Rationalwiki says of Murray:
- claims the perpetrators of the Salisbury poisoning aren't the Russians
- has been in disputes with a British newspaper editor and an Uzbek businessman over blog posts or articles
- some vague accusations that he may hold antisemitic views
Is that it, or is there something else?
I understand that he is biased, as both an open supporter of the accused and also because of what happened when he was ambassador to Uzbekistan, which definitely explains his interest in this particular case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Ambassador_to_Uzb...
None of the above makes me think that I shouldn't take what Murray writes about this particular court proceeding seriously.
Is there some argument that I'm missing here, some reason that can be described without relying on mere name calling and innuendo, that suggests that Murray is lying about what's going on here and I should therefore just ignore him?
- claims the perpetrators of the Salisbury poisoning aren't the Russians
- has been in disputes with a British newspaper editor and an Uzbek businessman over blog posts or articles
- some vague accusations that he may hold antisemitic views
Is that it, or is there something else?
I understand that he is biased, as both an open supporter of the accused and also because of what happened when he was ambassador to Uzbekistan, which definitely explains his interest in this particular case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Ambassador_to_Uzb...
None of the above makes me think that I shouldn't take what Murray writes about this particular court proceeding seriously.
Is there some argument that I'm missing here, some reason that can be described without relying on mere name calling and innuendo, that suggests that Murray is lying about what's going on here and I should therefore just ignore him?