FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Cross Talk, Semantics and the Downright Spineless

Over the years I have debated the most virulent Zionists, the most ardent US foreign policy defenders and the most downright racists and bigots. I may never have agreed with any of them but at least it was always clear from the outset where we both stood when it came to discussing politics.

Last week however I appeared on RT’s flagship debate show Cross Talk and found myself in a rather bizarre position.

While it was clear one of my co-panellists was a fierce critic of US foreign policy, the other Sam Husseini, was perhaps more inclined to discuss grammar and the fine nuances of the English language, than American meddling in Arab affaires.

In response to recent events in Syria, where Russian involvement has achieved more in two weeks in weakening the terror network ISIS than the US presence had in over a year, the host Peter Lavelle, asked guests whether the US’ policy in the Middle East was ‘rational’ given the endless blunders that inevitably result from its presence in the region.

Now of course what the mainstream media does is simply take at face value what the US and Western capitals state and broadcast it as fact with no dissenting voices capable of questioning US policy motives.

In the alternative media, that has flourished over the years and provided countless journalists with the platforms to voice opinions they simply could not in the mainstream, the aim is to dissect the information and present its obvious flaws.

As such when the US claims ISIS poses the greatest threat to humanity yet fails to defeat it despite its vastly superior military capabilities, it’s clear the US is either unable or unwilling to destroy this terror network.

During this episode, we the panellists were given a platform from which to clearly articulate our opinions with as many facts and examples as we could.

Sam Husseini, however decided to drag the debate into an opaque exchange on semantics and we ended up spending the best part of the programme bogged down in an argument over the actual meaning of the word ‘rational’ versus ‘irrational’.

At this point I’d like to add that when doing the show you are simply faced with a camera and have no idea what your fellow guests -who are in other countries-look like. The viewers may be privy to the facial expressions and body language that reveal some of our thoughts and impressions, but when you’re sat in that chair you only have an ear piece from which to decipher the nature of the debate. From where I was standing Sam Husseini’s recurrent contribution was insisting that the word ‘rational’ was not the correct one to use. When I pressed him to state what he thought the US’ goal for the region was, we were treated with another round of bumbling platitudes about why the word ‘rational’ was not…well the best one to use.

It was only at the very end that Husseini gathered some courage to finally state that the US’ policy was specifically designed to fuel conflict and encourage failed states.

If only Husseini had displayed some backbone and came out straight and said it from the start in plain standard English, I for one could have agreed, instead I found myself having to argue ad nauseam the definition of ‘rationality.’

In the end it was sad to note that a fellow panellist, invited to talk freely on a programme known to welcome dissenting voices, was simply not brave enough to openly state what he wanted to say dragging the debate into a pointless exchange over vocabulary.

Perhaps more disappointing still is that, unable to articulate clearly his opinion, Husseini, then penned an article in Counterpunch, to complain of the nature of the media in which he appeared and quality of his opponents.

Lacking the courage to clearly present his point on TV, his written response -in which his opinion on the matter is still vague- Sam Husseini ended up looking like a school kid left out of football who runs off to headmaster to complain.

As a now seasoned debater I have always known that when defending your opinion you play the ball not the player, but sadly for Husseini it wasn’t his ability to articulate a point that proved his downfall but apparently the channel’s propensity for ‘shallowness’ and ‘prize hacks.’

He ended his written lament by supporting the idea of a ‘global, real network dedicated to real facts and meaningful dialogue between various viewpoints,’ while again not sure if he means a TV station, a newspaper, a global think tank-you never know with Sam Husseini- I personally know that none of these would be suitable forums for him.

Because real facts and meaningful dialogue have to be presented and had by brave journalists who are courageous enough to clearly articulate their point and defiantly challenge the dominant doxa, something Husseini was tragically unable to do.

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled Again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail