Labour MP's harassment

You'd have to be there yourself to get that. And even then your perception would be biased. As would mine, or anyone else's.

Since you have said you read the Floyd article twice thatbags, presumably you had reached a conclusion as to its content. In quoting someone else's post about it being "impenetrable waffle" you certainly gave the impression that you were inclined to agree - janeainsworth appeared to read it that way because she said "I didn't persevere with reading his [Floyd's] blog because I have not got time for impenetrable waffle, as Bags so aptly described it".

Ana You referred to the Floyd article as being "pretentious and self-satisfied", despite the fact that it contains a great deal of verifiable background information which is very pertinent to the terrible and chaotic situation in the Middle East. You say "I don't think his views are going to cut much ice with the majority of readers/posters on here". That may be so but even if that is the case, that doesn't make them right and me wrong - it just means we see things differently.

I notice that those who rubbished Floyd's article have not explained why they found it so unworthy, other than it was written by someone they hadn't heard of/not a "person of merit", nor have they disputed any of the points he made.

Having criticised what I feel was a very incisive article, you then posted one by Dan Hodges whose level of argument soon descended to a crude character assassination of Corbyn, using the most infantile and insulting language.

To whoever pointed out that Tony Blair won the 2005 election even though he had illegally joined the US in invading Iraq, I would say that Labour won the election despite Blair, not because of him. Many people were disgusted with what Blair had done but felt that he had misrepresented the situation to his own MPs as well as the general population and the Labour Party should not be punished for his misdeeds.

Thank you for yet another of your criticisms of my posts, Eloethan. I've begun to anticipate them as being inevitable.

Eloethan I am out of here. I am not going to take part in threads which descend to petty, sneering insults from dj and ab. Not from you, I hasten to add.
Thank you for your explanation of Chris Floyd's article.

This is the second thread I've dipped into tonight that has descended into nasty jibes and personal comments

I don't blame you Jane

I would ask you to explain where I insulted you, jane, and why it was petty and sneering, but as you are out of here, I cannot.
Never mind. You obviously do not want to engage in debate. What's new.
Why did you need an explanation of Floyd's article from Eloethan? I always assumed you were intelligent enough to read an article the same as I could.

You can take this as being petty and sneering if you want. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

She can't 'hear' you Dj so save your witty reposts

That's what I said, Anya.

Duh!

I asked those who took issue with the Floyd article - describing the writer as "self-important", "pretentious" and "self-satisfied", and his analysis as "impenetrable waffle" - to explain the grounds on which they reached such a conclusion. It appears they are not willing to do so.

Ana I have made no personal comments about you - I have merely responded to a couple of the remarks you have made.

Floyd's article contained a lot of undeniable truths about decisions taken at various times by various Western leaders, and makes uncomfortable reading. But it does not fully address the contexts in which they were taken or discuss what the other choices might have been, given the Cold War and the strategic importance of oil.

France, the UK and the USA - and other European countries - have been in the Middle East up to their necks for a hundred years or more, from the defining of national boundaries after WW1 to the creation of Israel, and of course it would have been very convenient if we could have got out years ago. But we couldn't, and we now have to deal with Daesh and all that its policies, for want of a better word, imply for tolerance of other religions and cultures, and issues such as equal treatment for women.

We (the West) will certainly carry on making mistakes, but we must carry on trying if we believe in our values at all. And we can only succeed from a position of strength, and that involves defeating Daesh wherever they are irrespective of those artificial boundaries created after WW1.

I think the Floyd article demonstrates that some of our supposed "values" are a little warped when they involve fomenting unrest, destabilising democratically elected governments and installing pro-western "puppet" leaders, simply for our own economic ends - as if those that own the resources do not have the right to have control over them.

Article here about a third article taken down from StW website. Its headline was "Time to go to war with Israel" by Richard Falk.

Stop the war. Go to war. No real difference! I'm glad Caroline Lucas dissociated herself from the organisation and I wish Jeremy Corbyn would do likewise.

Thanks for the link bags. JC's continued links with this organisation bothers me and I'm sure, many other Labour voters.

I am more troubled that some labour MP's attended an arm trades dinner , not as many as Tories but they attended

I'm still trying to find the 'insulting and infantile language' in the Telegraph article...

I have just read the article about Israel, and Falk is not talking about physical war with guns and bombs. It is a mental war he is talking about. Again, another misrepresentation of an article on Stop the War's website. That's three that have been misrepresented, both in the press and on here. I have read Matt Carr's article as well. It's typical that people just take little bits out of a whole article and use them to justify their opinions, rather than reading the whole article.
I expect it of the right wing press.

Time magazine yesterday said that Angela Merkel is their person of the year, because of her leadership on everything from Syrian refugees to the Greek debt crisis, with her stance to Putin included in the praise.
However, second was al-Baghdadi, and third was Trump.
I do hope you are going to criticise Time magazine with equal fervour.

Another poem by Michael Rosen.

stopwar.org.uk/index.php/multimedia/poetry-spoken-word/michael-rosen-it-is-the-war-party-that-has-a-reputation-problem-not-stop-the-war

stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/the-assault-on-stop-the-war-is-really-aimed-at-jeremy-corbyn

There is a Stop the War rally outside the BBC headquarters at noon today.
I assume it will be on the news.

If the articles that have been pulled off StW's website have been misrepresented in other media, why have they been pulled? Wouldn't it have been better to leave them in place so everyone could confirm, by reading them themselves, that they have been misrepresented?

To prevent misunderstanding, I'm saying you may well be right about the misrepresentation, dj, but in that case removing the articles doesn't make sense to me.

Because too many read and still choose to misrepresent what was written and use as a personal attack on Corbyn?

Jen, great writing again from Michael Rosen

But isn't that free speech? The best way to oppose bad ideas and misrepresentations is to argue with them, isn't it, not to effectively censor? Or have I missed something?

StW website could limit comments if there is too much abuse, but if the articles really support what they believe and stand for, why remove them?

I don't get it.

You could just read Stop the War's website if you want to know what they really think.

stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/andrew-murray-s-speech-at-the-stop-the-war-fundraiser-dinner

stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/for-the-avoidance-of-doubt-the-positions-of-the-stop-the-war-coalition