more recent battles like Falluja. Then look at the best data coming out of Gaza (disregarding the hopelessly un-credible numbers coming from Hamas via the Gaza health ministry) and tell me that Israel is operating outside military norms. You won't be able to because the data does not support such an assertion.
Apologies for writing a whole book and if you read this far then I applaud your perseverance. In summary, I'm as annoyed by Murray's deportment as I am by the focus on tone policing Dave's critics instead of the relative weakness of many of his arguments. I don't mean to be rude, but in a few clips I've seen you post, Dave talks more about being right, than showing how he's right, and you just let that pass unchallenged. Please check out, when you have the time, some of the resources I mentioned above, to see that just because Murray isn't dismantling Dave's arguments it doesn't mean they can't be dismantled (at least many of them).
Your buddy Dave Smith relies on lies and antisemitic tropes on which to hang his opinions. It's entirely legitimate to downgrade the opinions of people who have done zero independent research on a topic, have never visited the locations and seem to take in information that supports their preconceived conclusions. I don't know whether Dave is taking cash from anyone or is just playing on audiences who hate Jews but he consistently ignore any facts or evidence that contradicts his predetermined conclusions. He is not just an asshole, his opinions are no more worthwhile than anyone else's (not sure why he keeps getting platformed..), in that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. His opinions aren't supported with a ponderous of evidence, just bias.
Columnist for New York Post, The Free Press, The Sun, and The Daily Telegraph
Associate Director, Henry Jackson Society (2011–2018)
Director, Centre for Social Cohesion (2007–2011)
Notable works and awards
Books: Neoconservatism: Why We Need It (2006), The Strange Death of Europe (2017), The Madness of Crowds (2019), The War on the West (2022), and On Democracies and Death Cults (2025).
Awards: Co-recipient of the Christopher Ewart-Biggs Memorial Prize for his book Bloody Sunday: Truths, Lies and the Saville Inquiry.
Other: Wrote Bosie, a biography of Lord Alfred Douglas.
All alongside having spent a significant amount of time in Israel and elsewhere as a war correspondent.
Your mate asked what his credentials were. Why would I not oblige him? Are you simple or just lacking comprehension skills? Maybe check the thread before responding next time, dickhead…
There's also a thing called failing to disclose your work on behalf of a certain foreign government while posing as an independent journalist. And, sorry, nobody is falling for the pearl-clutching exercise regarding Dave Smith. It gives me no pleasure to admit that a stand-up comedian who is part of something called Legion of Skanks has more credibility than Murray, despite his "credentials." But he does.
“[David] Frum was not the only writer playing both sides of the field and attempting to help the ambassador rally support for Israel at a time when the country was under international pressure. At the same time, in a separate set of messages, British journalist and author Douglas Murray, an associate editor at the UK publication The Spectator, was pitching [Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron] Prosor on his own version of a speech to be given at the UN. …
“Prosor gave Murray a thumbs-up on his good work in reply, thanking him for his fundraising and advocacy efforts for the Israeli government, while signing off, ‘Keep up the good work!’
“Murray has made much of his devotion to the craft of journalism. In a debate against comedian Dave Smith, hosted by podcaster Joe Rogan and watched by many millions in April of this year, he made the case to Smith that Smith was unqualified to discuss the humanitarian aid situation in Gaza because he had not visited the crossings. ‘You’ve never been?’ Murray asked in feigned shock. ‘I have a journalistic rule of trying never to talk about a country, even in passing, unless I’ve at least been there.’
“Journalists are also supposed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. When Murray visited a crossing accompanied by the IDF, he wore a flack jacket labeled ‘PRESS.’ Journalistic rules would suggest Murray ought to have disclosed to his audience that he had fundraised and written speeches for the very entity he was now covering as a journalist.”
I would have too. Dave is an absolute dickhead who has continuously shown himself up with pointless and baseless attacks on Murray. You’re digging yourself the same hole here…
Weird how you keep running defense for Dave. I'm not saying Douglas Murray comported himself well, but Dave's arguments are pretty terrible and don't really need a "substantive" rebuttal, as you'd know if you watched Coleman Hughes 3.5 hour debate with Dave where he showed how weak Dave's talking points are.
If you're going to continue cheerleading Dave's bad argumentation, I'm going to take a break from your content until you move on to a more interesting topic with a more "substantive" guest.
Same. And btw - Douglas looking down on Dave has nothing to do with free speech. Everyone should be allowed to speak, but at a certain point, when someone spews nothing but lies and bias, yells others down, you can bet they will be met with condescension. You talk about Douglas' ad hominem attacks but not of Dave's bad manners - talking over and rolling his eyes? Hardly civil.
Yeah, and Dave has an irritating habit of tiptoeing right up to some pretty nasty implications and then pretending that he's "just asking questions" or pointing out "odd coincidences" so he can slime out from under accusations of pushing blatant nonsense.
For instance, with Coleman Hughes, he did everything but outright say that Israel was the primary driver behind the 2nd Iraq war, and that Oct 7th was basically "allowed to happen". However, he's too much of a coward to come right out and say it.
Kind of like how some "journalists" will insult or defame someone by "quoting" an anonymous source, allowing them to put the smear out there without having to own it.
"I'M not saying it. I'm just quoting someone ELSE saying it and presenting it as if it's a legitimate accusation". Cowardly smear merchants, and Dave uses the same tactics with the same type of slimey innuendo.
Douglass Murray let Dave get under his skin, which makes the casual viewer think Dave must be scoring points against Douglass' position, rather than against his patience. So I wish, for the sake of optics, Douglass would either ignore Dave's drivel on Israel, or keep his cool.
Again, Coleman Hughes showed how effective that can be. Konstantin Kisin also did this well. I've seen Douglass Murray absolutely demolish people who needed demolishing, all while staying calm and cool. I'm not sure why Dave gets under his skin like this.
I have yet to watch that whole debate with my full attention because I've been so busy but I look forward to it. Is there anything in my discussion (this clip or the whole 3 hours) with Dave you actually disagreed with?
We focused on the problems pertaining to expertise, misinformation, and bigotry and tbh Dave and Sam (I like them and have had only friendly convos with them in the past) I think have gotten this totally wrong.
Hi, Rav, thanks for the thoughtful response.
My main objection in this context is the focus on tone policing Murray, whom I agree isn't doing himself any favors by letting Dave get under his skin and resorting more to attacking the man than his arguments, rather than the fact that Dave actually has very weak arguments in general when it comes to this issue.
I pointed you to the Coleman Hughes debate, but you can also check out a few conversations Dave has had with Konstantin Kisin for similar rebuttals of many of Dave's arguments. These are each hour to multi hour discussions so I'm not going to try and encapsulate them here, but I encourage you to check them out especially if you appreciate a more civil tone than Murray seems (for whatever reason) to be able to muster with Dave.
One point I will make here, as a veteran, is Dave's really bad takes when critiquing Israel' military operations. These seem to come from a very shallow understanding of combat in urban environments and how everything becomes a choice of what is the "least bad" option. There have been many 3rd party analyses of Israel's approach to fighting Hamas in recent conflicts, and the big 3 that I'm aware of that had actual experienced military personell involved have all concluded that Israel takes extreme pains to minimize civilian casualties while Hamas seems at best indifferent to them or even arguably tries to maximize them.
I can try and dig up links to those reports if you like but I hope you'll look into them yourself (I also encourage you to contrast them with the reports from non-military types, including the one where Amal Clooney, the actor's wife and lawyer, was considered as a potential "expert" member, lol). Dave immediately fails when asked what Israel should be doing different militarily, only vaguely hand waving to "special forces" and bizarrely "law enforcement" before going right back to accusing or insinuating that Israel is recklessly disregarding the dangers to civilians or even maliciously targeting them.....without having the humility to know that he can't articulate a better option, and therefore Israel may very well be doing the best that can be done under the circumstances (circumstances Hamas has largely set).
The above is my "contribution" to the argument that Dave speaks with a lot more certainty and authority on these issues than he has earned. This isn't a "credentialist" argument like Murray seems to make sometimes, but a statement that we all have internet access, just like Dave, so he doesn't have any secret knowledge that we don't have access to, and he has no personal experience or training in military (or law enforcement/counterterrorism as far as I know); making it really puzzling why he's so confident in his military critiques.
You can't learn everything from a Google search. First hand experience is a thing and can't be substituted for. This isn't to say you can't have an opinion, because everyone is entitled to their opinion, but Dave is deep in the Dunning-kruger effect when he talks about military matters and is really cocky in his ignorance. If Murray is falling into "you're not an 'expert' so your opinion isn't valid" territory, then Dave is well into "I read stuff on the internet so I know all I need to know about complex issues" territory (I'm specifically referring to his military critiques here).
For your own interest look up historical examples of civilian to combatant casualty ratios in comparable environments. We have data from WW II all the way up to more recent battles like Falluja. Then look at the best data coming out of Gaza (disregarding the hopelessly un-credible numbers coming from Hamas via the Gaza health ministry) and tell me that Israel is operating outside military norms. You won't be able to because the data does not support such an assertion.
Apologies for writing a whole book and if you read this far then I applaud your perseverance. In summary, I'm as annoyed by Murray's deportment as I am by the focus on tone policing Dave's critics instead of the relative weakness of many of his arguments. I don't mean to be rude, but in a few clips I've seen you post, Dave talks more about being right, than showing how he's right, and you just let that pass unchallenged. Please check out, when you have the time, some of the resources I mentioned above, to see that just because Murray isn't dismantling Dave's arguments it doesn't mean they can't be dismantled (at least many of them).
Your buddy Dave Smith relies on lies and antisemitic tropes on which to hang his opinions. It's entirely legitimate to downgrade the opinions of people who have done zero independent research on a topic, have never visited the locations and seem to take in information that supports their preconceived conclusions. I don't know whether Dave is taking cash from anyone or is just playing on audiences who hate Jews but he consistently ignore any facts or evidence that contradicts his predetermined conclusions. He is not just an asshole, his opinions are no more worthwhile than anyone else's (not sure why he keeps getting platformed..), in that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. His opinions aren't supported with a ponderous of evidence, just bias.
Just trying to save the world from the loss of brain cells and IQ that results from listening to Dave Smith, an insult to real clowns everywhere.
Just what are Murray's credentials anyway? Is his English accent supposed to impress us dumb Americans? Please.
There’s this thing called Google…
Education
Eton College
Magdalen College, Oxford (degree in English)
Professional affiliations and roles
Associate Editor, The Spectator
Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute
Contributing Editor, City Journal
Columnist for New York Post, The Free Press, The Sun, and The Daily Telegraph
Associate Director, Henry Jackson Society (2011–2018)
Director, Centre for Social Cohesion (2007–2011)
Notable works and awards
Books: Neoconservatism: Why We Need It (2006), The Strange Death of Europe (2017), The Madness of Crowds (2019), The War on the West (2022), and On Democracies and Death Cults (2025).
Awards: Co-recipient of the Christopher Ewart-Biggs Memorial Prize for his book Bloody Sunday: Truths, Lies and the Saville Inquiry.
Other: Wrote Bosie, a biography of Lord Alfred Douglas.
All alongside having spent a significant amount of time in Israel and elsewhere as a war correspondent.
Care to pull up Dave’s ‘credentials’?
You can't be serious to actually list all the credentials Douglas has after me posting a clip demolishing all this appeal-to-authority nonsense?!?
They're not sending their best, Rav.
It’s super funny that you, like Dave the clown, also think yourself in a position to duel with the likes of Murray 🤣🤣🤣
Your mate asked what his credentials were. Why would I not oblige him? Are you simple or just lacking comprehension skills? Maybe check the thread before responding next time, dickhead…
There's also a thing called failing to disclose your work on behalf of a certain foreign government while posing as an independent journalist. And, sorry, nobody is falling for the pearl-clutching exercise regarding Dave Smith. It gives me no pleasure to admit that a stand-up comedian who is part of something called Legion of Skanks has more credibility than Murray, despite his "credentials." But he does.
You asked for his credentials, which you got. Stop crying.
If you believe that he works for a foreign government, prove it.
Dave has no credibility at all. To suggest he does is simply retarded.
“There’s this thing called Google” 🙄:
“[David] Frum was not the only writer playing both sides of the field and attempting to help the ambassador rally support for Israel at a time when the country was under international pressure. At the same time, in a separate set of messages, British journalist and author Douglas Murray, an associate editor at the UK publication The Spectator, was pitching [Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron] Prosor on his own version of a speech to be given at the UN. …
“Prosor gave Murray a thumbs-up on his good work in reply, thanking him for his fundraising and advocacy efforts for the Israeli government, while signing off, ‘Keep up the good work!’
“Murray has made much of his devotion to the craft of journalism. In a debate against comedian Dave Smith, hosted by podcaster Joe Rogan and watched by many millions in April of this year, he made the case to Smith that Smith was unqualified to discuss the humanitarian aid situation in Gaza because he had not visited the crossings. ‘You’ve never been?’ Murray asked in feigned shock. ‘I have a journalistic rule of trying never to talk about a country, even in passing, unless I’ve at least been there.’
“Journalists are also supposed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. When Murray visited a crossing accompanied by the IDF, he wore a flack jacket labeled ‘PRESS.’ Journalistic rules would suggest Murray ought to have disclosed to his audience that he had fundraised and written speeches for the very entity he was now covering as a journalist.”
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/david-frum-douglas-murray-secretly
I have an English accent and I support this comment!
Embarrassing
Agree with you Rav. He never took on his actual arguments just resorted to ad hominem attacks.
True
I would have too. Dave is an absolute dickhead who has continuously shown himself up with pointless and baseless attacks on Murray. You’re digging yourself the same hole here…
Goodbye Rav
Is there anything in the podcast I did with him that you actually genuinely disagree with?