Labour MP's harassment

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 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.

Duh!

That's what I said, Anya.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

I am content with the truth

You'd prefer a more left-wing bias, would you?

Yes but not in the Torygraphs reporting

We'll have to wait and see, won't we?

If

Although it certainly is a pity if it's actually quite near the truth...

Funny, though! [thcgrin]

Thought it was a genuine link , just a Torygraph writer imaginations , pity

Jeremy Corbyn and Stop the War Deserve each Other

Just to counter the view from the Corbyn camp...

Eloethan has written a very good post on the previous page showing how easy to understand and pertinent some of the article by Floyd is.

None of those who said they could not understand it has actually commented on Eloethan's post. I wonder why not.
Isn't the message the most important thing?

Corbyn is still getting a lot of flack for his association with Stop the War, even in today's papers. This was the article that was disagreed with. However, it was not by stop the war or anyone connected with it, which is what Floyd was saying in the article I posted.
All some people on here are doing is showing how wrong you can be when statements are attributed to the wrong group or person, and the mistake is then perpetuated by others who jump on the bandwagon.

Floyd is by no means the bottom of the barrel. He's at least a few steps up from Trump, and a few others I can think of.

Thank you thatbag

Same as you, no doubt, and everyone else on the Gransnet forums.

Funny that

You don't have to read my posts if you don't like the way I express myself, ab. No-one does. You can't say it's forced upon you.

However, I'll follow your excellent advice and say: I choose to express myself the way I do express myself.

No it is not normal behaviour sorry thatbag , what's wrong with asking - did you mean followed by a reply explaining what was meant,you launch into posts going on and on about your choice of the word of the day etc,

When I said I found your use of piss off offensive why not just say - I choose to use it ?