Goddamn, that’s one of the few decent non-fearful burns I’ve seen a conservative give Trump.
Edit: How long before he’s advised to retract it?
I know who he is. He is a former ambassador who was fired from that job because he was using the embassy as a front for prostitution, or maybe for violating the Official Secrets Act by exposing secrets that everyone knew. He later became infamous for publicly naming one of his buddy Assange’s rape victims in contravention to British law. He is an unimportant, icky little man who first attracted attention to himself by violating his employer’s confidence and leaking documents, subsequently likes keeping attention on himself by voicing extreme positions on various issues. He might not have always been a little cracked, but he surely is today. His target audience is listeners of the Alex Jones show and readers of conspiracy blogs.
Front for prostitution? Care to add a link? Maybe you refer to this allegation?
These included “hiring dolly birds [pretty young women] for above the usual rate” for the visa department, although Murray said that the department had an all-male staff
Murray has always maintained that his crime was to make it difficult for the Foreign Minister and other civil servants to continue to pretend that they did not know that Uzbek intelligence was the product of torture.
According to Nick Paton Walsh in an article for The Guardian: “The Foreign Office cleared the speech, but not without an acrimonious struggle over its content.”[10] Murray also said in his speech that the boiling to death of two men, reportedly members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, was “not an isolated incident.”[10][14] In one telegram Murray sent to London, he wrote that “Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe”
Some of those dissidents were islamic fundamentalists and some were pro-democracy campaigners. What Murray told the world was that the British government was knowingly using the product of torture interrogations in their intelligence briefings, and lying to parliament about it. Jack Straw was the specific minister in question.
We may differ on this, but I am generally against boiling people to death. I am also against encouraging others to boil people to death. The UK signed treaties stating that they would not do both so they reflect the law of the land. So while you are right that he did go against his employers preferences, one might argue that his employers were breaking the law.
Anyhoo, the FCO exonerated him of all 18 charges in January 2004 after a four-month investigation but reprimanded him for speaking about them. So I guess the bottom line is that that stuff they leaked to the papers concerning Uzbek “prostitutes” was probably not true. However I am pretty sure he was sleeping with the local ladies. After all, he married one.
With respect to Assanges Swedish friends I defer to you, although I am pretty sure that their identities had already been in the UK press. In fact I have this vague recollection of the Guardian making a big deal about it a few years back. Its true that a lot of Guardian journos dont like him. Blairites definitely dont like him. But then he accused them a being sort of “torturing assholes” and I think they took offense.
I will ask my daughter what “icky” means. When I was small I used it to refer to fatty meat. He is definitely quite fat so “icky” may well be descriptive. Personally it doesn’t matter to me since I am not planning to eat him. Would “distasteful” be a good synonym?
His target audience is not Alex Jones types - in fact most of his audience has probably never heard of Alex Jones. This much is obvious by actually looking at his website. Can you really imagine Alex Jones being the Rector of Dundee University?
I agree he is not very important. A bit like Barrett Brown or Aaron Swartz. Still, I hold both in high regard anyway. And sometimes context is important. In this case, whether you think he is icky or not, he says he actually met the guy who leaked the DNC wikileaks. So really the issue isnt icky or important. The issue is whether he is a liar.
He might not have always been a little cracked, but he surely is today.
I prefer not to cast the first stone. But where I know a subject on which he has written I have found him persuasive.
The guy literally said he knew the leak source on Sputnik.
That is both why you don’t want to post a story about Craig Murray and an example of how he is a magnet for Alex Jones types. He is a frequent source of information on infowars, and infowars was literally one of his first stops after being let go.
Why am I still here? At least @lolipop_jones is linking to Greenwald.
Also, defending Murray is a pointless distraction anyway. The whole discussion’s predicated on some utterly confused premise that Wikileaks was the sole source posting leaks. Russia was releasing the stolen docs directly via Guccifer 2.0. And as the icing on the cake, Wikileaks was promoting the Russian front dumping the docs:
Forgive me but I dont understand the term “infowars”
I just googled “inforwars” and it seems to copyright Alex Jones. I have heard the term but never bothered to check the definition cos it seemed to pertain to conspiracy theories I consider absurd. Send or link or something but I don’t see a connection in the thinking of an ex-British civil servant and Alex Jones etc.
The accusations against Murray were pretty widely discussed at the time.
Murray’s website (including the commenters) speaks for itself, as does his high status in the goofball sector of the internet. He is pretty much the textbook example of an unreliable narrator.
You might ask your Politburo handlers for a better briefing on UK academic positions before using “University Rector” as evidence of distinction. I’m not sure if Murray’s election was the same year David Hasselhoff was in the running.
Sorry. I now realize I was being dumb. I had never known what Alex Jones site/show was called. I just hadnt paid attention.
What is it with the stupid personal abuse? You think that boosts your case? Go ahead. Youre in great company.
humm… I dont know if I think much of this argument concerning comments. But thank heavens he is an “unreliable narrator”. Cos otherwise it would be really inconvenient for your argument. What did he lie about again?
And thats the main point you want me to take away? That Murray was up for election to Rector against David Hasselhoff?
yeah, I was serious.
Мы все знаем, что вы делаете. Почему продолжать пробовать, когда вы такой провал?
если вам нужно посмотреть это на Google Translate, то вы, вероятно, работать в Infosec консалтинга.
Если вы можете прочитать это и не использовать Google Translate, вы Нобби Стайлз.
