actually planned this codel the number of months ago but stevens ago who is an old friend of mine when he heard that i was going was able to facilitate some of our meetings what does it really say about the nature of for years russian relationship i'm such an unlikely cultural ambassador as mr seagal had to intervene to facilitate this high level meeting dealing with such an important issue as terrorism isn't that absurd absurd i think it's great i mean it's triffids look how open a society that reflects i mean we want the bureaucracy the bureaucracy to control everything we want or meetings between elected officials only to be done when the bureaucrats will say that's why when i would argue that the one i have a working relationship that would not involve or would not require the facilitation of somebody like civil to go for example if he wasn't there then well i did i totally disagree with you i think there's nothing wrong but i worked for an actor

who became president and states ronald reagan they were always saying oh elise just an actor well you know there's nothing wrong with with the actor's profession so you think of me as a cigar may have presidential ambitions i don't they give presidential ambitions but i think he's got a lot of heart and soul in terms of the things he believes in but let's go straight to the nature of the curve here special relationship and some would argue. very frosty are heard people saying that we are not entering a new era similar to be called why would you agree but that yeah i agree with that i think of unless we do something to get things going in the right direction that we are going to. enter into a narrow it were rigged keep going into an era where things will not be not only will they not be good but they'll be bad why do you think they're so bad at the moment what is the i think there's been people on both. ides of the of this

relationship who are stuck in the cold war i think there are people who have. a burning hatred in the here for because they believe that they were dedicated to the the soviet system and soviet system is collapse and got away and thus they hate the states because we were there maybe that's really their lot on the other still in the united of course there are those about the russian loss of our lives and i was about to say and then there are people in the united states who should know better educated people but for their whole lives fighting the soviet union what is interesting really about your visit is that you really came here with an objective of facilitating and intensifying the counter terrorism cooperation between the two nations and i. mistrust a distrust that i think you are alluding to in your previous answer. is very prevalent among people who are working in the lower enforcement and secure have to

reference is. what can be done about that while on both sides of the of the coin we've got to make sure that people who are. you know as i say they are reserved for about the. elimination of communism year or in the in the american side they think everybody here is still a communist i'm still wanting to create the dictatorship of the proletariat or very close the georges or whatever they think that and they're wrong i think you would agree with me that russia did show some willingness to cooperate with the united states on the issue of terrorism and counterterrorism especially when it comes to specific threats and specific issues but i think there is a profound structural barriers it's you. deepening that cooperation and that would be a perception here in russia and maybe increasingly around the globe that it is the american foreign poll. said that. terrorism ultimately and i i would think that he

would disagree with that but before we get into that i would like to agree on definitions and to ask you what do you think sets apart a terrorist from a freedom fighter a terrorist is someone who specifically targets in this and people of noncombatants in order to terrorize pop populations ideas about what they were they were there want their government to stand terrorists is not someone who attacks a police officer or a member of a military that's not a terrorist a terrorist is someone who attacks noncombatants so for example the. hearts of my brothers baby they would be considered terrorists. by this line of thinking by the example of the rebels in syria would not be considered terrorists even though if they they may resort to car bombings and target that's correct very

they're essentially what you have is an insurrection but not a terrorist insurrection in syria what you've got is a fight for two groups of people who are. vying for power and from what i understand it's not just targeting the civilians their trial but it is trying to fight absolutely their armed conflict absolutely there is a confrontation between the official or a regular syrian army and the rebels but obviously civilians caught in berlin and that still doesn't qualify that as terrorism correct because not. only are this morning a bomb a car bomb went off in damascus and eight people were killed is that a terrorism or it depends of the eight people were military or or well some of us have two local police some of them were civilians well if their target was were the were police officers or people. who are in the military and you had poor

correct collateral people who just happen to be coming by. it was not a terrorist attack with people were killed so the understand hear correctly so it is not the actual tactic the use of violence for political means but the actual cause that defy something else terror and or maybe the use advocated for that cause that if i know it has nothing do with the cause as whether or not you are fighting people who are combatants or not and yes noncombatants are sometimes hurt as collateral damage or hey this is cliche but it's true just as people were you don't tend to hurt people but that's what happens in a fight with with someone who's a combatant if it's if you were intentionally targeting noncombatants that's terrorism for example if the bomb was set up for the boston bombing was set up somewhere close to a police precinct that would be justifiable but just because it was in say just

size of there wouldn't be terrorism if what those guys had in mind was to attack the army recruiting center. you know someplace down the road. no that would have been an act of terrorism but they didn't put the bomb down the road they put the bomb where it would hurt innocent people and that was their target but obviously when you put a bomb next to police pressing them police precincts are usually in the heavily populated area there is a fear factor there that he are trying to instill this horror but then the population i think i think that a terrorist is someone who wants to. create terror among the population someone who's not a terrorist is someone who wants to set off a bomb to hurt policeman who are engaged in combat and activities against them but all this armed in syria for example the population is totally terrified regardless of. who have rebels actually

a target so be it be actual now goal is achieved i mean the terror goal of the terrorizing of the population is achieved whether or not your call this terrorism if you are if you have if you are engaged in battle when you're going to major in your focus in battle is a combatant many police or or military armed combatants you are not a target if you are focusing your efforts on noncombatants if you were a terrorist now i think this is. like the flexibility of the selectiveness that the united states sometimes uses in defining something as terrorism and you know it's not this is something that is i don't see that you know it's an actual definition you have a better definition well i think there is no universally accepted definition by the of our just gave you what i consider to be a specific very direct answer to what that definition they usually definition is the use of violence for political cause it's not about who actually where they go

they don't really mean i don't know what that would mean that anyone resisting an invasion the army the political causes to prevent them from that opposition army from taking over your country no one would think that was a terrorist attack if a however if you end up going taking over a school in order to terrorize a population into knowing your children will never be safe again well let's turn that i think the first there was any of that you just very easy to essentially be the war in defense and using violence and defenses recognize this legitimate in international law where's the use of violence to advance your political cause is universally. recognize this terrorism apart from the unite our miis armies all over the world or advance your political causes and which you're talking about the armies are not there just because they're the army they're advancing a political cause absolutely and so whatever the v.m.

merican army does it more than others and that may be the core of the mistrust that exists does here and more than others using violence for advancing political cause know all armies all armies are advancing a political cause it is the cause that the political structure in their country is determined but congressman look at the history of your country and the recent history of your country you use violence abroad more than any other country there is nothing wrong with using violence against terrorist or adolf hitler or any other forces while adult people there was and you know long time ago but no there's been a lot of little laid off hitlers throughout the history of our world and there's been a lot of men recently i mean efficiency like this little adult hitler see also succeeded in killing a lot of innocent civilians whether you call it a noble cause or not in iraq for example you killed well by even the most. conservative estimates more than one hundred thousand that's really like what you

told a lie what it what the hell it is the fact is all deaths from the time the united states invaded to kick out saddam hussein all the deaths then or attributed to the united states i'm sorry most of those deaths number one were military saddam hussein's military second of all the deaths of happened after saddam hussein's military was gone were happened is are still happening even though the united states is gone they were soon reason shiites killing each other so let me play mean for it absolutely but if you remember what the use i'm not sure about his title i think it was the us prosecutor general i think your back trial is sad that the main that's a crime was not the gas chambers and was now. the holocaust would actually be a neighboring a neighboring to y. neighboring the violence this is regardless of who committed all those crimes that came later on if was the main that's a cry for allowing beasts in the vironment of products to take place but we can

discover that just after the break ok. the civilized world produces more food than it needs. well people die of hunger in other countries. millions of victims every year. where remedial is the most outrageous. is flood or drops to blame. it was a bad year without a trained we couldn't anything with what we would there was great hunger. but was it that help comes too late and with good intentions.

charity diplomacy and business want to take. i would rather. lessons for people in positions of power instead of speaking on their behalf and that's why you can find my show larry king now right here on r.t. question more.

welcome back to worlds apart three are discussing idol article differences between russia and the united states with a senior republican there are a backup for let me answer the question absolutely ok first of all you need to know that while i backed president bush's. invasion of iraq to get rid of saddam hussein the vicious dictator who had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. i well i supported it i look back on it now and think it was the worst mistake that was made in my lifetime it cost me i'd say it's a trillion dollars

a year only of regret and because it caused the united states so much not because of that that's it well you're right it's available i would say that and if you interrupt an answer you won't get the right answer will you but it's you know it is i mean i know i want to interrupt my answer you don't get the right answer no as i regret that we sways to do trillion dollars i regret that we lost six thousand lives of our own people and i regret the fact that there were thousands of lives. you have been lost otherwise let me ask you about something that you and possibly also may have some regrets about back in the late eighty's. you mad according to some reports fought alongside mojahedin and afghanistan and correct me if i'm wrong but there were some reports that and that's when you also had personal meetings with some of bin laden did you know i did see some of bin laden's camp from a distance and i was told to make sure that we don't say anything because the there's

a maniac in there who actually hates the americans worse than he hates the communists and will come out and kill us if he knows if they know you are with us jackie clearly a they have a some of the lot no cause well i mean you know going to the grave of this and that's another historic lie the fact is or some of bin laden was supported by the saudi arabians who didn't need any money or training from the united states in the war but he spent a lot of here is in afghanistan that's really eve they wanted to do anything about any amazing it was well financed by the saudis and wasn't for enhanced by the united slow anyway be if you look at the. afghanistan today it's clear that something that the united states did to that country all those they get to go now has some sort of impact on the current events so course you having to spend all that money on afghanistan now sending here our sons and daughters and howard i may

ultimately could be traced back to the to the decision of arming and aiding you know i think i think it's first back to the decision by the. here in moscow to send all of the soviet troops and afghanistan the depôt the diplomats then i think it was able to have a very long conversation of that but ok since we have so little time i would rather address more current the bounce and. i would like to take you back to the. runup to the american presidential election last year and i think the issue of russia featured somewhat prominently i one play you something that the. your party nominee had to say about russia at the time and this is to russia this is without question our number one geopolitical foe they fight every cause for the world's worst actors now mitt romney took a lot of flak for saying something about it but i absolutely agree with him and i

actually think that the the divide the ideological divide between russia and the united states is. really growing fast and i think at the at the core of that divide is the difference on whether or not any given country can use violence in geopolitics whether it is through open invasions like iran or for example become word support a fabulous life in syria. can both russian massive army of saddam hussein and the assad dictatorship well russia provided weapons through legal contacts just like the united states their life all those billions worth of weapons to saudi arabia and so it is not illegal in international law to arm something a government whereas when it comes to rebel groups it's certainly illegal to provide any weapons or there's no legal support of legal. moral issues there's no such thing as what's legal and illegal for countries to do it was more immoral for

them to do and if indeed you were part of a government that doesn't permit that doesn't permit the opposition to speak or like saddam hussein murdered his own people or like assad who by the way i i don't want to get involved in the what assad should have is it's an interesting issue because if you believe in. the right of people to make a choice that's you know little determination absolutely you would recognize that. i mean it's not clear that the majority of syrian people still support assad i'm not in favor of the united states intervening in syria if you know if i think he's a hero i think he's the rebels though no i'm not and i would not and i was in favor of supporting the rebels in afghanistan because you had soviet troops there. propping up a government that was not reflective of the afghans we tried to help the afghans it was a mistake on our part to go into iraq but how come they're probably

a little mistake to go with that one because their rule of thumb for determining. when to intervene and want not to intervene because you know you brought out the issue of morality but morality is of course a very subjective thing we should be support we should be supporting the united states should be supporting them i would hope that the russia would be supporting elements in different countries that want to create a better world want to create a situation where well will be the rebels in syria want to create a better world but they resort to targeted assassinations decapitating that i detained nice car bombings and all those sorts of i trust a value and i don't know why i don't know it's i don't know why you're throwing that my direction i'm opposed the united states to be in syria but you've been in congress for a while almost a quarter of a century and through all of this time the united states support insurgency in some country but supported the governments in fighting the you know pretty similar insurgent groups in some other countries and what are they what were the for

example in nicaragua you nicaragua you had big government which was a communist dictatorship which we did not have free elections until we forced them to by by supporting the in server example in bettering of where there is also no free elections or in saudi arabia where here you now see. discontent but there there is that if you would sort of a you know there are a few of them and that's a legitimate profile and there are many more examples and i think what that really shows is that there is absolutely no consistency when it comes to determining what is terrorism or what is moral or not and essentially what you're arguing is that the united states has more rights under international law than any other country because the norms are no longer enough and no one ever pillar i don't ever or you international law i argue which moral it's immoral but this is the only i have the beholder no it is there are specific definitions of how you define terrorism or how and what is terrorism what isn't what's moral what's not world

when you have a dictatorship like you had with the scent of these. because it's ok it's all right to support those people were demand even election that you know they are bizarre a danger of such flexibility because obviously you seem to believe that you are a moral person but obviously every single think there are believes that he is a moral person and that he is doing what is best for his people of the united states is a country that is made up of people from all over the world we are not one race we are not one religion we're not one ethnic group we've come here from all over the world to show the world that people who are different can actually live in peace and respect each of the dignity of each individual we do believe we have more of a responsibility to help those people in various parts of the world who are struggling for their responsibility that is certainly not recognized by other countries around the world but back to the point of the rights and freedoms there

was recently a poll that showed that about thirty percent of americans now believe that sooner or later they will have to take up arms to defend their basic rights and some of them would argue that you know having this two tier system of republicans and democrats is not really. well reflective of the. political freedoms would do you what do you agree that the american people have the right to defend or to five the current system the current democratic system in the united states with their arms and their and their whole because we have a right we have the ability to fight the system because we have freedom of speech we have freedom of press and we have free elections but again some would argue that their elections that you have not really free because you only have a very limited choice and the difference between the edge and us offered by any of the parties is not that big but because we have just a few minutes left i would like to bologna just so you know of the people of

freedom to talk about and organize anything they want and they can organize the political parties. to go in the directions that. people tend to agree with now your delegation is here and that is the first congressional delegation since passing of the so-called magnitsky act just to remind our viewers the so game of these kids died in prison after about a year of detention and the main cause of that was the lack of adequate medical assistance he had some preexisting medical conditions but he wasn't provided with adequate medical help and the reason why i'm bringing this out because i want to contrast that with another case that was recently brought to public attention and that to some extent involves the rights of the detainees and this is the case of ibrahim to dash if a witness in the boston bombing case and his father gave a news conference just a few days ago in moscow and he demonstrated some of the pictures. of the course of

his son and his son who was detained by the f.b.i. in the privacy of his own home he was questioned for eight hours he was still a witness but he was questioned interrogated for eight hours with no lawyer present and then he was then he received seven shots including a shot to the back of his had and he was killed obviously. given what you said about. rather what the magnitsky act is all about you know the attempt to attract attention to the rights of detainees do you think russia would be justified in passing the to dash act against the united states now. no why not because i think that we have to find out whether the person that you're talking about with the details on that if that person is that young person. was shot intentionally while he was not if we were told that he they had a knife stashed someplace and that he picked up

a knife and was headed was it i don't know if that's the case or not i'm not questioning the horrendous nine or refuse killing but what about just his rights you know somebody in the united states gets detained in the privacy of his own home gets interrogated for eight hours is provided me that salute me no legal counsel this is all public record you don't need to believe me i mean if this is something that the police in florida police release what does it really say about their rights of detainees if if that person of jack's to it and as especially if use required legal counsel that's the case however there are many people that invite police into their homes and go undergo interrogation because they voluntarily do that do you think the the outcome of that case really said was that he was i don't know if i mean police for a cup of tea i don't know it's possible but i will say this it's also possible that the police have something they don't want to know and killed this person that's

happened to them our country however the f.b.i. is telling us that the guy had a knife and we have to remember if he had a knife and he was associated with he was in the pros or his own own home here listen i was of the privacy of the people who blew up the kids and bassa leaving is a roll of of these are scum bags if somebody is involved of setting of a bomb at about the boston marathon murdering people who are trying to raise money for charity just like the just like the bums who are down and basil on western that i'm about what about murdered or one hundred forty of your killed this man and what about this bomb. they weren't talked on baghdad because those bombs. fell in but they were they were hundreds of bombs dropped on baghdad we hundreds of ball and we have in the united states developed the system so to pinpoint our targets for specifically to make sure that the minimum number of innocent people are hurt if we

go into a conflict guys like this are maximizing the number of civilians and we're also going to argue that the reason why guys like this resort to such targets was because of very procedure that huge us alone a deal to let anyone actually flee how they felt they had that you know that's what i do if you're not here to tell really of their own time well that part. wealthy british style. expert on.

market why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike's cancer for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into kinds of reports . she was looking for love and she found marriage she wanted children and now she has eleven. she's ok but it has been and seven adopted children are h.i.v. positive. my mom lets me in the maternity home i had a disease. and so she gave me oh. i'm a chevy positive feature so nobody wanted to make friends with me it chased me spammy and threw stones. my name is still below my dream was to have parents. mom and dad the mom dad many people ready to take kids like

us. they found a new kind of medicine they call it love. letter love of you but please don't follow my example because you know it can be dangerous for your health. because leak case.

no. to america's. oil demanding respect for national sovereignty. for the under-pressure. rest. of the u.s. investigation takes a swing. secrecy with the e.u. leaders also embracing a tax evasion.