5 ms·

There’s some weird Russian connection here isn’t there?

by psergeant 8y ago

hellbanner 8y ago
ctrl-f on site for "Russian": 0 results. Same for russia, kremlin. Don't spread FUD.
- Shank 8y ago
  Okay, so I don't consider @psergeant's comment to be the most open, but he is suggesting it only because WP:ANB is (specifically, Guy's initial proposal). > George Galloway is not "anti-war", he's an activist for Palestine and supports Russia's involvement in Syria - he may be anti some wars but the claim of "anti-war" is at best questionable. (from Guy) > Also on May 14, the conflict spilled over into wider media. RT published "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia" and two days later Sputnik followed with an interview of George Galloway, "Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway". (from KalHolmann) So, while this comment does seem a but unjustified, it is validated by the initial requests to refer to ArbCom.
  - user982 8y ago
    That he considers activism for Palestine "pro-war" is telling in and of itself.
    - yorwba 8y ago
      I'm reading it as "'anti-war' is too general to describe someone who's mainly an activist for Palestine and supporting Russia's involvement in Syria is actually 'pro-war'".
nneonneo 8y ago
I don't disagree - George Galloway and several of the subjects mentioned have connections to RT, Sputnik, etc. Philip Cross has had to remove a fairly sizable amount of content that was only sourced to RT and Sputnik (which are not considered reliable, neutral sources). There's a nonzero probability of a Russian connection.
- coliveira 8y ago
  In matters of war, RT is as reliable as NYTimes. Both are reliably biased, RT to Russia and NYT to American interests. For me at least it is useful to see what each country's narrative is.
  - k1m 8y ago
    Feel the same.
  - psergeant 8y ago
    Have you ever seen an RT article deeply critical of Putin’s regime?
    - abalone 8y ago
      American media has vigorous criticism within a certain range (roughly the Democrat-Republican spectrum), but it is supportive of common elite interests. For example you will find the NYT rarely criticized on moral grounds the wars that the US waged. Speaking of Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent is a good analysis of this phenomenon (propaganda in democratic societies), with supporting evidence.
k1m 8y ago
Very convenient to dismiss evidence with baseless accusations.
StanislavPetrov 8y ago
Only insofar as the hysteria about Russia has been interjected into every issue by people caught up in the frenzy. The truth is that the propaganda arms of a variety of countries have been deeply involved in shaping, controlling and attempting to influence media and social dialogue for many, many years (with by far the most "successful" being the CIA/USA with Israel as a close second and Russia lagging far behind).
andybak 8y ago
Quite possibly from my reading of the situation. Doesn't necessarily invalidate the claims against Cross however. Sadly the aims of groups with good intent and those with bad intent sometimes coincide.

There’s some weird Russian connection here isn’t there?

hellbanner 8y ago

ctrl-f on site for "Russian": 0 results. Same for russia, kremlin. Don't spread FUD.

Shank 8y ago
Okay, so I don't consider @psergeant's comment to be the most open, but he is suggesting it only because WP:ANB is (specifically, Guy's initial proposal). > George Galloway is not "anti-war", he's an activist for Palestine and supports Russia's involvement in Syria - he may be anti some wars but the claim of "anti-war" is at best questionable. (from Guy) > Also on May 14, the conflict spilled over into wider media. RT published "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia" and two days later Sputnik followed with an interview of George Galloway, "Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway". (from KalHolmann) So, while this comment does seem a but unjustified, it is validated by the initial requests to refer to ArbCom.
- user982 8y ago
  That he considers activism for Palestine "pro-war" is telling in and of itself.
  - yorwba 8y ago
    I'm reading it as "'anti-war' is too general to describe someone who's mainly an activist for Palestine and supporting Russia's involvement in Syria is actually 'pro-war'".

nneonneo 8y ago

I don't disagree - George Galloway and several of the subjects mentioned have connections to RT, Sputnik, etc. Philip Cross has had to remove a fairly sizable amount of content that was only sourced to RT and Sputnik (which are not considered reliable, neutral sources). There's a nonzero probability of a Russian connection.

coliveira 8y ago
In matters of war, RT is as reliable as NYTimes. Both are reliably biased, RT to Russia and NYT to American interests. For me at least it is useful to see what each country's narrative is.
- k1m 8y ago
  Feel the same.
- psergeant 8y ago
  Have you ever seen an RT article deeply critical of Putin’s regime?
  - abalone 8y ago
    American media has vigorous criticism within a certain range (roughly the Democrat-Republican spectrum), but it is supportive of common elite interests. For example you will find the NYT rarely criticized on moral grounds the wars that the US waged. Speaking of Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent is a good analysis of this phenomenon (propaganda in democratic societies), with supporting evidence.

k1m 8y ago

Very convenient to dismiss evidence with baseless accusations.

StanislavPetrov 8y ago

Only insofar as the hysteria about Russia has been interjected into every issue by people caught up in the frenzy. The truth is that the propaganda arms of a variety of countries have been deeply involved in shaping, controlling and attempting to influence media and social dialogue for many, many years (with by far the most "successful" being the CIA/USA with Israel as a close second and Russia lagging far behind).

andybak 8y ago

Quite possibly from my reading of the situation. Doesn't necessarily invalidate the claims against Cross however. Sadly the aims of groups with good intent and those with bad intent sometimes coincide.