Labour MP's harassment

Sorry Jen no link - just think we have a statue in Westminster dedicated to a man who caused riots and a lot of deaths - allegedly , and the queen paid a visit to the site where the British army mowed down unharmed people, their chap in charge was condemned for ordering the massacre - later , bet she wouldn't have if someone had told her it was Ghandi's fault. Must have been sooooo difficult for the peacemaker Cameron paying tribute at the memorial statue of Ghandi just a few weeks ago

Ana Earlier on in the thread you said "really scraping the barrel now durhamjen. Chris Floyd."

I asked you what it was in the article that you found objectionable or untrue and there was no response. Of course, as you say, you can choose not to read the article but then why do you feel qualified to comment on it?

janeainsworth How exactly do you judge "persons of merit"? Isn't it possible that the writers we consider to have merit are those whose views roughly coincide with our own? I think to some degree we're all guilty of that. But surely an argument should be judged by its coherence rather than by the name of the person who has written it? If you disagree with the points made and can back up your position, why not do so instead of writing off someone because you have never heard of them.

I'd never heard of Chris Floyd either but have now done some research. He is described as an "award winning American journalist" who has been a writer and editor for more than 25 years, working in the US, Britain and Russia for various newspapers, magazines, the US government and Oxford University. So not such a novice then.

He's also worked in military intelligence and logistics for the US, so I presume he knows a bit about what's happening in the Middle East.

"Even the history of India's fight for freedom from the British raj has been rewritten on this forum"

Gosh, some people don't 'alf hyperbolate (read as exaggerate if you don't like my new word ). Saying Gandhi wasn't perfect/had faults (like the rest of us, like Corbyn and Blair, even!) is hardly rewriting history.

StW may have been a good thing once. I don't think it is now.

Can anyone explain why Blairites, whoever they are, should stop criticising Corbyn? Would those who wish for this agree also to stop criticising Blair, Cameron, Trump, etc, etc, etc.

Somehow I don't think they would. And quite right too. Everyone is criticisable. No exceptions.

It doesn't actually matter who Chris Floyd is. What he says/blogs is what's important. And if it's impenetrable waffle, one judges what he says (see what I did there?) accordingly without ever having to make a judgment about the man or who/what he is or was.

thatbags, I thought Jane was joking when she referred to bags planet!

Rosesarered said Ghandi was suppose to have causes riots and deaths , it was this nonsense which caused me to speak of rewriting the history of India not your post , I did acknowledge your post re nobody's perfect, I referred to it being a quote from a rather old but amusing American comedy film.

Yes your new word for the day is very nice, I have heard others share your hobby

Your ripostes are really good entertainment, ab.

Eloethan
How exactly do you judge "persons of merit"?
I judge writers on their ability to express their views and ideas clearly.
Isn't it possible that the writers we consider to have merit are those whose views roughly coincide with our own? I think to some degree we're all guilty of that.
Please don't make assumptions about who or what I read.
But surely an argument should be judged by its coherence rather than by the name of the person who has written it?
Exactly my point.
If you disagree with the points made and can back up your position, why not do so instead of writing off someone because you have never heard of them.
I didn't write Chris Floyd off because I'd never heard of him. I didn't persevere with reading his blog because I haven't got time for impenetrable waffle, as Bags so aptly described it.

thatbags, please don't put Trump in the same class as Blair and Cameron ,

I asked you what it was in the article that you found objectionable or untrue and there was no response. Of course, as you say, you can choose not to read the article but then why do you feel qualified to comment on it?

There was no response, Eloethan, because I'd gone to bed by the time you posted the above and yesterday things seemed to have moved on rather.

I didn't comment on the article, I commented on Chris Floyd, whose style I find pretentious and self-satisfied. And if even thatbags and janea can't penetrate his waffle I don't think his views are going to cut much ice with the majority of readers/posters on here.

I shall mentally and conversationally put Trump wherever I want, ab. At present he's in the group my brain calls human beings. Liking or approving (or their opposites) the ideas of particular human beings is on a separate brain shelf which itself is divided into sections. Trump, Blair and Cameron are all in separate sections although sometimes Blair and Cameron visit each other's section. The label on Trump's shelf is "Nutters".

Your brain sounds very organised thatbags almost like library bookshelves. You must be very up to date with your filing !

At the risk of prolonging an argument about Chris Floyd, I have to say that I read the article yesterday and found it very interesting, informative, and above all crystal clear, and that was as someone who had never heard of him and knew nothing about the back story with regard to STW. I am completely mystified as to why anyone should find it difficult to read (which is not the same thing as saying you don't agree with him).

Shuffling off back to my own planet now

Jens links do cause problems for some , !

www.planetsyria.org/

From Planet Syria to Planet Earth.

I cannot imagine anyone will complain about the clarity of this message.

thatbags refers to Floyd's article as "impenetrable waffle", janeainsworth says she didn't persevere with reading the article because it was "impenetrable waffle" and Ana didn't bother to read the article because she took it for granted that if others had described it as such then it must be.

So it appears that none of you had actually read the whole article, which I did not think was particularly impenetrable.

Floyd said:

"Is it really controversial to say that without the US intervention of Iraq there would be no ISIS? I don't think even the supporters of that war dispute this" [Tony Blair admitted as much just recently].

"Is it controversial to say that the NATO intervention in Libya has turned that country into a chaotic spawning ground for violent extremism?" [this is acknowledge by all Middle East commentators]

"Is it disputable that the US and Britain overthrew a secular democracy in Iran in 1953 with the help of religious fundamentalists .."
[The Guardian reported in August 2013:
"The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in the overthrow ........ Britain regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP) ..... the archived CIA documents include a draft internal history of the coup titled "Campaign to Install a Pro-Western Government in Iran." ]

"Is it disputable that the US and Saudi Arabia helped organise a worldwide network of violent jihadis in order to provoke the Soviet Union into intervening in Afghanistan ..?
[former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said in an interview with Le Nouvel Observateurs in January 1995 in relation to the aid given by the US to the Mujahadeen:
"That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap ..... we now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War ..."]

"Did not Ronald Reagan sit down in the White House with the forerunners of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and praise them as "freedom fighters"?"
[Business Insider February 2013: "[this photograph] is from 1983 when Reagan and the CIA were dancing around the idea of arming Mujahadeen fighters ... the result was a well-armed, well-trained group of jihadis .." - Ronald Reagan's speech of 21 March 1983 commences with his tribute to these "freedom fighters"]

"Has the West not plied the Saudis with money, weapons and kowtowing respect, even as they exported their Wahhabi sectarianism all over the world" [I was at a fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference which was very anti-Corbyn when Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home expressed his disgust at successive governments' close relationship with Saudi].

Floyd refers to the phrase he used "reaping the whirlwind" as a "good biblical phrase" which means "You sow violence, you reap violence" but goes on to say:

"[the article] did not blame the French, it did not blame the victims. Nothing absolves the perpetrators of the Paris massacres, this is so self-evident that it seems insultingly condescending to have to spell it out. They chose to do evil and the responsibility is their own."

It seems like a reasoned and fact-based analysis to me, and those who describe it as "impenetrable waffle" are welcome to challenge any of the points he raised.

I read the article. Twice. I referred to janea's comment her not being able to "penetrate the ramblings" by using the paraphrase "impenetrable waffle". I did not say it was impenetrable waffle. I said "if it is impenetrable waffle..."

So many people seem to find comprehending If Clauses impossible! So weird.

comment about her...

So, all of you who accuse me of not having read this article, or others, when you have no actual knowledge of that, kindly stop it. It doesn't do your comprehension marks any good at all, nor my faith in your judgment, both of which make me less likely to accept anything you state as fact. I'm not saying that to be insulting, just pointing out the effect of such mistakes.

Details matter. Small but very important words like 'if' matter. A lot.

If one can't cope with if, one can't construct a logical argument, and an argument that isn't logical is pointless. Discuss

The premises of one's logical argument can, of course, be as daft as you like.

Bags I sometimes get the impression you think the rest of us are idiots!

We're not though

Is there not a thread on languages