Craig Murray is a former career diplomat and UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who got railroaded out of the foreign service for having the temerity to note that Uzbek leader Islam Karimov was (literally) boiling his opponents to death. If this is an agenda, I support it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray

Also: https://archive.is/20061012215514/http://www.craigmurray.co....

Thank you for the second link, absolutely astonishing

Boom. Here's someone considering the source. Well done 9nGQluzmnq3M. I bet very few people actually did.

he left the foreign service in disgrace.

this guy blames everything on israel. he even blamed israel for the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury and he's even been accused of being an anti-semite. this guy celebrated Hitchens' death in a blog post for crying out loud.

If your problem is the source then read a different one. Here's the the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, on Assange being tortured.

https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

No problem here, buddy. Just reminding us all to consider that everything we read has an agenda. Including what I wrote, and what you wrote.

This kind of quisling act is of little value.

Look at yourself in the mirror. I invited you to consider the source. That's it. I asked you to exercise your mind, and to be careful not to accept other people's agendas, be they conscious or unconscious.

Your response to that is to attack. How dare I remind you that bias exists? Are you not shocked and horrified at your own response? You should be.

Almost none of this thread should exist. There should have been zero response to my post. It should be standard fare; that people remember to consider the sources of things they read, especially on divisive subjects. Look at the time people are now wasting on this thread. Assange is on trial, yet people are here arguing about the nature of bias, FFS.

>Almost none of this thread should exist. There should have been zero response to my post.

Not quite. Your post shouldn't exist at all. It's condescending tripe.

My own belief: it's unfair to attack his credibility without providing anything about the content of this post.

If something is not accurate here, please let us know, that would be valuable.

My belief; it is not unfair (he is deliberately presenting himself as a source of truth in the matter, publicly and openly), and I did not attack his credibility. I invited you to consider the source. Perhaps you conclude, after consideration, that he is an especially credible source.

> Craig Murray's website suggests he is, for example, a credulous believer of Russian explanations for events. He does on occasion correct himself (such as in his post about the famed picture of two different people walking through two different channels - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib.... ) but nonetheless he has a long-standing mindset which will temper his beliefs and of course colour everything he sees and his interpretations thereof.

and you somehow think

> I did not attack his credibility

Ah, I see. In which case, then yes. I attack his credibility. I attack yours. I attack mine. You are biased. I am biased. He is biased. Everything you write is tempered. Everything I write is tempered. His credibiltiy is compromised and the source must be considered, as is yours, as is mine.

This shouldn't be controversial, yet here we are. Seriously, here we are.

The Guardian (never to be accused of outlandish sympathies toward Assange) https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/25/julian-assange...

I'll be honest; I genuinely don't know how many times I would expect someone to have handcuffs attached and released in such circumstances. Is eleven times a lot? The Guardian doesn't actually express whether this is excessive or lenient.

The Guardian doesn't seem to make any comment on that. I would expect his defence lawyer to complain about his conditions no matter what.

The article headlines with thehandcuffs, but the vast majority of the article is nothing to do with that. So honestly no idea on that one; feels like a headline designed to attract attention and maybe spark outrage based on a reader's pre-conceived ideas without actually making any value judgement.

I get it, he's Assange, the state is bad, he's a whipping boy. Probably all true. Really, I think he's going to get a raw deal in this and I think the states involved have really spent too much time and effort chasing something that really won't benefit them, and perhaps not with as much fairness as we'd like.

But the breathless rush with which people run to believe is disconcerting.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, certainly thinks assange is being tortured.

https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian...

Why are you telling me this? I didn't say he wasn't. Genuinely, I think he's getting a raw deal. The balance of sources certainly indicates that. This isn't about whether or not his treatment is acceptable; this is about ensuring that we read sources carefully. Although it seems to be turning into the idea that to question a source is to take an opposing view, and even that to suggest a source be examined critically is to take an opposing view.

> I'll be honest; I genuinely don't know how many times I would expect someone to have handcuffs attached and released in such circumstances. Is eleven times a lot? The Guardian doesn't actually express whether this is excessive or lenient.

1. Moved from prison cell to holding cell at prison for transport.

2. Moved from holding cell into transport.

3. Moved from transport into court holding cell.

4. Moved from court holding cell into court.

And reverse equals at least 8. Add in a pretrial meeting with lawyer, and I can see 10 times in a day at court happening, entirely.

Publishing your beliefs and publishing the facts of a case are completely different things.

"Consider the source" is not an issue here, unless you wish to accuse him of lying about what he witnessed.

I disagree. Nobody, but nobody, is some kind of robot perfectly witnessing and reporting events in some kind of perfect language that perfectly conveys the whole truth and nothing but the truth (despite the typical HN cyborg-wannabee viewpoint - the locally over-represented kind of person who decides they have no biases). "Consider the source" is always an issue. Always.

It's unpopular to say it, and a lot of people don't like to be reminded that they don't live in a world of perfect information, but it's true.

What does this commenter want us to think?

He wants us to think "Murray is a conspiracy theorist with a wacko following†, so I will take this blog post with a pinch of salt."

Of course Murray could be speaking truth in this blog post, but it's nonetheless worth finding a different source of the truth, to avoid promoting Murray.

†that's true - look back at his response to the Skripal poisoning for an example.

i agree. craig murray is not to be trusted. he may be telling us exactly what is happening, but then again he might start another crusade against israel any moment now.

I'd like you to, yes.