4 ms·

> "Anti-war" doesn't sound like a particularly descriptive adjective for the apparent targets here. They are not anti-war campaigners per se, they seem to be si

by Udik 8y ago

> "Anti-war" doesn't sound like a particularly descriptive adjective for the apparent targets here. They are not anti-war campaigners per se, they seem to be sitting in the Russia-sympathetic zone of discourse. No. Please, everybody stop with this Russia nonsense. Russia has become the bogeyman to which every evil and its opposite can be attributed, included the election of a US president that the US citizens voted themselves, and of which on average are pretty satisfied, I'm afraid. Some of the people mentioned in this story as targets of Philip Cross have been questioning the West's alliances and wars- and the narrative that enabled them- for decades. Since a couple of years, Russia seems to be openly, and somehow aggressively (from an information point of view) doing the same. So in case it's Russia that aligned with them.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
megous 8y ago
It's not nonsense. Russia is waging a propaganda war in the west. Results are clearly visible in the last 5 years or so. Even in my country that was occupied by USSR at one time, there are now very vocal pro-russian agenda voices, especially on social media, news comment sections and or alt-news websites. It's ridiculous. And what's this website anyway? Someone created an anonymous website to spread some onesided info about a feud with some wikipedia editor he doesn't like. Out of curiosity, I looked up Galloway. He isn't really serious about what he writes about UK/US/Syria. Just filter his twitter for syria keyword. It's all just some one-sided polemic, often based on leading questions. It's not even reporting. He comes of as some kind of misinformed activist with non-obvious agenda. Anti-war? That surely must be a joke. He has 151k tweets and barely mentions destruction of Raqqa by US air campaign that was going on for 5 months. He mentions Kobani, another city US bombed and shelled to the ground, precisely once - to send people to RT/Sputnik for info about that. All these things and others were significantly more influential actions by the US war machine in the region, and incomparably more deadly and injurious to innocents. He's not even anti-US/UK war machine, consistently. Yet US does some token attack on Assad's infrastructure, and he spreads alarmist nonsense for days, even insinuating that he might be killed by UK government. I don't get him. Perhaps he's just trying to look certain way to UK citizens, and it's all just posturing/signalling. He didn't even mention any of the Assads war crimes, or what he did to fuel instability and war in the region. No mention out of 151k tweets. That's anti war?
- Udik 8y ago
  So, you looked up a politician you've never heard of before, that's been in politics for 30 years, and filtered on his tweets to see if it fits what you own definition of "anti-war" is? Maybe you want to contact him and tell him what he should be talking about and how, to fit your own ideas? I warn you that he's a blistering debater. You can have a taste of his ability in this hearing at the US Senate 13 years ago, when he defended himself from the nonsensical propaganda accusations that he had done oil trading with the Saddam Hussein regime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP_EDl3OCco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP_EDl3OCco > He comes of as some kind of misinformed activist Haha. Maybe you'd want to look up some of his activity and also get a grip on the history of the past, uhm, 30 years. It'll take you a bit longer than doing a filter search on twitter. > Someone created an anonymous website to spread some onesided info about a feud with some wikipedia editor he doesn't like. There's no question about the fact that Philip Cross has been suspiciously hyper-active for years and that he's concentrating on a cluster of political figures. I've checked a couple Wikipedia entries of people I know as critics of the US and western policies, and voila', hundreds of Philip Cross edits just in the last few days.
  - megous 8y ago
    You haven't expalined why is judging someone's public persona/ideas by their own public pronouncements (or lack thereof) on twitter irrational or wrong. If someone has hunderds of thousands of tweets, I'd say such judgement would be pretty accurate, unless he segemnts his pronouncements based on media/audience in some very deliberate way, which I doubt, because he went to twitter to critcize US intervention. And yes I wonder how he's anti-war in general or even anti-US imperialism in general based on some simple searches that reveal he's barely criticized US foreign meddling in the war against ISIS on twitter. Cross may be suspicious, I aggree, but that doesn't make the web page magically non-anonymous and balanced.

by Udik 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

megous 8y ago

It's not nonsense. Russia is waging a propaganda war in the west. Results are clearly visible in the last 5 years or so. Even in my country that was occupied by USSR at one time, there are now very vocal pro-russian agenda voices, especially on social media, news comment sections and or alt-news websites. It's ridiculous. And what's this website anyway? Someone created an anonymous website to spread some onesided info about a feud with some wikipedia editor he doesn't like. Out of curiosity, I looked up Galloway. He isn't really serious about what he writes about UK/US/Syria. Just filter his twitter for syria keyword. It's all just some one-sided polemic, often based on leading questions. It's not even reporting. He comes of as some kind of misinformed activist with non-obvious agenda. Anti-war? That surely must be a joke. He has 151k tweets and barely mentions destruction of Raqqa by US air campaign that was going on for 5 months. He mentions Kobani, another city US bombed and shelled to the ground, precisely once - to send people to RT/Sputnik for info about that. All these things and others were significantly more influential actions by the US war machine in the region, and incomparably more deadly and injurious to innocents. He's not even anti-US/UK war machine, consistently. Yet US does some token attack on Assad's infrastructure, and he spreads alarmist nonsense for days, even insinuating that he might be killed by UK government. I don't get him. Perhaps he's just trying to look certain way to UK citizens, and it's all just posturing/signalling. He didn't even mention any of the Assads war crimes, or what he did to fuel instability and war in the region. No mention out of 151k tweets. That's anti war?

Udik 8y ago
So, you looked up a politician you've never heard of before, that's been in politics for 30 years, and filtered on his tweets to see if it fits what you own definition of "anti-war" is? Maybe you want to contact him and tell him what he should be talking about and how, to fit your own ideas? I warn you that he's a blistering debater. You can have a taste of his ability in this hearing at the US Senate 13 years ago, when he defended himself from the nonsensical propaganda accusations that he had done oil trading with the Saddam Hussein regime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP_EDl3OCco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP_EDl3OCco > He comes of as some kind of misinformed activist Haha. Maybe you'd want to look up some of his activity and also get a grip on the history of the past, uhm, 30 years. It'll take you a bit longer than doing a filter search on twitter. > Someone created an anonymous website to spread some onesided info about a feud with some wikipedia editor he doesn't like. There's no question about the fact that Philip Cross has been suspiciously hyper-active for years and that he's concentrating on a cluster of political figures. I've checked a couple Wikipedia entries of people I know as critics of the US and western policies, and voila', hundreds of Philip Cross edits just in the last few days.
- megous 8y ago
  You haven't expalined why is judging someone's public persona/ideas by their own public pronouncements (or lack thereof) on twitter irrational or wrong. If someone has hunderds of thousands of tweets, I'd say such judgement would be pretty accurate, unless he segemnts his pronouncements based on media/audience in some very deliberate way, which I doubt, because he went to twitter to critcize US intervention. And yes I wonder how he's anti-war in general or even anti-US imperialism in general based on some simple searches that reveal he's barely criticized US foreign meddling in the war against ISIS on twitter. Cross may be suspicious, I aggree, but that doesn't make the web page magically non-anonymous and balanced.