Roger Waters Defends  IRGC, Then MALFUNCTIONS When Asked This Question!

Title: Piers Morgan vs. Roger Waters: Heated Debate Over Iran, Hamas, and Terrorism

.

.

.

A fiery confrontation between Piers Morgan and Roger Waters, the lead singer of Pink Floyd, has sparked intense online debate about the ongoing political issues in Iran, Palestine, and beyond. The debate, which aired on Saw TV, centers on Waters’ controversial stance on Hamas, the Iranian regime, and his approach to the concept of “terrorism.”

Morgan starts by questioning Waters’ selective activism, particularly why he has been outspoken about Palestine but has not voiced similar concerns regarding the situation in Iran. Waters, however, deflects, focusing instead on the larger geopolitical picture and how sanctions against Iran have crippled its economy, leading to widespread protests. Waters argues that the Iranian people oppose foreign interference and sanctions, claiming that economic factors—not regime change—are driving the protests.

Morgan challenges Waters on his views, particularly whether Hamas’ actions on October 7, 2023, should be classified as terrorism. Waters stubbornly resists labeling Hamas as terrorists, instead framing their actions as “resistance” by an “occupied people.” Morgan, unable to hold back his frustration, counters that by any definition, acts of violence against civilians for political ends should be considered terrorism. The debate quickly escalates into a discussion about the inconsistent use of the word “terrorist” depending on one’s political perspective.

As Waters defends his position on Hamas and other controversial figures, including Nicolás Maduro and the Iranian regime, Morgan accuses him of supporting oppressive regimes and terror groups while failing to advocate for real victims of oppression. He points out the hypocrisy in Waters’ criticisms, particularly his inability to call out Hamas’ role in the violence and suffering in Gaza, instead placing blame solely on Israel.

The conversation takes a personal turn when Morgan calls out Waters for his perceived hypocrisy—living in the U.S. while criticizing it relentlessly—and suggests that if Waters truly believes in the causes he champions, he should consider living in the countries he defends. Waters, flustered, insists that he does all of this because of his “moral compass” and belief in equal human rights for all people, regardless of race or religion.

In the end, Morgan tears into Waters, accusing him of using his celebrity status to push a flawed and dangerous worldview, which downplays the actions of terror groups and supports regimes that oppress their own people. Morgan makes it clear that Waters’ stance is not one of true justice but one of ideological blind spots, making the debate a gripping and controversial moment in the larger conversation about global politics, terrorism, and hypocrisy.

As this debate continues to rage online, viewers are left questioning who really stands up for the voiceless and who is merely using their platform to prop up destructive ideologies. For those interested in seeing more of this confrontation, a full interview between the two is available through Saw TV.