How Western Media faked it - a Russian view

[Nexus]

So it makes OK to lie?

I'd ask you the same question.

Why do you always derail threads about the propaganda and biased nature of western media. Even if your narrative of the Russian/Ukrainian situation were accurate it doesn't justify western media lies.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Here is an interesting VIDEO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONA8n7T5iNA

This is under 14 minutes and I think very interesting to watch and I am sure the different views will be interesting.

Just to make it more interesting we can wheel in Galloway

BBC caught faking a news report to promote war. George Galloway explains.

See Francis Boyle Professor of International at Illinois University at 11.32

George Galloway? Has he ever met a terrorist he didn't like?

He is a unique character. I believe a lot of what he said. His forecasts were correct. He also condemns terrorist groups.
He condemned most Arab regimes and ISIS etc.

Now here is something interesting. Does he hate Jews? He hates Zionism. When asked he said that his best friends who gave him shelter when he worked for the ANC were Jewish people who gave him safe house shelter, food and every car he drove.
I agree with his views on Zionism but I also agree that Israel not only has a right to exist but so do the Palestinians.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I know nothing of George Galloway, but what's the evidence that he "likes" any terrorists?

Try Google. You'll find him repeatedly agreeing with terrorists and terrorist supporters. Even Wikipedia lists some of it.

He also disproved allegations to the Senate. What you regard as terrorists he does not when it comes to Hamas and Hezbollah. I've been through google. He also claims to have condemned Saddam Hussein and Assad before they both became unpopular with the West.

 

[Jayjay]

So you are basically saying that Sara Firth is lying because she's not trash talking RT enough?

No, I am not saying that. I am simply saying she is lying just enough not be accused of not quitting earlier.

Or maybe she's just being honest.

As for MH-17, I know for a fact that Western media lied about it.
I speak russian and can understand actual content of the intercept.

The intercept is not the only incriminating evidence against Russia.

So it makes OK to lie? as long as you have another evidence you can lie about other?
And no I don't recall RT lying about MH-17, but then I don't watch it, so if you kindly point it out to me.

For one thing, RT claimed that the famous video of the BUK was made in Krasnoarmeisk, when it was in reality filmed in Luhansk.

At least when the US shoots down a plane, they own up to it. I can perfectly understand Firth's decision to resign at the time she did... likely there was nothing new about how RT's editorial policy with regards to MH17 compared to how they operated before, but when it happens to deal with dismissing the deaths of almost 300 people (and many of whom are white Europeans, not some nameless Arabs somewhere) it's a whole another ballpark than exposing UK government corruption.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

George Galloway? Has he ever met a terrorist he didn't like?

He is a unique character. I believe a lot of what he said. His forecasts were correct. He also condemns terrorist groups.
He condemned most Arab regimes and ISIS etc.

Now here is something interesting. Does he hate Jews? He hates Zionism. When asked he said that his best friends who gave him shelter when he worked for the ANC were Jewish people who gave him safe house shelter, food and every car he drove.
I agree with his views on Zionism but I also agree that Israel not only has a right to exist but so do the Palestinians.

ISIS?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/26/george-galloway-angers-mps-isis-iraq-debate

While he's not actually coming out and saying he likes them he's clearly saying they're not so bad.

 

[barbos]

No, I am not saying that. I am simply saying she is lying just enough not be accused of not quitting earlier.

Or maybe she's just being honest.

That's a thing, she did not say anything other than "What RT makes me say must be a lie because it's opposite what western media says"
All I can say to her is "Mademoiselle, you sure knew the reason why RT was created is to provide Russian point of view, didn't you? because, you know, western media was distorting the truth, look here, it's written it the contract you signed"

As for MH-17, I know for a fact that Western media lied about it.
I speak russian and can understand actual content of the intercept.

The intercept is not the only incriminating evidence against Russia.

So it makes OK to lie? as long as you have another evidence you can lie about other?
And no I don't recall RT lying about MH-17, but then I don't watch it, so if you kindly point it out to me.

For one thing, RT claimed that the famous video of the BUK was made in Krasnoarmeisk, when it was in reality filmed in Luhansk.

You promised incriminating evidence against Russia.
At best you "incriminated" RT in making a mistake of parroting internet posts without check.
Fact is, there is no evidence against Russia. Even leaked german intelligence report agreed with most likely scenario of rebells using a captured Buk to shoot that plane by mistake.

At least when the US shoots down a plane, they own up to it.

Russia has nothing to do with shooting that plane. There is no need to own it.
And I would not exactly call US shooting iranian plane owning it.

I can perfectly understand Firth's decision to resign at the time she did... likely there was nothing new about how RT's editorial policy with regards to MH17 compared to how they operated before, but when it happens to deal with dismissing the deaths of almost 300 people (and many of whom are white Europeans, not some nameless Arabs somewhere) it's a whole another ballpark than exposing UK government corruption.

RT is no worse than any other western news organization.
Fact is, none of these resigned "reporters" were able to provide actual facts or evidence for their claims.
All they have is their "feelings" that something is wrong.
Unfortunately, this wrong is not with RT, it's with western media to which these reporters are still subjected.
As I said I know what that intercept said and I know what western media said it had said, so shove it.

Now, this thread is about BBC reporter making clearly fake/staged news footage and then airing it.
Do you have anything to say about that?

 

[Ford]

I'd ask you the same question.

Why do you always derail threads about the propaganda and biased nature of western media. Even if your narrative of the Russian/Ukrainian situation were accurate it doesn't justify western media lies.

The entire narrative here is bullshit. The pro-Russian cheerleaders are working really hard to establish a narrative which basically reads: "What do you mean Russian propaganda? The Western media lies!"


Or to put it another way, the pro-Russian cheerleaders are derailing the discussion about the very real aggression on the part of Putin & company by deliberately distracting with accusations of bias on the part of those who are reporting such actions. Putin is never wrong to these guys, he's just a victim of the evil conspiracy of Western Media, which apparently exists only to publish anti-Putin propaganda.

Of course the accusations of bias and propaganda are laughable when they're coming from Russia - a place where bias and propaganda were perfected over decades. What I can't quite figure out is why anyone would stand so firmly behind Russia's official state bullshit.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's a propanganda channel. That's obvious, right?

First off, the footage they claimed the BBC invented, I've never seen, and doesn't look much like BBC footage in any case. It looks like something from a daytime soap. What it does resemble, slightly, is Syrian state television, which occasionally gets clips shown over here in segments like 'meanwhile the Syria state television is saying X'

Second the allegations that they're making didn't get much play over here. There have been comments about possible chemical weapon use but they don't match what RT is claiming was faked, haven't had much stir over here, and they certainly weren't used as the justification for any kind of action.

Thirdly, they cite George Galloway MP for coroboration, but the clip of him supposedly commenting on their allegations is very vague. It took me a while to work out why, but then I realised they'd just copied an anti-government speech from the Iraq war and pretended it was current and about Syria. Alert observers may notice that he referrs to the Bush-Blair war machine, despite neither leader still being in power.

Fourthly, the criticisms they make don't seem to stand up to even casual scruntiny. For example they complain about the BBC citing information on casualities from the 'Syrian Obervatory on Human Rights', saying it's not a credible source. Well, sure, it probably isn't, which is why the BBC reported it as a claim from the organisation, rather than a fact. Since the webpage is still up, you can see for yourself whether the BBC was basing their report around this source. I don't see that they are. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25509933

Fifthly there seems to be quite a gap between the claims made by the presenter, and the evidence presented on the screen. The interview with a professor from the university of illinois doesn't match the commentary given about what he's saying, several of the statistics were simply listing how many sources disagreed with RT (almost all of them), and there's lots of juxtapostion of the word 'lie', people in authoritarian looking riot gear, and discussion of government conspiracy with western journalists giving reports, but nowhere do the reports shown actually back up the commentary about them.

Sixthly, RT can't make up their minds what they're saying. They claim that news organisations are infiltrated by the CIA in secret, that these organisations are forced to have CIA members on staff (so, not secret), that ordinary journalists on location have their orders as to what picture to encourage, and that news stories are fabricated using actors. Try and imagine a organisation where all of these are true for a moment...

In other words, it's pretty childish propaganda. Like most of RT's output, it's designed to impress people who don't look or listen too hard at what's actually being presented, and a few minutes of research demolishes most of what they say.

I've no doubt that there is a problem with bias and interference in media organisations. But this kind of cartoon clumsy capering is not it.

Perhaps all media lies somewhat.

 

[Jayjay]

Or maybe she's just being honest.

That's a thing, she did not say anything other than "What RT makes me say must be a lie because it's opposite what western media says"
All I can say to her is "Mademoiselle, you sure knew the reason why RT was created is to provide Russian point of view, didn't you? because, you know, western media was distorting the truth, look here, it's written it the contract you signed"

She specifically says the degree to which RT exercises editorial control is what separates it from most western media. To support the Russian narrative is the main point of the show, and nothing that contradicts that gets aired, whereas reports and opinions that gfit the narrative get disproportionate emphasis.

As for MH-17, I know for a fact that Western media lied about it.
I speak russian and can understand actual content of the intercept.

The intercept is not the only incriminating evidence against Russia.

So it makes OK to lie? as long as you have another evidence you can lie about other?
And no I don't recall RT lying about MH-17, but then I don't watch it, so if you kindly point it out to me.

For one thing, RT claimed that the famous video of the BUK was made in Krasnoarmeisk, when it was in reality filmed in Luhansk.

You promised incriminating evidence against Russia.
At best you "incriminated" RT in making a mistake of parroting internet posts without check.
Fact is, there is no evidence against Russia. Even leaked german intelligence report agreed with most likely scenario of rebells using a captured Buk to shoot that plane by mistake.

Nobody is denying that it was an accident. The cover up by Russia is what is the problem... if there was no Russian BUK involved then you'd think Russia has nothing to lose by just admitting that the separatists messed up and everyone could move on, but the fact that Russian starategy is total denial, disinformation and propaganda hints that they have more to hide. And it's not like Russia and the separatists aren't part of the same command and control structure. At the time of the shooting the leader of the separatists was still a Russian ex-FSB officer.

As for incriminating evidence, the pictures and videos of the BUK missing one projectile and the numerous statements by the rebels themselves are enough.

At least when the US shoots down a plane, they own up to it.

Russia has nothing to do with shooting that plane. There is no need to own it.
And I would not exactly call US shooting iranian plane owning it.

At least US didn't pretend that they never shot down the plane or disseminate conspiracy theories that Iran shot down its own plane to make Americans look bad.

I can perfectly understand Firth's decision to resign at the time she did... likely there was nothing new about how RT's editorial policy with regards to MH17 compared to how they operated before, but when it happens to deal with dismissing the deaths of almost 300 people (and many of whom are white Europeans, not some nameless Arabs somewhere) it's a whole another ballpark than exposing UK government corruption.

RT is no worse than any other western news organization.
Fact is, none of these resigned "reporters" were able to provide actual facts or evidence for their claims.
All they have is their "feelings" that something is wrong.
Unfortunately, this wrong is not with RT, it's with western media to which these reporters are still subjected.
As I said I know what that intercept said and I know what western media said it had said, so shove it.

Fine, then educate me: how does the Western media misrepresent the intercept? I admit I did not pay much attention to it at the time, but based on quick googling now it seems the only argument that you have that it's fake is that it doesn't sound right to a Russian-speaking person. Which is pretty weak, because if anyone who speaks Russia would notice that it's fake, then why did Ukrainian government think it's a smoking gun and embarrass themselves by publishing such an obvious fabrication?

Now, this thread is about BBC reporter making clearly fake/staged news footage and then airing it.
Do you have anything to say about that?

No, this thread is about RT being dishonest. But if you insist, in this particular case BBC did alter the comment, but it was by removing the word "chemical weapons" because it was an incorrect statement meant by the doctor in question in a report about attack with conventional weapons. So actually what BBC did was edit a report to be more concise while remaining accurate. When BBC later used the same footage in a longer documentary it used the original footage, and again, explained the context that it was not about chemical warfare.

What RT and Galloway are saying is the total opposite of what happened: BBC did not fake footage to promote war against Syria, it in fact they edited it to avoid even hinting that chemical weapons may have been involved. Furthermore, the Truthseeker program that was linked in the opening post aired after BBC had responded to the criticism and explained the context. So either Truthseeker did a really shoddy job at fact checking, or it knew what it was and then deliberately omitted any mention of the BBC response so as to incriminate BBC (and all western media by association presumably) in some sort of nefarious conspiracy theory. So in this case it's actually RT that is guilty of fakery and misinformation rather than BBC.

ETA: RT's own reporting in Syria is a prime example of the kind of fact twisting that it does on a regular basis, and which BBC was explicitly trying to avoid: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017196999

 

[Togo]

What RT and Galloway are saying is the total opposite of what happened:

Actually Galloway doesn't agree in the clip presented. RT tries to imply that he agrees, but if you actually listen to what he says, he doesn't mention it.

 

[barbos]

That's a thing, she did not say anything other than "What RT makes me say must be a lie because it's opposite what western media says"
All I can say to her is "Mademoiselle, you sure knew the reason why RT was created is to provide Russian point of view, didn't you? because, you know, western media was distorting the truth, look here, it's written it the contract you signed"

She specifically says the degree to which RT exercises editorial control is what separates it from most western media. To support the Russian narrative is the main point of the show, and nothing that contradicts that gets aired, whereas reports and opinions that gfit the narrative get disproportionate emphasis.

That's a load of crap. I know for a fact that western media is not better in that regard at all.
I remember the RT making big fuss about CNN I think cutting off Putn's interview exactly at the place where he ask his first rhetorical yet very inconvenient to US administration question.
The kind of question where people usually say "OK good one, let see what they are gonna say"
But they are not gonna say anything because fucking asshole from CNN cut off interview exactly in that place!
So shove it. Western coverage of russian officials (Putin, Lavrov, etc) is appalling.
Truth is that Mademoiselle has no way to even form informed opinion, she is really a talking head.
And I believe it was her who refused to go to Crimea and ask people herself, she is like 12 year old with fingers in the ears.

As for MH-17, I know for a fact that Western media lied about it.
I speak russian and can understand actual content of the intercept.

The intercept is not the only incriminating evidence against Russia.

So it makes OK to lie? as long as you have another evidence you can lie about other?
And no I don't recall RT lying about MH-17, but then I don't watch it, so if you kindly point it out to me.

For one thing, RT claimed that the famous video of the BUK was made in Krasnoarmeisk, when it was in reality filmed in Luhansk.

You promised incriminating evidence against Russia.
At best you "incriminated" RT in making a mistake of parroting internet posts without check.
Fact is, there is no evidence against Russia. Even leaked german intelligence report agreed with most likely scenario of rebells using a captured Buk to shoot that plane by mistake.

Nobody is denying that it was an accident. The cover up by Russia is what is the problem.

What part of "There were no cover up" you do not understand?

if there was no Russian BUK involved then you'd think Russia has nothing to lose by just admitting that the separatists messed up and everyone could move on,

Why would Russia do that? Russia does not know who shot it, all they really know is that they have nothing to do with that.
After that, Russia just wants investigation.

but the fact that Russian starategy is total denial, disinformation and propaganda hints that they have more to hide.

So far it's US and West who is doing all that. Russia provided all their data including on Ukrainian Buks.

And it's not like Russia and the separatists aren't part of the same command and control structure. At the time of the shooting the leader of the separatists was still a Russian ex-FSB officer.

Who are you talking about? Strelkov?

As for incriminating evidence, the pictures and videos of the BUK missing one projectile and the numerous statements by the rebels themselves are enough.

You keep repeating this bullshit over and over. How does that prove Russia involvement?
And what statements?
I only know about one statement, the one where rebels claim capturing Buks from Ukrainian Army.

At least when the US shoots down a plane, they own up to it.

Russia has nothing to do with shooting that plane. There is no need to own it.
And I would not exactly call US shooting iranian plane owning it.

At least US didn't pretend that they never shot down the plane or disseminate conspiracy theories that Iran shot down its own plane to make Americans look bad.

US did shoot that plane, Russia did not.
As for ukrainians, they did pretend they did not shoot the passenger plane at least once before.

I can perfectly understand Firth's decision to resign at the time she did... likely there was nothing new about how RT's editorial policy with regards to MH17 compared to how they operated before, but when it happens to deal with dismissing the deaths of almost 300 people (and many of whom are white Europeans, not some nameless Arabs somewhere) it's a whole another ballpark than exposing UK government corruption.

RT is no worse than any other western news organization.
Fact is, none of these resigned "reporters" were able to provide actual facts or evidence for their claims.
All they have is their "feelings" that something is wrong.
Unfortunately, this wrong is not with RT, it's with western media to which these reporters are still subjected.
As I said I know what that intercept said and I know what western media said it had said, so shove it.

Fine, then educate me: how does the Western media misrepresent the intercept? I admit I did not pay much attention to it at the time, but based on quick googling now it seems the only argument that you have that it's fake is that it doesn't sound right to a Russian-speaking person.

Tape was composed from different and unrelated to the MH17 shooting intercepts (they talk about different plane which was shot earlier and in different place, you know that because they mention the place)
Most of it pertaining alleged guy in Moscow does not even contain his voice - basically caption without voice and again, it's not related to MH17.
The part where they the do talk about MH17 shows that they clearly had no intention to shoot civilian plane and were in fact surprised that civilian planes were actually flying there.
Also they don't discuss who shot it in the tape, it sounds as if they imply that some of them (rebels) are responsible but they don't know who exactly.
The guy who is asking questions gets upset about situation and becomes somewhat defensive.
Now the way it was reported/talked about that lady at Daily Show was seriosly distorted, I would say that women knew she was lying because she speaks russian and could listen to that tape.

Basically, there is nothing remarkable on that tape, If you speak russian you will not see anything which would reflect bad on rebels or Russia, nothing at all. They all upset about situation as they should and that's it.

Which is pretty weak, because if anyone who speaks Russia would notice that it's fake, then why did Ukrainian government think it's a smoking gun and embarrass themselves by publishing such an obvious fabrication?

Oh boy, you naive finnish guy. If only you knew what kind of shit they use in their TV propaganda materials.
That's particular fabrication is considered very good by their standard and it did achieve its intended goals - western media ate it just fine.

Now, this thread is about BBC reporter making clearly fake/staged news footage and then airing it.
Do you have anything to say about that?

No, this thread is about RT being dishonest. But if you insist, in this particular case BBC did alter the comment, but it was by removing the word "chemical weapons" because it was an incorrect statement meant by the doctor in question in a report about attack with conventional weapons. So actually what BBC did was edit a report to be more concise while remaining accurate. When BBC later used the same footage in a longer documentary it used the original footage, and again, explained the context that it was not about chemical warfare.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Question here is about footage which is clearly staged, with actors and all that shit.
Was it aired by BBC or not?

 

[whichphilosophy]

She specifically says the degree to which RT exercises editorial control is what separates it from most western media. To support the Russian narrative is the main point of the show, and nothing that contradicts that gets aired, whereas reports and opinions that gfit the narrative get disproportionate emphasis.

That's a load of crap. I know for a fact that western media is not better in that regard at all.
I remember the RT making big fuss about CNN I think cutting off Putn's interview exactly at the place where he ask his first rhetorical yet very inconvenient to US administration question.
The kind of question where people usually say "OK good one, let see what they are gonna say"
But they are not gonna say anything because fucking asshole from CNN cut off interview exactly in that place!
So shove it. Western coverage of russian officials (Putin, Lavrov, etc) is appalling.
Truth is that Mademoiselle has no way to even form informed opinion, she is really a talking head.
And I believe it was her who refused to go to Crimea and ask people herself, she is like 12 year old with fingers in the ears.

As for MH-17, I know for a fact that Western media lied about it.
I speak russian and can understand actual content of the intercept.

The intercept is not the only incriminating evidence against Russia.

So it makes OK to lie? as long as you have another evidence you can lie about other?
And no I don't recall RT lying about MH-17, but then I don't watch it, so if you kindly point it out to me.

For one thing, RT claimed that the famous video of the BUK was made in Krasnoarmeisk, when it was in reality filmed in Luhansk.

You promised incriminating evidence against Russia.
At best you "incriminated" RT in making a mistake of parroting internet posts without check.
Fact is, there is no evidence against Russia. Even leaked german intelligence report agreed with most likely scenario of rebells using a captured Buk to shoot that plane by mistake.

Nobody is denying that it was an accident. The cover up by Russia is what is the problem.

What part of "There were no cover up" you do not understand?

if there was no Russian BUK involved then you'd think Russia has nothing to lose by just admitting that the separatists messed up and everyone could move on,

Why would Russia do that? Russia does not know who shot it, all they really know is that they have nothing to do with that.
After that, Russia just wants investigation.

but the fact that Russian starategy is total denial, disinformation and propaganda hints that they have more to hide.

So far it's US and West who is doing all that. Russia provided all their data including on Ukrainian Buks.

And it's not like Russia and the separatists aren't part of the same command and control structure. At the time of the shooting the leader of the separatists was still a Russian ex-FSB officer.

Who are you talking about? Strelkov?

As for incriminating evidence, the pictures and videos of the BUK missing one projectile and the numerous statements by the rebels themselves are enough.

You keep repeating this bullshit over and over. How does that prove Russia involvement?
And what statements?
I only know about one statement, the one where rebels claim capturing Buks from Ukrainian Army.

At least when the US shoots down a plane, they own up to it.

Russia has nothing to do with shooting that plane. There is no need to own it.
And I would not exactly call US shooting iranian plane owning it.

At least US didn't pretend that they never shot down the plane or disseminate conspiracy theories that Iran shot down its own plane to make Americans look bad.

US did shoot that plane, Russia did not.
As for ukrainians, they did pretend they did not shoot the passenger plane at least once before.

I can perfectly understand Firth's decision to resign at the time she did... likely there was nothing new about how RT's editorial policy with regards to MH17 compared to how they operated before, but when it happens to deal with dismissing the deaths of almost 300 people (and many of whom are white Europeans, not some nameless Arabs somewhere) it's a whole another ballpark than exposing UK government corruption.

RT is no worse than any other western news organization.
Fact is, none of these resigned "reporters" were able to provide actual facts or evidence for their claims.
All they have is their "feelings" that something is wrong.
Unfortunately, this wrong is not with RT, it's with western media to which these reporters are still subjected.
As I said I know what that intercept said and I know what western media said it had said, so shove it.

Fine, then educate me: how does the Western media misrepresent the intercept? I admit I did not pay much attention to it at the time, but based on quick googling now it seems the only argument that you have that it's fake is that it doesn't sound right to a Russian-speaking person.

Tape was composed from different and unrelated to the MH17 shooting intercepts (they talk about different plane which was shot earlier and in different place, you know that because they mention the place)
Most of it pertaining alleged guy in Moscow does not even contain his voice - basically caption without voice and again, it's not related to MH17.
The part where they the do talk about MH17 shows that they clearly had no intention to shoot civilian plane and were in fact surprised that civilian planes were actually flying there.
Also they don't discuss who shot it in the tape, it sounds as if they imply that some of them (rebels) are responsible but they don't know who exactly.
The guy who is asking questions gets upset about situation and becomes somewhat defensive.
Now the way it was reported/talked about that lady at Daily Show was seriosly distorted, I would say that women knew she was lying because she speaks russian and could listen to that tape.

Basically, there is nothing remarkable on that tape, If you speak russian you will not see anything which would reflect bad on rebels or Russia, nothing at all. They all upset about situation as they should and that's it.

Which is pretty weak, because if anyone who speaks Russia would notice that it's fake, then why did Ukrainian government think it's a smoking gun and embarrass themselves by publishing such an obvious fabrication?

Oh boy, you naive finnish guy. If only you knew what kind of shit they use in their TV propaganda materials.
That's particular fabrication is considered very good by their standard and it did achieve its intended goals - western media ate it just fine.

Now, this thread is about BBC reporter making clearly fake/staged news footage and then airing it.
Do you have anything to say about that?

No, this thread is about RT being dishonest. But if you insist, in this particular case BBC did alter the comment, but it was by removing the word "chemical weapons" because it was an incorrect statement meant by the doctor in question in a report about attack with conventional weapons. So actually what BBC did was edit a report to be more concise while remaining accurate. When BBC later used the same footage in a longer documentary it used the original footage, and again, explained the context that it was not about chemical warfare.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Question here is about footage which is clearly staged, with actors and all that shit.
Was it aired by BBC or not?

It would be better if you define what the BBC is

The British Brainwashing Corporation is a UK based international public service broadcaster headquartered at Broadcasting House in London. It is the world's oldest national broadcasting organisation and the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees, with about 23,000 staff.

This is found WIKI but is it mis-defined as the British Broadcasting Corporation

- - - Updated - - -

He is a unique character. I believe a lot of what he said. His forecasts were correct. He also condemns terrorist groups.
He condemned most Arab regimes and ISIS etc.

Now here is something interesting. Does he hate Jews? He hates Zionism. When asked he said that his best friends who gave him shelter when he worked for the ANC were Jewish people who gave him safe house shelter, food and every car he drove.
I agree with his views on Zionism but I also agree that Israel not only has a right to exist but so do the Palestinians.

ISIS?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/26/george-galloway-angers-mps-isis-iraq-debate

While he's not actually coming out and saying he likes them he's clearly saying they're not so bad.

You can see him on You tube in the full context of what he is saying provided it is not an edited clip. He has been misquoted a lot.

 

[Jayjay]

She specifically says the degree to which RT exercises editorial control is what separates it from most western media. To support the Russian narrative is the main point of the show, and nothing that contradicts that gets aired, whereas reports and opinions that gfit the narrative get disproportionate emphasis.

That's a load of crap. I know for a fact that western media is not better in that regard at all.
I remember the RT making big fuss about CNN I think cutting off Putn's interview exactly at the place where he ask his first rhetorical yet very inconvenient to US administration question.
The kind of question where people usually say "OK good one, let see what they are gonna say"
But they are not gonna say anything because fucking asshole from CNN cut off interview exactly in that place!

Maybe. Not knowing what interview you are referring to, there's no way to say. Googling for a bit didn't help much, all I could find was a Youtube video titled "Georgia Russia Putin Interview with CNN that was NOT on CNN" but the video itself does not have RT saying that the video was censored by CNN, and by checking the CNN transcript it seems that all the comments aired by RT are included. So, maybe you are referring to some other incident. If you want to dwell deeper, fine by me, but you need to be more specific what as to what interview you are talking about.

So shove it. Western coverage of russian officials (Putin, Lavrov, etc) is appalling.
Truth is that Mademoiselle has no way to even form informed opinion, she is really a talking head.
And I believe it was her who refused to go to Crimea and ask people herself, she is like 12 year old with fingers in the ears.

Her working for RT for five years makes here opinion hell of a more informed than someone's who says he doesn't even watch RT on television. And from her interview you can get the idea that the reason she worked for RT was the opportunity to work on underreported domestic issues in UK, not international news. So why the hell would she go to Crimea, and how would going to Crimea have given her a more informed opiion on what happened to MH17, which was the stated reason for her resignation?

I think you are mixing her up with Liz Wahl, an American RT anchor who resigned over Crimean invasion, and Abby Martin who never resigned but who refused RT's offer to visit Crimea after she made some comments critical of the invasion in her show.

You promised incriminating evidence against Russia.
At best you "incriminated" RT in making a mistake of parroting internet posts without check.
Fact is, there is no evidence against Russia. Even leaked german intelligence report agreed with most likely scenario of rebells using a captured Buk to shoot that plane by mistake.

Nobody is denying that it was an accident. The cover up by Russia is what is the problem.

What part of "There were no cover up" you do not understand?

if there was no Russian BUK involved then you'd think Russia has nothing to lose by just admitting that the separatists messed up and everyone could move on,

Why would Russia do that? Russia does not know who shot it, all they really know is that they have nothing to do with that.
After that, Russia just wants investigation.

but the fact that Russian starategy is total denial, disinformation and propaganda hints that they have more to hide.

So far it's US and West who is doing all that. Russia provided all their data including on Ukrainian Buks.

That is not all the data. That is cherry-picked data that Russia has chosen to reveal because it helps obfuscate the issue. For example: Russia has not apparently released the radar data about SU-25 flying anywhere near to MH17 to the Dutch investigation, because the preliminary report included no mention of it. And of course Russia has no problem releasing satellite images of Ukrainian forces, just like the US has released satellite images on Russian troops. Releasing info about your enemy's troops is hardly unusual. I suspect the reason the US has not done so is either because they don't have anything incriminating (despite Russian claim that there were US satellites above Ukraine at the time), or the types of images would compromise US spy satellites' surveillance capabilities.

And it's not like Russia and the separatists aren't part of the same command and control structure. At the time of the shooting the leader of the separatists was still a Russian ex-FSB officer.

Who are you talking about? Strelkov?

Yep.

Also, it turns out that in the intercepted phone call, Igor Bezler is talking to Vasily Geranin who is a colonel in GRU. And Bezler has actually admitted that this part of the intercept is accurate, only that it refers to a different plane. How many separatist do you have to hear that are saying they report directly to Russia, before you believe it?

As for incriminating evidence, the pictures and videos of the BUK missing one projectile and the numerous statements by the rebels themselves are enough.

You keep repeating this bullshit over and over. How does that prove Russia involvement?
And what statements?
I only know about one statement, the one where rebels claim capturing Buks from Ukrainian Army.

A story which was broken by a Russian state owned news agency, never confirmed by Ukraine, and is highly suspect. If Russia did give the separatists a BUK, they would not be so stupid as to not have plausible deniability, so it's not too far fetched to assume they planted the story about a "captured" BUK so that in case it was photographed or seized by Ukraine, Russia could continue to deny that it's arming the separatists.

But even if the story was true, and separatists did seize the BUK from an Ukrainian base, they were still the ones who used it. And even in that case the BUK was carted off to Russia which means that Russia would still be complicit in covering it up.

At least when the US shoots down a plane, they own up to it.

Russia has nothing to do with shooting that plane. There is no need to own it.
And I would not exactly call US shooting iranian plane owning it.

At least US didn't pretend that they never shot down the plane or disseminate conspiracy theories that Iran shot down its own plane to make Americans look bad.

US did shoot that plane, Russia did not.

All the evidence suggests that it did.

As for ukrainians, they did pretend they did not shoot the passenger plane at least once before.

Are you referring to  Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812? If so, it's true that Ukraine (and Russia!) initially denied it but they came clean after a week or so and never mounted a widespread disinformation campaign to try to divert attention away from them. It's been almost 4 months now since MH17, when is Russia going to come clean?

Fine, then educate me: how does the Western media misrepresent the intercept? I admit I did not pay much attention to it at the time, but based on quick googling now it seems the only argument that you have that it's fake is that it doesn't sound right to a Russian-speaking person.

Tape was composed from different and unrelated to the MH17 shooting intercepts (they talk about different plane which was shot earlier and in different place, you know that because they mention the place)
Most of it pertaining alleged guy in Moscow does not even contain his voice - basically caption without voice and again, it's not related to MH17.
The part where they the do talk about MH17 shows that they clearly had no intention to shoot civilian plane and were in fact surprised that civilian planes were actually flying there.
Also they don't discuss who shot it in the tape, it sounds as if they imply that some of them (rebels) are responsible but they don't know who exactly.
The guy who is asking questions gets upset about situation and becomes somewhat defensive.
Now the way it was reported/talked about that lady at Daily Show was seriosly distorted, I would say that women knew she was lying because she speaks russian and could listen to that tape.

Basically, there is nothing remarkable on that tape, If you speak russian you will not see anything which would reflect bad on rebels or Russia, nothing at all. They all upset about situation as they should and that's it.

Ok, point by point:

1) The tape consisted of several separate conversations. Nobody has denied that, it's three different calls. That doesn't mean the individual portions are fake.

2) As for the location being mentioned, the location (Enokievo) was on flight path of MH17. Granted, Bezler might be telling the truth and maybe that part of the collection was indeed an old clip. But as it is three separate conversations, the first one being false does not mean the other parts are forged, it could be a mistake on part of whoever put it together.

3) As I already noted earlier in this post, Igor Bezler who spoke in one of the sections has said it is authentic, but referring to a different incident. That's fine for the first part, but the section where they talk about dead people and Malaysian Airlines cannot be referring to any other incident. The only options are that either that section is total forgery, or it is authentic... it can't be just an innocent conversation taken out of context.

4) So, is it a total forgery? RT claims that it is based on opinion of some speech analyst. But there is reason to think that this expert was full of crap.

5) Clearly, even if the call is hard to hear, just saying that it is obviously fake to anyone who speaks Russian is false. There are plenty of people (including whichever Daily Show guest you are referring to, I did not watch the show at the time) who don't hear the same thing that you are hearing. If it was that obvious there would bound to be at least some people who A) speak Russian, B) are not part of the pro-Russian cheering squad, and C) have enough intellectual honesty to point out the weaknesses anyway. Where are they? Why is it that only ones who are calling the recording fake all just happen to be agreeing with the Russian narrative anyway?

6) I admit that even assuming that the call is authentic, it is possible that the people on the ground who found the plane only thought their compatriots had shot it down. But that just brings us back to the fact that there is other evidence of rebels having the BUK, and the separatists were bragging about shooting down a plane in social media. The intercept alone is not a smoking gun, it's just a part of the massive body of evidence pointing to Russia.

No, this thread is about RT being dishonest. But if you insist, in this particular case BBC did alter the comment, but it was by removing the word "chemical weapons" because it was an incorrect statement meant by the doctor in question in a report about attack with conventional weapons. So actually what BBC did was edit a report to be more concise while remaining accurate. When BBC later used the same footage in a longer documentary it used the original footage, and again, explained the context that it was not about chemical warfare.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Question here is about footage which is clearly staged, with actors and all that shit.
Was it aired by BBC or not?

The footage is not staged. Some conspiracy theorists (which RT is glad to give plenty of free air time) are claiming that it is, but that doesn't make it true. Only part that we know was changed in that report was the editing out of the word "chemical weapons" so as not to give the audience a misleading picture of what was going on, as it was a report about victims of an incendiary bomb. All this story shows is how dishonest and misleading RT is in its own reporting.

Also, if it was staged as you claim, why the heck would BBC stage an incendiary bomb attack, if the purpose was to turn world opinion against Syria for using chemical weapons? Why not fake a sarin gas attack as long as you are hiring actors? It doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[barbos]

That's a load of crap. I know for a fact that western media is not better in that regard at all.
I remember the RT making big fuss about CNN I think cutting off Putn's interview exactly at the place where he ask his first rhetorical yet very inconvenient to US administration question.
The kind of question where people usually say "OK good one, let see what they are gonna say"
But they are not gonna say anything because fucking asshole from CNN cut off interview exactly in that place!

Maybe. Not knowing what interview you are referring to, there's no way to say. Googling for a bit didn't help much, all I could find was a Youtube video titled "Georgia Russia Putin Interview with CNN that was NOT on CNN" but the video itself does not have RT saying that the video was censored by CNN, and by checking the CNN transcript it seems that all the comments aired by RT are included. So, maybe you are referring to some other incident. If you want to dwell deeper, fine by me, but you need to be more specific what as to what interview you are talking about.

Well, you need to watch RT more

So shove it. Western coverage of russian officials (Putin, Lavrov, etc) is appalling.
Truth is that Mademoiselle has no way to even form informed opinion, she is really a talking head.
And I believe it was her who refused to go to Crimea and ask people herself, she is like 12 year old with fingers in the ears.

Her working for RT for five years makes here opinion hell of a more informed than someone's who says he doesn't even watch RT on television. And from her interview you can get the idea that the reason she worked for RT was the opportunity to work on underreported domestic issues in UK, not international news. So why the hell would she go to Crimea, and how would going to Crimea have given her a more informed opiion on what happened to MH17, which was the stated reason for her resignation?

Really? that's the only reason she left? really?

I think you are mixing her up with Liz Wahl, an American RT anchor who resigned over Crimean invasion, and Abby Martin who never resigned but who refused RT's offer to visit Crimea after she made some comments critical of the invasion in her show.

You promised incriminating evidence against Russia.
At best you "incriminated" RT in making a mistake of parroting internet posts without check.
Fact is, there is no evidence against Russia. Even leaked german intelligence report agreed with most likely scenario of rebells using a captured Buk to shoot that plane by mistake.

Nobody is denying that it was an accident. The cover up by Russia is what is the problem.

What part of "There were no cover up" you do not understand?

if there was no Russian BUK involved then you'd think Russia has nothing to lose by just admitting that the separatists messed up and everyone could move on,

Why would Russia do that? Russia does not know who shot it, all they really know is that they have nothing to do with that.
After that, Russia just wants investigation.

but the fact that Russian starategy is total denial, disinformation and propaganda hints that they have more to hide.

It's US strategy.
So far it's US and West who is doing all that. Russia provided all their data including on Ukrainian Buks.

That is not all the data. That is cherry-picked data that Russia has chosen to reveal because it helps obfuscate the issue. For example: Russia has not apparently released the radar data about SU-25 flying anywhere near to MH17 to the Dutch investigation, because the preliminary report included no mention of it. And of course Russia has no problem releasing satellite images of Ukrainian forces, just like the US has released satellite images on Russian troops. Releasing info about your enemy's troops is hardly unusual. I suspect the reason the US has not done so is either because they don't have anything incriminating (despite Russian claim that there were US satellites above Ukraine at the time), or the types of images would compromise US spy satellites' surveillance capabilities.

And it's not like Russia and the separatists aren't part of the same command and control structure. At the time of the shooting the leader of the separatists was still a Russian ex-FSB officer.

Who are you talking about? Strelkov?

Yep.

Also, it turns out that in the intercepted phone call, Igor Bezler is talking to Vasily Geranin who is a colonel in GRU.

No, he does not, he is talking to an empty space because myphical Vasily Geranin produce no sounds.

And Bezler has actually admitted that this part of the intercept is accurate, only that it refers to a different plane. How many separatist do you have to hear that are saying they report directly to Russia, before you believe it?

Of course it's accurate, but nowhere it says that he is reporting to Moscow.
You are distorting his words. Just because audio is accurate does not mean that your interpretation is accurate is too.
Your interpretation is a lie.

As for incriminating evidence, the pictures and videos of the BUK missing one projectile and the numerous statements by the rebels themselves are enough.

You keep repeating this bullshit over and over. How does that prove Russia involvement?
And what statements?
I only know about one statement, the one where rebels claim capturing Buks from Ukrainian Army.

A story which was broken by a Russian state owned news agency, never confirmed by Ukraine, and is highly suspect.

Bullshit again. it was not broken by anybody. Rebells twitted it themselves and took it down month later when MH17 was shot down.

If Russia did give the separatists a BUK, they would not be so stupid as to not have plausible deniability, so it's not too far fetched to assume they planted the story about a "captured" BUK so that in case it was photographed or seized by Ukraine, Russia could continue to deny that it's arming the separatists.

But even if the story was true, and separatists did seize the BUK from an Ukrainian base, they were still the ones who used it. And even in that case the BUK was carted off to Russia which means that Russia would still be complicit in covering it up.

That's a nice theory, unfortunately it's a only a theory without any facts.

At least when the US shoots down a plane, they own up to it.

Russia has nothing to do with shooting that plane. There is no need to own it.
And I would not exactly call US shooting iranian plane owning it.

At least US didn't pretend that they never shot down the plane or disseminate conspiracy theories that Iran shot down its own plane to make Americans look bad.

US did shoot that plane, Russia did not.

All the evidence suggests that it did.

Then you should call Geman Intelligence and tell them they are wrong.

As for ukrainians, they did pretend they did not shoot the passenger plane at least once before.

Are you referring to  Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812? If so, it's true that Ukraine (and Russia!) initially denied it but they came clean after a week or so and never mounted a widespread disinformation campaign to try to divert attention away from them.

It took more than that and they were not entirely honest in the process, and it took years to make them pay compensation.

It's been almost 4 months now since MH17, when is Russia going to come clean?

Once again Russia ha nothing to do with MH17.

Fine, then educate me: how does the Western media misrepresent the intercept? I admit I did not pay much attention to it at the time, but based on quick googling now it seems the only argument that you have that it's fake is that it doesn't sound right to a Russian-speaking person.

Tape was composed from different and unrelated to the MH17 shooting intercepts (they talk about different plane which was shot earlier and in different place, you know that because they mention the place)
Most of it pertaining alleged guy in Moscow does not even contain his voice - basically caption without voice and again, it's not related to MH17.
The part where they the do talk about MH17 shows that they clearly had no intention to shoot civilian plane and were in fact surprised that civilian planes were actually flying there.
Also they don't discuss who shot it in the tape, it sounds as if they imply that some of them (rebels) are responsible but they don't know who exactly.
The guy who is asking questions gets upset about situation and becomes somewhat defensive.
Now the way it was reported/talked about that lady at Daily Show was seriosly distorted, I would say that women knew she was lying because she speaks russian and could listen to that tape.

Basically, there is nothing remarkable on that tape, If you speak russian you will not see anything which would reflect bad on rebels or Russia, nothing at all. They all upset about situation as they should and that's it.

Ok, point by point:

1) The tape consisted of several separate conversations. Nobody has denied that, it's three different calls. That doesn't mean the individual portions are fake.

Of course it was not denied, it was simply reported as all related to MH17.

2) As for the location being mentioned, the location (Enokievo) was on flight path of MH17. Granted, Bezler might be telling the truth and maybe that part of the collection was indeed an old clip. But as it is three separate conversations, the first one being false does not mean the other parts are forged, it could be a mistake on part of whoever put it together.

I have never that individual parts were forged. The whole thing however was.

3) As I already noted earlier in this post, Igor Bezler who spoke in one of the sections has said it is authentic,

And I explained to you why what you said is bullshit.

but referring to a different incident. That's fine for the first part, but the section where they talk about dead people and Malaysian Airlines cannot be referring to any other incident.

What the fuck is wrong with you?
I did not deny it, why are you repeating this bullshit as if it contradicts to what I said?

The only options are that either that section is total forgery, or it is authentic... it can't be just an innocent conversation taken out of context.

4) So, is it a total forgery? RT claims that it is based on opinion of some speech analyst. But there is reason to think that this expert was full of crap.

5) Clearly, even if the call is hard to hear, just saying that it is obviously fake to anyone who speaks Russian is false.

I see no point to reply to shit bullshit

There are plenty of people (including whichever Daily Show guest you are referring to, I did not watch the show at the time) who don't hear the same thing that you are hearing. If it was that obvious there would bound to be at least some people who A) speak Russian, B) are not part of the pro-Russian cheering squad, and C) have enough intellectual honesty to point out the weaknesses anyway. Where are they? Why is it that only ones who are calling the recording fake all just happen to be agreeing with the Russian narrative anyway?

Because I am the only russian here?
I know for a fact that bitch was lying, period.

6) I admit that even assuming that the call is authentic, it is possible that the people on the ground who found the plane only thought their compatriots had shot it down. But that just brings us back to the fact that there is other evidence of rebels having the BUK, and the separatists were bragging about shooting down a plane in social media. The intercept alone is not a smoking gun, it's just a part of the massive body of evidence pointing to Russia.

No, this thread is about RT being dishonest. But if you insist, in this particular case BBC did alter the comment, but it was by removing the word "chemical weapons" because it was an incorrect statement meant by the doctor in question in a report about attack with conventional weapons. So actually what BBC did was edit a report to be more concise while remaining accurate. When BBC later used the same footage in a longer documentary it used the original footage, and again, explained the context that it was not about chemical warfare.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Question here is about footage which is clearly staged, with actors and all that shit.
Was it aired by BBC or not?

The footage is not staged. Some conspiracy theorists (which RT is glad to give plenty of free air time) are claiming that it is, but that doesn't make it true. Only part that we know was changed in that report was the editing out of the word "chemical weapons" so as not to give the audience a misleading picture of what was going on, as it was a report about victims of an incendiary bomb. All this story shows is how dishonest and misleading RT is in its own reporting.

Also, if it was staged as you claim, why the heck would BBC stage an incendiary bomb attack, if the purpose was to turn world opinion against Syria for using chemical weapons? Why not fake a sarin gas attack as long as you are hiring actors? It doesn't make any sense at all.

Fuck!
there is no ifs or buts. footage was staged, period!

 

[barbos]

I am not a Russia's cheerleader, stop calling me that.
I have supported criticism of Russia and Putin on many occasions. What I don't support is lying during this criticism.
West and western media seems to have this weird idea that once you declared that someone is a bad guy then it's OK to go with full force disregarding facts, lying and distorting the truth. Ends justifies the means.
I know it will not work with Russia, all it does is increases mistrust and regardless of imaginary and short term gains West currently gets it will all be a loss (for everybody) long term.

 

[Togo]

I am not a Russia's cheerleader, stop calling me that.
I have supported criticism of Russia and Putin on many occasions.

Can you give an example please?

 

[barbos]

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4127349.htm

PAUL KEATING: We had a chance at the end of the Cold War to settle the status of Russia. It took us two world wars to settle the status of Germany. We had a chance in 1989-'90 to settle the status of Russia and basically the US blew it. And what did it do? It extended NATO into the boundary of Russia to the west - Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic States. And instead of seeing these as bridges between Russia and the West, they made them outposts, Western outposts. And of course, this inflamed Russian nationalism. In a very large measure, the US created Putin.

TONY JONES: I was going to ask you: do you think the rise of a demagogue in Russia like Putin was inevitable when you mount that kind of pressure on their border?

PAUL KEATING: Well it certainly didn't help. And the other thing is, you see, the Northern European Plain runs from the north of France to St Petersburg. Bonaparte went across is, Hitler went across it and the Russians came back across it to Berlin. It's fundamentally indefensible. Yet, we had Barack Obama up in Estonia recently making a speech about protecting the Baltic states, 300 miles wide, 200 miles deep. They're fundamentally not capable of defence against Russian infantry and artillery. So, we've made these - we've bitten off pieces of the pie crust when the Russians were weak instead of taking the longer view: this is a piece of elasticity, a bridge where we had to deal with: Russia is a great state. Whatever we think about, Russia is a great state and it has one particular characteristic: it has - alone in the world, it has the capacity to obliterate the US. So, if for that reason alone, if no other, you would have a policy towards it. You would have a policy which would be about integrating Russia into Europe. That should have been the ambition of the Clinton administration. It wasn't. It was the Clinton administration who decided to extend NATO and the Bush administration extended it further.

TONY JONES: So, a final question. We're virtually out of time. But you're not suggesting that you have any sympathy, are you, for Putin's methods of arming ethnic Russians inside some of those border states, some of those hinterland states?

PAUL KEATING: No, no, Putin's a shocker, but the thing is: one bad act begets another. The West made a shocking strategic error in extending NATO at the end of the Cold War and what we're seeing now is part of the - is part of the debris from that decision.

Is former Australian PM a Russia's cheerleader too?
cause I agree with him.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4127349.htm

PAUL KEATING: We had a chance at the end of the Cold War to settle the status of Russia. It took us two world wars to settle the status of Germany. We had a chance in 1989-'90 to settle the status of Russia and basically the US blew it. And what did it do? It extended NATO into the boundary of Russia to the west - Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic States. And instead of seeing these as bridges between Russia and the West, they made them outposts, Western outposts. And of course, this inflamed Russian nationalism. In a very large measure, the US created Putin.

TONY JONES: I was going to ask you: do you think the rise of a demagogue in Russia like Putin was inevitable when you mount that kind of pressure on their border?

PAUL KEATING: Well it certainly didn't help. And the other thing is, you see, the Northern European Plain runs from the north of France to St Petersburg. Bonaparte went across is, Hitler went across it and the Russians came back across it to Berlin. It's fundamentally indefensible. Yet, we had Barack Obama up in Estonia recently making a speech about protecting the Baltic states, 300 miles wide, 200 miles deep. They're fundamentally not capable of defence against Russian infantry and artillery. So, we've made these - we've bitten off pieces of the pie crust when the Russians were weak instead of taking the longer view: this is a piece of elasticity, a bridge where we had to deal with: Russia is a great state. Whatever we think about, Russia is a great state and it has one particular characteristic: it has - alone in the world, it has the capacity to obliterate the US. So, if for that reason alone, if no other, you would have a policy towards it. You would have a policy which would be about integrating Russia into Europe. That should have been the ambition of the Clinton administration. It wasn't. It was the Clinton administration who decided to extend NATO and the Bush administration extended it further.

TONY JONES: So, a final question. We're virtually out of time. But you're not suggesting that you have any sympathy, are you, for Putin's methods of arming ethnic Russians inside some of those border states, some of those hinterland states?

PAUL KEATING: No, no, Putin's a shocker, but the thing is: one bad act begets another. The West made a shocking strategic error in extending NATO at the end of the Cold War and what we're seeing now is part of the - is part of the debris from that decision.

Is former Australian PM a Russia's cheerleader too?
cause I agree with him.

 

[whichphilosophy]

He is a unique character. I believe a lot of what he said. His forecasts were correct. He also condemns terrorist groups.
He condemned most Arab regimes and ISIS etc.

Now here is something interesting. Does he hate Jews? He hates Zionism. When asked he said that his best friends who gave him shelter when he worked for the ANC were Jewish people who gave him safe house shelter, food and every car he drove.
I agree with his views on Zionism but I also agree that Israel not only has a right to exist but so do the Palestinians.

ISIS?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/26/george-galloway-angers-mps-isis-iraq-debate

While he's not actually coming out and saying he likes them he's clearly saying they're not so bad.

Here's an interesting YOUTUBE clip of Galloway at Oxford University distinguishing between Jewish and Zionist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jgZHlV9UMI

 

[Underseer]

George Galloway? Has he ever met a terrorist he didn't like?

I know nothing of George Galloway, but what's the evidence that he "likes" any terrorists?

Loren is a libertarian, so anyone who isn't a hard core right wingnut "hates freedom," "hates America" and "loves the terrorists." Weren't you paying attention during the administration of Bush II?

 

[Ford]

Is former Australian PM a Russia's cheerleader too?
cause I agree with him.

Based on the above exchange, I'd hazard a guess that he's willing to lay 100 percent of the blame at the feet of "the West" and completely absolve Russia and/or Putin from any responsibility for their actions.


No wonder you agree with him.


Of course the biggest problem with his statements is the assertion that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the one thing that Russia was pining for was to be drawn closer to Europe and was waiting for the slightest hint of an invitation to go running into the arms (figuratively) of NATO. That Russian nationalism was non-existent until the duplicitous West rebuffed their overtures and that it then sprang up angrily from out of nowhere to wreak vengeance upon the West in the person of Vladimir Putin - who by the way also apparently didn't exist prior to 1989.

With regards to the notion that NATO "outposts" were such an affront, perhaps the former PM forgot that at the end of WWII, Moscow for all intents and purposes claimed all of Eastern Europe as tribute, and set up not just "outposts" but entire puppet regimes tasked with making those hapless countries into a buffer zone between Moscow and anything west of Checkpoint Charlie.

Putin was a product of that system - not an invention borne of Western interference - and while he's reinvented himself as a nationalist, his feet are still firmly planted in his KGB past. The idea that he'd be a stalwart friend to the US had we not extended NATO at the end of the Cold War is shockingly naive.

Is the former Australian PM a cheerleader? No. Credulous nut with regards to Russia? Yep.