This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Antiwar.com article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-06-22. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't want to junk the page up with a bunch of extra names, but how exactly should we determine which personnel to mention and which to omit? Are we looking for noteworthiness or for those who do the most work at the site? It seems like Scott Horton might be a noteworthy addition considering he's also the host of a comparatively popular talk radio show. - anon
This part of the page needs work Right now it claims that Robert Fisk and Juan Cole are "antiwar leftists" 97.91.173.58 ( talk) 17:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This page was created almost half a year ago, and contain what I, for one, consider to be useful information. So Coolcat, if you want the page to be deleted, please add it to the vote for deletion instead. Stereotek 10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
RFC 1591 says of .com that "This domain is intended for commercial entities". The proper domain under the categorization system of top level domains for noncommercial organizations is .org. This organization's use of a .com address makes no logical sense. *Dan T.* 14:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Is this actually true? I'm certain the site was talking about this group before others, but does it actually go back to the sites inception? I could be mistaken, but I don't remember any mention of them while the bombs were falling on Serbia... Arker 02:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
They weren't mentioned as much because they weren't in power at the time. Justin mentions neo-conservatives in his books years before the site's founding, so I would assume he mentioned them offhand somewhere along the line.
I protest the removal of the material I added, pointing out that Antiwar.com carries a significant amount of news content as opposed to opinion. Frankly, I'm surprised someone thought this needed removing; if anything, I think what I put in is anything but "POV" and in fact shows that Antiwar.com is less POV than might be thought at first glance, since a lot of the content comes from the world press (much of it mainstream). Please look at what I put in and see what you think. -- ILike2BeAnonymous 21:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
==Here is a reliable article about Antiwar.com. The original article is as missleading as the site itself.
Antiwar.com From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Part of a series on Anti-War topics
Opposition to...
Iraq War War on Terrorism Afghanistan War Vietnam War War of 1812 American Civil War Second Boer War
Agents of opposition
Anti-war organizations Conscientious objector Draft dodger Peace movement Peace churches
Related ideologies
Antimilitarism Anti-imperialism Appeasement Pacifism
Media
Books Films Protest songs
Politics Portal This box: view • talk • edit
Antiwar.com is an English-language website containing news and opinion pieces related predominantly to wars in which the USA and Israel are involved from a point of view of ideological and political red-green-brown alliance of anti-democratic and anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, paleoconservative Old Right, Islamists and far Left. The site was founded in December of 1995. It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation, operating under the auspices of the Randolph Bourne Institute, based in Atherton, California. The language of publications is shrill, openly demagogic; the site provides very little factual information but is a full of conspiracy theories, like accusations that'Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11. While site claims anti-war position, in fact it is openly supportive of Islamic terrorism against the USA and Israel. The site made an enormous effort to became noticeable by the mainstream left (liberal) media which opposes to so called " neo-conservative" policies of president George W. Bush. Among historical figures of the past, the main targets of the site are American presidents who fought against racism, Nazi Germany/ Imperial Japan/ Fascist Italy or Communist Stalin's totalitarianism; Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and American ally Winston Churchill. Antiwar.com accuses them in "conspiring" to initiate the wars against their opponents. After initial attention to the site, the left wing media began to ignore it. Because its want of credibility, Antiwar.com is not cited by the leading mainstream left and conservative blogs. At present Antiwar.com is failed into obscurity.
Personnel include self proclaimed libertarian of neo-Fascist bent Justin Raimondo (founder and editorial director), Eric Garris (founder and webmaster), Matt Barganier (editor), Jeremy Sapienza (assistant webmaster and senior editor),and Alexia Gilmore (executive director). Authors include Raimondo, Ivan Eland, Praful Bidwai, Ran HaCohen, Nebojsa Malic, Alan Bock, Charles V. Peña, Bevin Chu, Joseph Stromberg, Randall (Ismail) Royer, a former employee of the Council on American-Islamic Relations CAIR now doing a 20-year federal sentence for Islamist terrorist activities, rightist has beens Paul Craig Roberts and Pat Buchanan, unreformed Stalinist Alexander Cockburn. With exception of Buchanan, no one of site authors is known outside of small circle of peculiar fringe to which any of them belonged.
75.2.245.222 has continued to post the same uncited points of contention. Not only are they not cited by any kind of source, but they glaringly violate the Terms required of NPOV. Just because you do not like someone or a position held by an organization, does not mean that you can disparage them. Follow the terms, cite sources and stick to NPOV.
- User:Tejano 23:42 06 August 2006 (UTC)
(External links)
E.G. W. 4 August 2004
Someone (specifically, an anon user who has posted under at least the following IPs: 75.2.245.222 and 75.3.51.234, and no doubt others) has been trying to corrupt the article (see the bullshit he's repeatedly attempted to add above). Please be on the lookout and get rid of this crap if you see it. + ILike2BeAnonymous 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I see there was a previous vote on deletion of this article, which was high in favor of "keep". However, why hasn't any editor included NPOV, sourced and verifiable information in this article which clearly demonstrate why this website is notable enough for an article. The writing may be fabulous and provocative, but where are the traffic statistics, the outside references to it from other prominent outlets, news coverage, etc? To read this article on its own, I wonder why this website is important. Does it have a national audience? Is it more a Bay-area thing? Is anything published anywhere in a completely independent, verifiable and reliable source that covers this information? NYDCSP 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone should provide those things. Wish I had the time. I know the stats are favorable to antiwar.com, though. Look here, for example:
[1]. Antiwar.com beat out the Nation, Reason, the New Yorker, Mother Jones, the Heritage Foundation, etc. They are not local at all, but are apparently popular not just among paleo-conservatives or even libertarians, but even liberals, since after all, the news links are what it's all about and they are excellent and frequently revised, and their being useful wouldn't depend on one's ideology. So anyway, their traffic is huge.
68.223.6.109
23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That may be true - but doesn't that have to be verified and sourced in the article to prove the relevance of this article's subject? Why hasn't that question by NYDCSP been addressed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.6.69.127 ( talk) 20:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed this line from the article. Now, this isn't the first time it's come up, but this time it cites three sources. However, these three sources do not back up the claim, especially if we're maintaining a NPOV.
The first source, The Real Aggressor, is critical of Georgia and of calls for the U.S. to intervene, and states that Georgia was the aggressor. Nowhere does he "openly support" military action by Russia. He only criticizes the actions by Georgia and some U.S. politicians who want to intervene. Does this constitute "support of Russian interventionism"? Not if we want to keep NPOV.
The second source, 'Poor Little Georgia' – Not! is similar. Raimondo states that the government of Georgia has been historically authoritarian and remains so. He criticizes U.S. involvement and Bill Kristol. Again, nowhere does he actually support Russian military action.
The third source, Russophobia: A Political Pathology is much the same as the last two. He criticizes fear of Russia. Much criticism of those critical toward Russia, but no actual support of Russia.
Nowhere in any of those articles does Raimondo say that the military action by Russia was "good" or "justified" or anything similar.
Even if he had, the line is still POV. Saying "Russian interventionism" implies it was Russia who did the intervention, and not Georgia. That might be disputed, particularly by the Russians, the South Ossetians, and antiwar.com, the subject of this article.
For these reasons, I do not believe the line belongs in the article. -- darolew 06:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's your clarification. Russia invaded a territory that wasn't part of Russia. It intervened in what would be termed by nearly all accounts an external conflict. The point of the statement is to contrast that antiwar is only against US intervention. It does not protest foreign empires. Even if Russia is justified, what Russia did was an act of intervention. Antiwar blamed Georgia for the conflict, claimed Israel was arming them to boot, and thus, the conflict was caused by the "War Party". Now regardless of what the Neo-Conservatives think, anyone who could read a military map would be hard pressed to understand why-if this war was provoked by the "War Party" Russia would have been prepared with armored columns moved in once Medvedev took power? Russia expected and was prepared for this war-it was not a sneak attack. The reality is this shouldn't be mentioning Georgia if the site honestly wasn't concerned with Russia. Yet you, since you're so gung ho about the rhetoric, refuse to accept that this site only opposed US interventionism. America First, right? Well, that's fine. But if that were the case, the site shouldn't be opening its trap so often about Ukraine and Georgia since there are more actors in the area than the US and Israel-never mind the role Germany's played (which is suspiciously not mentioned). I mean, Russia's increasing spending, doing this, doing that, all because US policy, right? You mean Russia has absolutely no ambition for empire? And sending Fighter-Bombers to Chavez was good will, right?
Suggesting you are delusional was probably an error in an argument. But I still think you're being blind in accepting antiwar's tone, which until recently was calling Mikha a war criminal based on false allegations in line with what only the Kremlin said occurred. The fact they listed so many casualties so early which turned out to be false indicates they only have one source: Russia. No correction from Raimondo either. Mikha might be a war criminal, but most of the dramatic allegations by Raimondo proved false. And I fail to see how Raimondo criticized Russian intervention, suggesting he accepts foreign intervention as inevitable...there was no utterance of condemnation that Russian armor left Russian territory. None. Zip. Zilch. Intellectually, it matters, especially when you complain about when Georgia does it, or Israel.
Since you debunked my points, let me debunk your debunking:
This is horrifically flawed logically. I said Ossetia was disputed purposefully. Even if Russia views Georgia as the invader, if Russia protects South Ossetia, which is NOT Russian territory, it is intervening in a foreign conflict. This is neutral as it is a statement of an action which can NOT be disputed by any side, unless one assumes South Ossetia (and possibly Georgia) are Russian to begin with. If South Ossetia is not Russian, then by definition, all Russian actions in South Ossetia are intervention.
This is relevant, since if the website was genuinely neutral, it should not be involved. It blames American intervention for the conflict and ignores Russian intervention in the conflict. Since Russia won, which is not condemned, it is pro-Russian by virtue of supporting the outcome, based on intervention, which Raimondo has also noted a few times in a gloating tone that Georgia was routed. There were only really two sides in this war, and Raimondo gloated that the Russian side won. Thus, logically again, it is pro-Russia.
Considering allegations made by Russia were wrong and at the time repeated by few media sources except for some reason agreed to by antiwar, it seems that antiwar believed Russia's actions were justified. Defense based on liberal estimates of casualties that were only mentioned by the Russian side seems like support for Russia since its definitely by definition not supporting reality, let alone the Georgian line (which also was not realistic).
Antiwar fails to condemn Russian intervention; only Georgian intervention. It mentions the conflict. It does not denounce the conflict, just one side. Thus it is pro-Russian since again, it denounces only one side. Neutral Point of View be damned here-the view isn't neutral to begin with. There are only two options here realistically, since there's absence of condemnation. This isn't a "You're with us or against us" thing. People who aren't "with us" or "against us" generally take a third option-justifying their independent actions. They point out both sides of the conflict. Antiwar failed to do this, and clearly they failed to educate their readers on what intervention is.
There was a time when people like Patrick Buchanan, whom might be considered the Godfather of Paleo-Conservatism, would openly assume the Kremlin was lying about everything. It turns out with this conflict, they were lying about a lot (so was Georgia). Yet, the antiwar right (anti-Commie as well) doesn't seem to have any problem believing the Kremlin. There's a paradigm shift here, and this is obviously off subject. The point here is that it is not consistent with opinions some in this movement would have had 20 years ago.
As far as the Baja California claim, it is a reference to their stance on immigration. I got the context horribly wrong here, but they claim Mexicans bring in crime, drugs, gangs, disease, garbage, steal our money, etc.; maybe not the site themselves but certainly those who are associated with an America First policy. So if we decided to intervene in Mexico to cut off immigration, you can bet these guys on the site would have a tough time knowing what to make of it. Once again, it has no direct point, it is original research (to an extent, since Buchanan actually mentions these things in his book Death of the West). That's not on the website. But the authors on the website certainly dabble in these attitudes.
At the end of the day, this site only condemns US policy. This is not anti-American inherently, since US policy might be wrong. What makes it anti-American is it bases it on certain ideals, and doesn't apply them to all actors, only certain ones. Even if it isn't anti-American, it certainly comes off as Pro-Russian. Combined with the fact it doesn't condemn Iran and supports Iranian positions-which may be fine-but condemns US meddling in Iraq and Israeli meddling in Gaza (The latter point is important) means its at least pro-Iran. Iran also occupies provinces which might be seen as disputed. No mention of that on the site. No, only condemnation of what the US and its allies do. Definitely no condemnation of Russia and its allies, except possibly left allies such as Hugo Chavez. But I'd have to look for that. 71.247.102.31 ( talk) 13:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The opening paragraph claims that the site commonly publishes people in the 911 conspiracy/truth movement. Not only is it not common, I have never seen it at all. I am removing it until someone has a source 24.207.226.108 ( talk) 17:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The article you point to does not claim Israel caused 911, as you are trying to imply but instead that after 911, several hundred Israeli's were detained and questioned over the event because it is believed the Israeli's were tracking some of the hijackers. A theory which is not only plausible but supported by evidence 97.91.173.58 ( talk) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Thats bullshit and you know it Justin is a anti semetic truther. Get off your horse Libtard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.88.22 ( talk) 05:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
For questionable edits. Any one who can include the following in edit summaries made Dec 8 and Dec 9, really has to step back from aggressive deletionism and give editors a chance to clean up any legitimate issues. Thus I have reverted the removed material.
I've read this post twice and I have no idea what it is trying to say. Could you please write a few short prose sentences which summarize your concern? Please use declamatory statements, with diffs as needed, but without bullets and references to unidentified diffs or unexplained external content. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This thread is now a complete mess because OP has rewritten the initial posting after I replied to it. Please start over. It's even more unintelligible now. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
For the record, before I get around to it, there are dozens of recent mainstream articles about Antiwar.com because the FBI investigated them for years after they complained someone was trying to hack them. A search of FBI and Antiwar.com comes up with lots, his one being on top. And of course all sorts of other material that people just haven't bothered to dig up. Just one more article on my list. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 18:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
A lot of content seems to have been added to this article with the deliberate intention of smearing Antiwar.com as a radical right-wing organization. That's plainly contradicted by Antiwar.com's posting of articles by left-leaning writers like Medea Benjamin, Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard. Opposition to war cuts across the political spectrum. Even if the site does have Libertarian writers like, say, Ron Paul, these authors do not inject Libertarian social philosophy into their articles. As there are many pro-war factions today, any of which would have a vested interest in smearing Antiwar.com. Practical321 ( talk) 02:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Antiwar.com article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-06-22. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't want to junk the page up with a bunch of extra names, but how exactly should we determine which personnel to mention and which to omit? Are we looking for noteworthiness or for those who do the most work at the site? It seems like Scott Horton might be a noteworthy addition considering he's also the host of a comparatively popular talk radio show. - anon
This part of the page needs work Right now it claims that Robert Fisk and Juan Cole are "antiwar leftists" 97.91.173.58 ( talk) 17:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This page was created almost half a year ago, and contain what I, for one, consider to be useful information. So Coolcat, if you want the page to be deleted, please add it to the vote for deletion instead. Stereotek 10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
RFC 1591 says of .com that "This domain is intended for commercial entities". The proper domain under the categorization system of top level domains for noncommercial organizations is .org. This organization's use of a .com address makes no logical sense. *Dan T.* 14:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Is this actually true? I'm certain the site was talking about this group before others, but does it actually go back to the sites inception? I could be mistaken, but I don't remember any mention of them while the bombs were falling on Serbia... Arker 02:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
They weren't mentioned as much because they weren't in power at the time. Justin mentions neo-conservatives in his books years before the site's founding, so I would assume he mentioned them offhand somewhere along the line.
I protest the removal of the material I added, pointing out that Antiwar.com carries a significant amount of news content as opposed to opinion. Frankly, I'm surprised someone thought this needed removing; if anything, I think what I put in is anything but "POV" and in fact shows that Antiwar.com is less POV than might be thought at first glance, since a lot of the content comes from the world press (much of it mainstream). Please look at what I put in and see what you think. -- ILike2BeAnonymous 21:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
==Here is a reliable article about Antiwar.com. The original article is as missleading as the site itself.
Antiwar.com From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Part of a series on Anti-War topics
Opposition to...
Iraq War War on Terrorism Afghanistan War Vietnam War War of 1812 American Civil War Second Boer War
Agents of opposition
Anti-war organizations Conscientious objector Draft dodger Peace movement Peace churches
Related ideologies
Antimilitarism Anti-imperialism Appeasement Pacifism
Media
Books Films Protest songs
Politics Portal This box: view • talk • edit
Antiwar.com is an English-language website containing news and opinion pieces related predominantly to wars in which the USA and Israel are involved from a point of view of ideological and political red-green-brown alliance of anti-democratic and anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, paleoconservative Old Right, Islamists and far Left. The site was founded in December of 1995. It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation, operating under the auspices of the Randolph Bourne Institute, based in Atherton, California. The language of publications is shrill, openly demagogic; the site provides very little factual information but is a full of conspiracy theories, like accusations that'Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11. While site claims anti-war position, in fact it is openly supportive of Islamic terrorism against the USA and Israel. The site made an enormous effort to became noticeable by the mainstream left (liberal) media which opposes to so called " neo-conservative" policies of president George W. Bush. Among historical figures of the past, the main targets of the site are American presidents who fought against racism, Nazi Germany/ Imperial Japan/ Fascist Italy or Communist Stalin's totalitarianism; Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and American ally Winston Churchill. Antiwar.com accuses them in "conspiring" to initiate the wars against their opponents. After initial attention to the site, the left wing media began to ignore it. Because its want of credibility, Antiwar.com is not cited by the leading mainstream left and conservative blogs. At present Antiwar.com is failed into obscurity.
Personnel include self proclaimed libertarian of neo-Fascist bent Justin Raimondo (founder and editorial director), Eric Garris (founder and webmaster), Matt Barganier (editor), Jeremy Sapienza (assistant webmaster and senior editor),and Alexia Gilmore (executive director). Authors include Raimondo, Ivan Eland, Praful Bidwai, Ran HaCohen, Nebojsa Malic, Alan Bock, Charles V. Peña, Bevin Chu, Joseph Stromberg, Randall (Ismail) Royer, a former employee of the Council on American-Islamic Relations CAIR now doing a 20-year federal sentence for Islamist terrorist activities, rightist has beens Paul Craig Roberts and Pat Buchanan, unreformed Stalinist Alexander Cockburn. With exception of Buchanan, no one of site authors is known outside of small circle of peculiar fringe to which any of them belonged.
75.2.245.222 has continued to post the same uncited points of contention. Not only are they not cited by any kind of source, but they glaringly violate the Terms required of NPOV. Just because you do not like someone or a position held by an organization, does not mean that you can disparage them. Follow the terms, cite sources and stick to NPOV.
- User:Tejano 23:42 06 August 2006 (UTC)
(External links)
E.G. W. 4 August 2004
Someone (specifically, an anon user who has posted under at least the following IPs: 75.2.245.222 and 75.3.51.234, and no doubt others) has been trying to corrupt the article (see the bullshit he's repeatedly attempted to add above). Please be on the lookout and get rid of this crap if you see it. + ILike2BeAnonymous 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I see there was a previous vote on deletion of this article, which was high in favor of "keep". However, why hasn't any editor included NPOV, sourced and verifiable information in this article which clearly demonstrate why this website is notable enough for an article. The writing may be fabulous and provocative, but where are the traffic statistics, the outside references to it from other prominent outlets, news coverage, etc? To read this article on its own, I wonder why this website is important. Does it have a national audience? Is it more a Bay-area thing? Is anything published anywhere in a completely independent, verifiable and reliable source that covers this information? NYDCSP 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone should provide those things. Wish I had the time. I know the stats are favorable to antiwar.com, though. Look here, for example:
[1]. Antiwar.com beat out the Nation, Reason, the New Yorker, Mother Jones, the Heritage Foundation, etc. They are not local at all, but are apparently popular not just among paleo-conservatives or even libertarians, but even liberals, since after all, the news links are what it's all about and they are excellent and frequently revised, and their being useful wouldn't depend on one's ideology. So anyway, their traffic is huge.
68.223.6.109
23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That may be true - but doesn't that have to be verified and sourced in the article to prove the relevance of this article's subject? Why hasn't that question by NYDCSP been addressed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.6.69.127 ( talk) 20:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed this line from the article. Now, this isn't the first time it's come up, but this time it cites three sources. However, these three sources do not back up the claim, especially if we're maintaining a NPOV.
The first source, The Real Aggressor, is critical of Georgia and of calls for the U.S. to intervene, and states that Georgia was the aggressor. Nowhere does he "openly support" military action by Russia. He only criticizes the actions by Georgia and some U.S. politicians who want to intervene. Does this constitute "support of Russian interventionism"? Not if we want to keep NPOV.
The second source, 'Poor Little Georgia' – Not! is similar. Raimondo states that the government of Georgia has been historically authoritarian and remains so. He criticizes U.S. involvement and Bill Kristol. Again, nowhere does he actually support Russian military action.
The third source, Russophobia: A Political Pathology is much the same as the last two. He criticizes fear of Russia. Much criticism of those critical toward Russia, but no actual support of Russia.
Nowhere in any of those articles does Raimondo say that the military action by Russia was "good" or "justified" or anything similar.
Even if he had, the line is still POV. Saying "Russian interventionism" implies it was Russia who did the intervention, and not Georgia. That might be disputed, particularly by the Russians, the South Ossetians, and antiwar.com, the subject of this article.
For these reasons, I do not believe the line belongs in the article. -- darolew 06:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's your clarification. Russia invaded a territory that wasn't part of Russia. It intervened in what would be termed by nearly all accounts an external conflict. The point of the statement is to contrast that antiwar is only against US intervention. It does not protest foreign empires. Even if Russia is justified, what Russia did was an act of intervention. Antiwar blamed Georgia for the conflict, claimed Israel was arming them to boot, and thus, the conflict was caused by the "War Party". Now regardless of what the Neo-Conservatives think, anyone who could read a military map would be hard pressed to understand why-if this war was provoked by the "War Party" Russia would have been prepared with armored columns moved in once Medvedev took power? Russia expected and was prepared for this war-it was not a sneak attack. The reality is this shouldn't be mentioning Georgia if the site honestly wasn't concerned with Russia. Yet you, since you're so gung ho about the rhetoric, refuse to accept that this site only opposed US interventionism. America First, right? Well, that's fine. But if that were the case, the site shouldn't be opening its trap so often about Ukraine and Georgia since there are more actors in the area than the US and Israel-never mind the role Germany's played (which is suspiciously not mentioned). I mean, Russia's increasing spending, doing this, doing that, all because US policy, right? You mean Russia has absolutely no ambition for empire? And sending Fighter-Bombers to Chavez was good will, right?
Suggesting you are delusional was probably an error in an argument. But I still think you're being blind in accepting antiwar's tone, which until recently was calling Mikha a war criminal based on false allegations in line with what only the Kremlin said occurred. The fact they listed so many casualties so early which turned out to be false indicates they only have one source: Russia. No correction from Raimondo either. Mikha might be a war criminal, but most of the dramatic allegations by Raimondo proved false. And I fail to see how Raimondo criticized Russian intervention, suggesting he accepts foreign intervention as inevitable...there was no utterance of condemnation that Russian armor left Russian territory. None. Zip. Zilch. Intellectually, it matters, especially when you complain about when Georgia does it, or Israel.
Since you debunked my points, let me debunk your debunking:
This is horrifically flawed logically. I said Ossetia was disputed purposefully. Even if Russia views Georgia as the invader, if Russia protects South Ossetia, which is NOT Russian territory, it is intervening in a foreign conflict. This is neutral as it is a statement of an action which can NOT be disputed by any side, unless one assumes South Ossetia (and possibly Georgia) are Russian to begin with. If South Ossetia is not Russian, then by definition, all Russian actions in South Ossetia are intervention.
This is relevant, since if the website was genuinely neutral, it should not be involved. It blames American intervention for the conflict and ignores Russian intervention in the conflict. Since Russia won, which is not condemned, it is pro-Russian by virtue of supporting the outcome, based on intervention, which Raimondo has also noted a few times in a gloating tone that Georgia was routed. There were only really two sides in this war, and Raimondo gloated that the Russian side won. Thus, logically again, it is pro-Russia.
Considering allegations made by Russia were wrong and at the time repeated by few media sources except for some reason agreed to by antiwar, it seems that antiwar believed Russia's actions were justified. Defense based on liberal estimates of casualties that were only mentioned by the Russian side seems like support for Russia since its definitely by definition not supporting reality, let alone the Georgian line (which also was not realistic).
Antiwar fails to condemn Russian intervention; only Georgian intervention. It mentions the conflict. It does not denounce the conflict, just one side. Thus it is pro-Russian since again, it denounces only one side. Neutral Point of View be damned here-the view isn't neutral to begin with. There are only two options here realistically, since there's absence of condemnation. This isn't a "You're with us or against us" thing. People who aren't "with us" or "against us" generally take a third option-justifying their independent actions. They point out both sides of the conflict. Antiwar failed to do this, and clearly they failed to educate their readers on what intervention is.
There was a time when people like Patrick Buchanan, whom might be considered the Godfather of Paleo-Conservatism, would openly assume the Kremlin was lying about everything. It turns out with this conflict, they were lying about a lot (so was Georgia). Yet, the antiwar right (anti-Commie as well) doesn't seem to have any problem believing the Kremlin. There's a paradigm shift here, and this is obviously off subject. The point here is that it is not consistent with opinions some in this movement would have had 20 years ago.
As far as the Baja California claim, it is a reference to their stance on immigration. I got the context horribly wrong here, but they claim Mexicans bring in crime, drugs, gangs, disease, garbage, steal our money, etc.; maybe not the site themselves but certainly those who are associated with an America First policy. So if we decided to intervene in Mexico to cut off immigration, you can bet these guys on the site would have a tough time knowing what to make of it. Once again, it has no direct point, it is original research (to an extent, since Buchanan actually mentions these things in his book Death of the West). That's not on the website. But the authors on the website certainly dabble in these attitudes.
At the end of the day, this site only condemns US policy. This is not anti-American inherently, since US policy might be wrong. What makes it anti-American is it bases it on certain ideals, and doesn't apply them to all actors, only certain ones. Even if it isn't anti-American, it certainly comes off as Pro-Russian. Combined with the fact it doesn't condemn Iran and supports Iranian positions-which may be fine-but condemns US meddling in Iraq and Israeli meddling in Gaza (The latter point is important) means its at least pro-Iran. Iran also occupies provinces which might be seen as disputed. No mention of that on the site. No, only condemnation of what the US and its allies do. Definitely no condemnation of Russia and its allies, except possibly left allies such as Hugo Chavez. But I'd have to look for that. 71.247.102.31 ( talk) 13:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The opening paragraph claims that the site commonly publishes people in the 911 conspiracy/truth movement. Not only is it not common, I have never seen it at all. I am removing it until someone has a source 24.207.226.108 ( talk) 17:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The article you point to does not claim Israel caused 911, as you are trying to imply but instead that after 911, several hundred Israeli's were detained and questioned over the event because it is believed the Israeli's were tracking some of the hijackers. A theory which is not only plausible but supported by evidence 97.91.173.58 ( talk) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Thats bullshit and you know it Justin is a anti semetic truther. Get off your horse Libtard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.88.22 ( talk) 05:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
For questionable edits. Any one who can include the following in edit summaries made Dec 8 and Dec 9, really has to step back from aggressive deletionism and give editors a chance to clean up any legitimate issues. Thus I have reverted the removed material.
I've read this post twice and I have no idea what it is trying to say. Could you please write a few short prose sentences which summarize your concern? Please use declamatory statements, with diffs as needed, but without bullets and references to unidentified diffs or unexplained external content. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This thread is now a complete mess because OP has rewritten the initial posting after I replied to it. Please start over. It's even more unintelligible now. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
For the record, before I get around to it, there are dozens of recent mainstream articles about Antiwar.com because the FBI investigated them for years after they complained someone was trying to hack them. A search of FBI and Antiwar.com comes up with lots, his one being on top. And of course all sorts of other material that people just haven't bothered to dig up. Just one more article on my list. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 18:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
A lot of content seems to have been added to this article with the deliberate intention of smearing Antiwar.com as a radical right-wing organization. That's plainly contradicted by Antiwar.com's posting of articles by left-leaning writers like Medea Benjamin, Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard. Opposition to war cuts across the political spectrum. Even if the site does have Libertarian writers like, say, Ron Paul, these authors do not inject Libertarian social philosophy into their articles. As there are many pro-war factions today, any of which would have a vested interest in smearing Antiwar.com. Practical321 ( talk) 02:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)