I encourage readers to visit the RT (Russia Today) website and watch the debut episode of Aussie and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s chat show, The World Tomorrow.
I watched it live online last night.
And I will certainly be watching the subsequent weekly episodes.
Following is an excerpt from a (Western) news article about the show.
I wonder how many eyes will be opened, and minds awakened, as a result of the opportunities Assange’s show will evidently bring. To observe the demeanour, and hear the perspective of those whose opinions and beliefs our media either ignore, or censor, or misreport.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday made his debut as a chat show host on a Kremlin-funded channel with a deliberately shocking choice of first guest — the leader of Hezbollah.
While still under house arrest in London, the founder of the whistle-blowing website spoke via video link to Hassan Nasrallah, whom both the United States and Israel consider a “terrorist.”
Russia aired the show, called “The World Tomorrow,” with fanfare on its international RT news channel.
The multi-lingual channel, which makes no secret of giving the Russian take on world affairs and has the slogan “Question More,” built up anticipation by promising the first guest would outrage many.
“I won’t be surprised if after the first show the hawks want not just to shut down Assange but us as well,” channel director Margarita Simonyan wrote on her Twitter account, while stressing the guest was Assange’s choice.
In his introduction, Assange called Nasrallah “one of the most extraordinary figures in the Middle East,” and said he would examine why he is viewed by some as a “freedom fighter” and others as a “terrorist.”
Barnaby Is Right 
A left-winger giving credence to a maniacal murderer?
I’m stunned!
Who would have believed it?
Grow up.
To give someone an opportunity to freely state their views is just that. An opportunity to freely state their views. It used to be called “free speech”.
I disagree with your assertion that Assange gave Nasrallah “credence”. Offering a person the opportunity to express their views, does not automatically give their views “credibility”. Unless of course, your assumption is that the audience are all morons, who believe literally everything that everyone says, automatically, without applying any critical thinking whatsoever. In which case, if that were true, then “yes” it could perhaps be argued that it is dangerous and irresponsible to offer some people an interview.
But on the other hand, if we assume that our fellows do have some critical thinking capacity, then offering someone like Nasrallah an extended interview could reasonably be seen as giving him enough rope to hang himself. An opportunity for him to damn himself before a Western audience.
Personally, I observe that many (most?) people do apply at least some critical thinking to the words they hear from an interview subject. And only the moreso if that person has long been portrayed as a dangerous enemy.
I’m sure Nasrallah would be pleased to take any opportunity, even at the risk of “damning himself”, to spread his lies and hatred.
I make no suggestion that “all of the audience are morons” or that they all believe whatever Nasrallah says.
There is no requirement for ALL of the audience to be morons, or for ALL of the audience to believe Nasrallah, to make him a danger. There are however, people who live within our community who feed on the words of Nasrallah and his ilk.
London bombings?
I will not even comment on your juvenile reference to free speech.
Suffice to say, that useful idiots come in two forms. Those who actively, support and provide platforms for those who would attack our society and those who tolerate it.
Perhaps you would be good enough to provide evidence of your key assertions, William.
Specifically, I would be interested to assess any evidence (and, the source of said evidence) that you can supply, in support of your assertion that Nasrallah is a “maniacal murderer”. And, that he “would attack our society”.
With regard to your tacit assertion that Nasrallah’s words (specifically, viz this interview) “make him a danger”, I challenge you to identify any thing he actually said in that interview, that could be deemed “a danger”.
Finally, a warning … if you are going to continue with lowering yourself to insulting the host of this site, then you will be banned. Nasrallah demonstrated greater self-control and basic courtesy than you have done.
To remind you of your own words … grow up.
Please try to calm down.
Nasrallah during the interview?
I made no comment on anything he said during the interview.
Maniacal Murderer?, Threat to Western Society?
This man leads Hezbollah.
Hijackings, bombings, indiscriminate firing of rockets on Israeli towns and villages, Westerner hostage taking.
http://www.cfr.org/lebanon/hezbollah-k-hizbollah-hizbullah/p9155#p6
You believe I insulted you?
I can only assume that you are referring to my use of the term “useful idiot”. As I’m sure you are aware, this is a term commonly , used to describe people within society who engage in, or tolerate, activities that are detrimental to that society.
I believe the term originated in the Kremlin.
You believe, I abused you?
How?
By responding to your comments aimed at me?
You issue warnings and threats?
I thought you were the champion of free speech?
It seems Nasrallah the terrorist is tolerable, but the correction of “the ignoramus” is not.
Goodbye
William,
1. You have previously commented on this blog, “Thank you so much for your commentaries. Not only for this article, but for all of your
writings.” It is a telling reflection that now, having been confronted apparently for the first time at this site with a topic / viewpoint you disagree with, you have immediately resorted to a sharp, dismissive tone and arrogant insulting of the host (“Grow up”, “juvenile”, “useful idiot”, etc). You have inadvertently exemplified the aggressive, emotional, knee-jerk intolerance of other’s POV that is typically demonstrative of an ill-informed, prejudiced and closed mind.
2. I asked you to provide evidence to support your specific assertions regarding Nasrallah. You have provided a single link to a claim made by … the Council on Foreign Relations. Moreover, the statements made at the link, even if believed at face value, do not prove your specific claims (“maniacal”, “murderer”, “would attack our society”) in any event. For someone whose comments here have, in the vast majority, sought to draw attention to the UN’s Agenda 21, your pointing to the CFR as a believable source in support of your assertions, demonstrates that your knowledge of the CFR, its history and objectives is sadly lacking. I suggest that you widen your scope of research.
3. Comments and expressions of personal POV on any topic are welcome. Aggression, insults, and/or general incivility towards other commenters or the host are not. Those are the rules. Deal with it.
My original comment was my personal point of view.
My “grow up” comment was not directed at anyone on this site.
When made, I had Assange in mind.
You stated you disagreed with my view.
Nothing wrong with that.
However, you then stated that my view could only be valid if I made two assumptions.
1. All of the audience were morons.
2. All of the audience believed everything Nasrallah said.
This assertion is insulting. It is also absurd.
It is equally, insulting and false to imply that I believe an audience is incapable of critical thinking.
You asked that I make reference to any specific remarks Nasrallah made, on the program, that could be deemed dangerous.
I made no such claim to begin with.
You sought evidence of Nasrallah’s Hezbollah and their murderous history.
I provided you with one source. If I had the inclination, I could provide a mountain of evidence. Do your own research if you have serious doubts.
I agree CFR has many faults, in many areas, to say the least. But the details of Hezbollah atrocities given have been well documented elsewhere. Enough to fill a library I’d venture.
If you really question the reality of these atrocities, may I suggest you research newspaper reports,TV footage etc. I remember most of the incidents CFR mentions well.
Ask Terry Waite and his fellow hostages if the reports are true. Ask the passengers and crew of the hijacked plane. Ask the Israeli citizens if the rockets were/are real.
Just in case you were wondering. No, I do not believe everything CFR puts out. Far from it!
If you are interested in the real reasons why I oppose giving the likes of Nasrallah airtime they are as follows:-
1.When they address a Western audience they give a performance designed to leave the audience with the impression that they are reasonable people with credible solutions to difficult problems. Of course most people, who are aware of Nasrallah’s history, would pay little attention to anything he has to say. But some would,and do.
2.When they address “the faithful” its a whole new ball game. Out comes the hatred for the West, for Israel,for the infidels. On and on it goes.
3.Many people, especially, but not exclusively, the young are drawn toward people like Nasrallah. No doubt many of his followers begin life as decent citizens. Some may be drawn to Nasrallah’s performance as a man of reason. They may also think him a man with credible solutions to problems in the Middle-East. A man whom the World takes seriously. “After all, they allow him on the airwaves”. “Would they allow that, if he was as bad as some say”?
4. Then comes the indoctrination, the militancy, the hatred. On and on it goes.Not for all, but too many do fall victim to this ploy.
Under no circumstances would I allow a man like Nasrallah into my home.
This man has no “right” to free speech within any decent society. Indeed he would ensure that none of us could exercise free speech if he had his way.
The Right to speak one’s mind did not come without a price. That Right goes hand in hand with a responsibility to ensure that people like Nasrallah are denied the opportunity, to abuse that Right for his own ends.
That Right must have limitations. It is not,cannot, and indeed must not be separate from the responsibility, to observe those limitations. Speech can never be entirely,free. At least, not for long.
Who decides the limitations? Ideally,the people.
We are all aware of the “difficulties” on this issue.
As a child I used to listen to parliament on a crystal set I put together. Eddie Ward is one politician I particularly remember. It taught me to not accept one side till I had heard the other. The point here is that I don’t rely too much on the ABC for information.A couple of sites worth a look are –
http://axisoflogic.com/Frontpage.shtml
http://www.veracitynow.com/
http://www.veracitynow.com/home/alternate-reality/media/6898-attacks-on-rt-and-assange-reveal-much-about-the-critics
I don’t agree with all of Pilgers comments, especially his interpretation of scripture, never the less I think this 15 minute video is a must watch.