Labour MP's harassment

ab The politics of posters has nothing to do with Russia and bombing, just as it has nothing to do with their views on dealing with terrorism.

I read a mention of a leftwing "socialist" Russia being spared protests as a reflection on the frequently aired linking, by left-wingers on here, of those who don't rule out physical attacks (against an ideology which itself uses physical force) as holding that opinion because of their "right-wing" ideology.

Russia seems these days to be more capitalist than the capitalist bourgeous societies they once reviled, but their reputationj is still of a socialist state.

It seems some members of the Green Party, Lib Dems, Tories, Plaid, SNP and people of no political interest are really closet socialists

Good post Jen,

'Stop the War was founded in different times. It is and has been a coalition of individuals and organisations with differing views on many issues. This is as it should be and always has been with broad single-issue campaigns. It does NOT take positions on the demerits or otherwise of the Taliban, Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad. It is in favour of the withdrawal of ALL foreign troops (this includes the Russians) and bomber jets. The arguments against the war deployed by Stop the War are not all that different from some conservative columnists who cannot be bullied: Simon Jenkins, Peter Hitchens, Peter Oborne. None of the three are Corbynistas.

We have been consistent over the years, which is why the organisation has survived. There is no similar body anywhere else. The recent upsurge in activities against the Syrian debacle is due to the growing realisation that the murderous chaos in the region that has produced such misery will get worse with more bombs. The sight of hundreds of thousands of Syrian war refugees seeking shelter in Europe has made many realise that the way to peace is not through a war waged by the US, Europe and Russia.'

Is this clear enough for you?

What in earth has the politics of posters have to do with the question why does STW campaigners not campaign against socialist Russia bombing Syria ?

It wax explained that STW is not a socialist movement . They are not demonstrating outside the embassy of any country involved in Syria l

A question - why are they not demonstrating outside all embassy make a little more sense - not much though

The replies have just been attacks on posters , pathetic

I saw it like that too, elegran. I'm pretty sure some of the most vociferous left-wing posters on GN regard me as right-wing just because I don't always endorse everything they say. I suspect a few other GNers feel the same.

Regarding " just a reason to drag socialism into it" - I saw the mention of socialism as a reaction to the tendency of those GNers on the left to imply rabid right-wingism whenever someone posts something which is not quite according to their own credo.

I'm not a pacifist and so not a supporter of STW but I don't think they could be seen as a Russian stooge.

What use is being loud and clear about Russian bombing? They can't protest about every regime - best to concentrate on those that might have some effect.

As they're UK-based they obviously feel that they can have some influence on our own government and its usual allies e.g. the US, EU, Commonwealth, etc.

Rather like those concerned about climate change - it would be no use protesting outside say the Chinese embassy, best to lobby UK politicians where at least there is a chance of influencing policy.

Fair points, thatbags.

I accept that STW cannot do anything about Russia, but if it is against all bombing, dj, then it should say so loud and clear. If it does not condemn Russian military intervention while condemning what are essentially members of NATO, then it risks being seen as a Russian stooge.

grumppa, there seems to be an implication in your last night's post that the west's use of force in the world is automatically "unscrupulous". I don't think this is the case. I don't think our politicians, even the ones whose ideologies I don't much like, are unscrupulous imperialistic bastards. Not as a rule anyhow. I think they do actually think about these things rather carefully, as witness our government's unwillingness to get involved in the Syrian civil war for several years. I think it has only agreed to limited involvement now because it feels things (threats to our way of life) have got very serious.

On another but related point of nomenclature: there are a lot of countries in the political "West". I think we are using the phrase "the west" lazily.

Where does it oppose it? Thank you dj, you've answered my question, so I won't be bothering you about this vexatious question any more.

Jen, just a reason to drag socialism into it , seems STW should be demonstrating outside the Russian embassy but they don't because apart from there still being a USSR , the STW is a socialist movement and don't criticise Russia because Russia is a socialist country , or should I say the USSR , all very confusing

Who has justified what Russia has done, nigglie?
The STWC is against all bombing, not just bombing by the west. However, they cannot do anything about Russia. They can try to stop the west from bombing. The STWC is a western coalition which wants to stop all wars in the middle east. That's what it was set up for. It does not condone what Russia is doing. Can you show me where it does?

beastrabban.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/shhh-dont-tell-mi5-but-david-cameron-is-being-bankrolled-by-russian-oligarchs/

Seems there is Jen, expect no one told Russia

Exactly grumppa, this is what I was querying, criticism for western countries, and justification for Russia - why?! a tad hypocritical I'd say.

Is there such a place as the USSR any more?

What I think some of us find difficult to grasp is that groups like STW and its supporters, and some Gransnetters, are always keen, as they have every right to be, to criticise western democracies, for whose activities we as voters are ultimately responsible, but seem unable or unwilling to criticise countries such as Russia, whose use of force is if anything even less scrupulous than the West's.

Perhaps the fellow travellers are still on the road.

No problem niggly, I didn't think that at all!

My, I don't know, was in answer to ab Ana, not you, and I'm sorry if it sounded as if In was being rude to you! As I said I've no idea why this is of importance, as my question was perfectly straight forward as you clearly realise!!!!

I know that wasn't your question or your point, nigglynellie. It seemed to be of concern to Anniebach though, which was why I asked the question.

I really don't know, and that was not what my original question was. I was asking why, whereas the West is demonstrated against, where ever or whenever, whether about bombing, or invading, annexing other people's countries, Russia never is. It's a simple question, deliberately misunderstood. Actually, I'm pretty bored with this now, and frankly I can't be bothered to discuss it anymore.

'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR): although the actual categorization of the USSR's economic system is in dispute, it is often considered to be a form of centrally-planned socialism.'

Is this definition untrue, Anniebach?

I'm completely confused now!

I've just googled STW's position on Russian bombing in Syria. I as the surprised to have it confirmed that the organisation is opposed to any bombing in Syria.

Nigglynellie , perhaps you con explain why some of the STW who are not socialists - Greens, Libs, Independents and of no political interest are not demonstrating at the Russian embassy and why the socialists are not demonstrating outside the American embassy and why the STW are not demonstrating at any embassy be it east or west