Talk:Post–September 11 anti-war movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Factored out of left-wing politics[edit]

This was factored out of Left-wing politics, where it is now merely summarized; it got this long as the result of a successful attempt to solve an NPOV dispute, archived at Talk:Left-wing politics/Archive2. A more extensive version (and discussion) of the material about Violence against Jews at French anti-war rally can be found at Talk:Left-wing politics/Archive3. Some other discussion at Talk:Left-wing politics and its archived pages may also be relevant.

Right now, the portion of this related to the European anti-war movement seems to me to be slanted toward criticism of that movement, especially for ostensible antisemitism and a flirtation with Islamism based on third-worldist politics. I have labored hard to fix a similar bias in the U.S. sections. I don't know nearly as much about the European anti-war movement. I urge someone with knowledge of this movement to add material to correct the bias. I believe it is a matter of adding material, not removing it: what is there seems well-researched and well-cited. -- Jmabel 06:15, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I cannot find neutral that the subtitles allude the war protests were predominantly leftist. In most European countries majorities of more than 70% opposed the war, and you can hardly say that Europe is a leftist continent. The conservatives even have the strongest position in the European Parliament. Furthermore, the influence of Muslems in European anti-war rallies was minimal, focussing on that and alleged antisemitism is clearly not neutral. Get-back-world-respect 12:53, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. As you can see from my paragraph immediately before yours, I'm inclined to agree. Most of this content is MathKnight's, originally at left-wing politics; I simply edited it for style and English grammar and refactored it to this article. I'll repeat what I said above: I think the remedy is to add balancing material, rather than to remove his well-cited descriptions of specific incidents, etc. -- Jmabel 17:43, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Does your NPOV dispute apply only to certain sections or sentences? If so, can you indicate which? It's going to be pretty hard to resolve, otherwise. -- Jmabel 00:44, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
My dispute applies to what I explained, presenting European anti-war protests as leftist, antisemite and dominated by Muslems. Furthermore, I cannot see why we need the article altogether given that there are already two others about the protests against the Iraq war. Get-back-world-respect 09:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Almost none of this material is in those other articles. If you think it can be refactored appropriately into them, I, for one, have no problem with that, but when I was factoring this out of Left-wing politics I couldn't see how to do that in any sane amount of time, and this certainly didn't merit such a lengthy discussion there. -- Jmabel 11:53, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
It simply is not in the other articles because it is not worth mentioning that among the millions of people on the streets all over Europe there were also some Muslims or antisemites, they definitely played no major role in the movement backed by overwhelming majorities of all western European and most eastern European countries. And representing Europe by the example of France is not neutral either. The French were particularly outraged, as their President was being bashed as "balding Jean of Arc in drag" in the best US newspapers: [1] [[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/899082/posts] Get-back-world-respect 15:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The paragraph was written orginally to the Left-wing politics article, and therefore naturaly focused on left-wing groups in the anti-war rallies. While there was a strange coalition of radical lefts and European nationalists against the USA war in Iraq, I disagree that Islamists and antisemites had no effect or role in the protests. Their presence was felt, so even if they were not the majority in numbers, they were major in media publicity. Antisemitism in Europe had recentlty grew to fearsome dimensions, not seen for almost 60 years, and as many scholars notted, now antisemitism also comes from the Muslims and left-wing groups. These claims cannot be ignored.
If you wish to elaborate on the composition of the European anti-war movement you are welcome. MathKnight 15:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe antisemites and Muslims dominated media publicity in the media you prefer to consume, if you lived in any of the countries you are trying to describe or if you read any neutral newspaper you would know that the opposition to the Iraq war was shared through all ethnies and from the political left to the right. Exceptions were a majority of the officially socialist British Labour Party, some more conservative governments, and some Eastern governments. Plus some people who believed Bush's lies about weapons of mass destruction and some racists who think that Muslims will ruin Europe by having more babies than the average European. The war protests are already covered in two more neutral articles, I see no right for this one to exist. Nor do I see more reason to create an article about alleged antisemitism in contemporary Europe than than anti-Muslim hysteria in western countries or misrepresentation of anti-war protests in the US or as your statements make me think, Israel. Or do you primarily read US media like the Washington Post, that reported of protests in Berlin and "a half-dozen other German cities", when in fact there were protests in Leipzig, Halle, Dresden, Jena, Rostock, Hamburg, Munich, Köln, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Mannheim, Ludwigshafen, Nürnberg, Stuttgart, Wiesbaden, Karslruhe, Heidelberg, Würzburg, Bielefeld, Hannover, Dortmund, Essen, Bochum, Gelsenkirchen, Wattenscheid, Oberhausen, Duisburg, Mülheim, Herne, Hattingen, Velbert, Hilden, Datteln, Münster, Osnabrück, Bonn, Aachen, Saarbrücken, Kassel, Bremen, Oldenburg, Kiel, Heide, etc.? In many European countries people are highly critical of the current Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians. That is as much antisemite as it is anti-Asian or anti-Russian racism when Europeans criticize the North Korean government or Putin for human rights violations.
For sure you will always find stupid people who think that as in their eyes Israel has an evil government all jews must be bastards. Just as much as you find Americans who think that as they dislike the French President, all Europeans must be anti-American. Get-back-world-respect 16:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think you read the Europe paragraph out-of-context. The reasoning for the anti-war are described at previous sections, while the US and Europe section describes the organization involved and rallies held. You are saying that in Europe there is a wide support to the anti-war movement both on the government and on the streets, can you bring citations for those claims?
An as for antisemitism, you wrote: " Nor do I see more reason to create an article about alleged antisemitism in contemporary Europe than than anti-Muslim hysteria in western countries or misrepresentation of anti-war protests in the US or as your statements make me think, Israel." It implies from your statement, that the entire article is about accusing the anti-war movement in antisemitism. Well, you are double wrong. The discussion about antisemitism is pretty much confined to one section (the Europe section) and backed-up by citations, including a statement by senior anti-war activist Aurélie Filipetti which admits the anti-war movement in France is "plauged" or "infected" with antisemitism, as also describing anti-war rallies in France as a place for burning Israeli flags (can't say this is a "legitimate criticism over a policy" and I don't see how Israeli got to do with the US war in Iraq). The fact is, that this phenomana exists, and therefore has a right to be reported and discussed, even in a "whole" article (though this is not the case here).
The last two paragraphs you wrote (anti-Israelism in Europe) are out of the scope of the article. I disagree with what you wrote, but in order to stay focused in the issue, I will not lay down my objections on what you wrote. I will only say the New Antisemitism is real and cannot be neglected or ignored. MathKnight 17:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As you can read in the more neutral articles and as every person who is willing to truly inform himself knows, none of the often cited polls showed the population of any country except the US backing the war, cf. [2] That even holds for US allies like Poland, Australia or UK. I remember the results changed in the UK once the war had started, and I remember one poll citing Romanians being split about the question. I have not seen polls from Israel. Focussing on Muslims and antisemitism in the section about Europe while completely leaving out the real reasons for the protests or the broad support they had - up to 90 % for countries like Spain and Greece - is clearly not neutral. Get-back-world-respect 18:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I understand your argument. I also saw that you added a general background for Europe, which is excellent. The idea was that the Europe section is part of the entire article and that the section itself only deal with features unique to Europe. The aspect of antisemitism and anti-Israeli attacks in anti-war rallies is far more common than Europe than the USA, and therefore - it was handled there. Retrospectively, it was indeed large portion of that section - but me and other done efforts to add more general background. MathKnight 18:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ok. Just one more remark, according to the poll I added, unfavourability ratings for Muslims are much higher in the US than unfavourability ratings for Jews in any European country. Get-back-world-respect 19:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as an ethnic Jew, I take no consolation in the fact that antisemites from historically Christian cultures generally don't like Muslims either. I tend to view antisemitism and anti-Muslim or anti-Arab views as two sides of the same coin, generally coming from the same people on the same equally ugly grounds. -- Jmabel 21:41, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

My remark was not meant to be taken as consolation. On the contrary, I wanted to point out that while some here complain about antisemitism, a much more widespread and equally despicable racism is ignored. Furthermore, it does not come from the same people, the numbers clearly show that even if all antisemites also hate Muslims, there are a lot more who restrict their hatred to the latter. I however agree that this is probably founded on the same ugly grounds, and we are most likely to overcome it if we work on both phenomena jointly. Get-back-world-respect 23:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think the controversy we are discussing here is clearly based on confusion of some things. We need to recognise that people with different world-views think in different categories: nationalists think in categories of nation-state ; marxists think in categories of social class ; Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other fundamentalists think in religious categories ; racists think in categories of ethnicity ; and liberals still think in different categories. So, if for example a marxist, a Muslim fundamentalist and a neo-Nazi get up and make a very fundamental criticism of Israel, this may all sound the same to a Jewish person, or a Zionist, who may understand it to be an expression of racist anti-Semitism. However this would be a thorough misunderstanding because the marxist, the Muslim fundamentalist and the neo-Nazi are actually saying very different things based on very different philosophies/ideologies, rooted in a confusion of the different concepts in which all these people think. The whole controversy about anti-Semitism within the anti-war movement stems from such a misunderstanding. The European anti-war movement is extremely diverse, it includes liberals, greens, marxists, pacifists, stalinists, anarchists, conservatives, anti-globalists, Christian groups (Quakers etc.), Jewish groups, Muslim groups (including a small element with a tendency towards fundamentalism) etc. - but it does not include fascists or Nazis or similar kinds of anti-Semitic racists (despite the fact that certain neo-Nazis, like the BNP were opposed to the Iraq war, for reasons of anti-Semitism). None of the groups within the European anti-war movement think in categories of race, anti-Semitic theories have strictly no meaning to them, which is what the accusations of anti-Semitism are probably supposed to imply, an implication which is simply wrong. Just to add my 0.02€ to this debate. - pir 15:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I understand your argument, but hating Jews on different groud (Nazis hate Jews because they are inferior race, Islamists hate Jews because they don't believe in Muhammed, Palestinian hate Jews because of the conflict in Israel and Marxists who hate Jews because they believe Jews are control the economy of the world) is still hating Jews. Judaism is somewhat uniqe as a target of bigotry because it is both religion, ethnicity and a nation. The New Antisemitism is often disguising itself as a hatred of Israel.
For example: if one claims he burns Israeli flags because he thinks Israel commits war-crimes, and in the same carrying the flags of Iraq or Palestine - this is a case of double standarts and hypocracy. And if the reason for these double standarts are the Jewishness of Israel - this discrimination can be counted as a form of antisemitism. The article New Antisemitism elaborates on this point. MathKnight 15:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, I think you didn't understand what I mean. I think you are looking at these things in the way you do because you think in concepts of race and nationality. Nazis hate Jews because they are Jews. They also hate Gypsies because they are Gypsies and Slavs because they are Slavs. I don't know much about Islamists, but I would guess that if they hate anything, it would be Judaism (the religion) in the same way they hate Christianity, and they may hate individual members of these religions, because they see them as non-believers or something like that. I don't think that Islamists would hate for example a secular Jew who converted to Islam, and there are examples of people from a Christian ethnic background who converted to Islam and became Islamists. Marxists do not hate Jews. They oppose class oppression and they may hate individuals who they think commit class oppression or who they think are the agents of the ruling class or something like that. I know several marxist, anti-Zionist Jews. They oppose Israel in its current form, precisely because Israel is defined as the state of a particular ethnic group, they think that it is a racist conception and that Israel is an apartheid state very similar to apartheid South Africa. In the same way they would oppose if for example the UK became the state of white people only, or exclusively members of the Church of England. They may hate individual Jews, like for example Ariel Sharon, but they do not hate him because he's a Jew, they hate him because they think he's a racist, corrupt war criminal who butchers Palestinians, in the same way that they hate some Christians like George Bush or Tony Blair, or Muslims like the Saudi King or Osama bin Laden. They adore other Jews, like, to take the obvious example, Karl Marx, or Rosa Luxemburg. So it's false, and in fact extremely insulting to say that "marxists hate Jews". Oh, and marxists really do not believe "Jews control the economy of the world", I wonder where you got that from. Historically, a very disproportionate number of marxists were Jewish. (and just for the record, I'm neither a marxist, nor religious, nor do concepts of race have any value to me). - pir 16:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You misunderstood my point.
What exactly is your point? I don't actually understand it. Is it that anybody who opposes what someone else does or says is an anti-Semite if that person happens to be a Jew? - pir 18:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • "I don't think that Islamists would hate for example a secular Jew who converted to Islam" - this, in fact, was a characteristic of the old antisemitism in Europe, which sought to convert (or destroy) all Jews - because they saw Judaism as a rebelion against Jesus. This is not classical "racism" but this is indeed bigotry and discrimination on religious grounds. One who proclaim he will kill all Jews unless they convert is antisemitic, even though his hatred against Jews (as people who adhers to Judaism) is based on general religious fanaticness.
  • I was only giving a rather artificial example. If Islamists tried destroy Judaism in this way, like European Christian anti-Semites did, I would of course agree with you ; AFAIK that's not taking place. pir
  • "They oppose class oppression and they may hate individuals who they think commit class oppression or who they think are the agents of the ruling class or something like that." Indeed, but when the "ruling class" is identified with the Jews (a.k.a "Jews rule the world's finances") it is antisemitism. I never claimed that all Marxists hold this position, but some of them do. So there can be antisemitism on Marxist grounds.
  • That's simply not true. Can you give any example? Please tell us where you got that strange idea from. Marxism rejects that categories of race have any relevance in politics. Any person arguing in the way you say would not be a marxist. Even in the hypothetical case where all the world's finances were run by Jews, a marxist would not oppose them on ground of their ethnicity but because of their social class. pir
  • "Jews, like for example Ariel Sharon, but they do not hate him because he's a Jew, they hate him because they think he's a racist, corrupt war criminal who butchers Palestinians..." Such hatred will not be antisemitism, but unless people like Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussain, Assad and Yasser Arafat (people who are known for mass-killings and many atrocities) are hated and opposed equaly as Sharon - I have a very resonable ground to suspect that Sharon is discriminated because he is a Jew (i.e. if he wasn't a Jews, he wasn't being hated so much and was pretty much ignored).
  • Marxists do not reject violence as such, they oppose violence by what they see as the enemies of the working class, in fact they support to some extent violence used to liberate the working class. Most Marxists are extremely critical of OBL, Saddam Hussein and Arafat, all of whom they consider as members of the bourgeousie or ruling class, who are not fighting for liberation from class oppression but for nationalism, although they would point out that many Muslims, Iraqis and Palestinians are in addition facing Western imperialism. Maoists and some Marxist-Leninists are far more friendly towards the people you name, because they believe in the value of national liberation, and they seem to have a soft spot for all kinds of violent people claiming to liberate someone. But it's got nothing to do with race, because that concept is meaningless for them. - pir
  • This point wasn't related to Marxist in particular.
  • This applies also to the burning of Israeli flag. If one burns the flag of Israel because he accuses her in war crimes, why doesn't he burn the Iraqi flag (Saddam dictatorship and gasing Kurds), the Palestinian flag (suicide bombings) and the Sudanese flag (ethnic cleansing in Darfur) as well?
MathKnight 17:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • see my comment above. Also, marxists aren't fond of burning flags. - pir 18:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, most of my points didn't relate to Marxism in particular, nor are directed against Marxists (I was a socialist when I was young). In fact, I only brought an example that antisemitism can be developed on Marxists grounds. Although in theory Marxism rules out any reference to race or religion, Marxists are still human and can't (even if they try) totally ignore the categories of nationality, religion and race.
As for my last two argumemts - you say that Saddam, Arafat and OBL are scurned as equally as Sharon in anti-war demonstrations or by European left wing. I will answer this by a question regarding the flags issue:

In France, Iraqi and Palestinian flags were common in anti-war rallies, while Israeli flags were often set on fire.

The question is - why Palestinian and Iraqi flags are raised and Israeli flags are burnt? Why you never see the opposite picture? This issue was raised also by anti-war activist Aurélie Filipetti [3] and is indeed worth a thought. MathKnight 18:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I feel you are backtracking a lot. Please do give me an example of what you think is anti-Semitic marxism, I'd be very interested. About the anti-war movement: I don't know that much about the anti-war movement in France, but the anti-war movement is extremely diverse, and just because some group does something at a demonstration doesn't mean it's representative for the whole movement. However many in the anti-war movement, esp. the anti-imperialist component, see a strong link between the Iraq war and the occupation of Palestine: both are bankrolled by the US, both are directed agaist Arab nationalism. Why was there not much opposition to Arafat/PLO or OBL or Saddam ? First of all, there was a lot of opposition to them. But most of all they were demonstrations against US/Western military intervention in Iraq, and US/Western interventionism more generally! It makes sense to demonstrate against things for which you have some responsibility and things which you can affect - but people in Europe have no way of affecting OBL or Arafat or Saddam. By the same reasoning, you would argue that the anti-war movement supports the Chinese government (nobody demonstrated against the occupation of Tibet) or supported the genocide in Congo (nobody mentioned that one), but this would be ludicrous. Why were there Iraqi flags? Because there were Iraqi groups, who wanted to make the point that they opposed this war (the typical US propaganda was that Iraqis welcomed the war), they were scared that their family members in Iraq were about to be massacred by shock and awe - it's not that they supported Saddam. But there were all kinds of flags. It's simply very very distorted to say that "Palestinian and Iraqi flags are raised and Israeli flags are burnt". I was in London on Feb 15, and I didn't see a single flag being burned. If somebody burned an Israeli flag in Paris, it was because they dislike the Israeli government a lot, but in itself that doesn't tell us anything about the anti-war movement. - pir 19:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Antisemit Marxism is discrimnation or hatred against Jews, based on Marxist terminology or executed on behalf of Marxist ideas. For example: the Doctors' plot in the USSR in which Jews were accused as being traitor capitalist, and the charges based on the "greedy Jew" sterotype.
The issues of flags and anti-Israeli demonstrations is well documented and cited. In France, it is indeed a phenomena and not just a fringe effect. You got it half right "If somebody burned an Israeli flag in Paris, it was because they dislike the Israeli government a lot, but in itself that doesn't tell us anything about the anti-war movement". Indeed, burning flags is an act of pure hate, the reason why it is connected to the anti-war movement, or more percisely to anti-war rallies in France, is because this act was performed vastly in anti-war rallies and plagued them to a level of inciting violence. I don't see any connection between protesting the war and burning Israeli flags, but the fact is that in French anti-war rallies many chose the burn Israeli flags there, this may be because
  • Many of the protestors are anti-Israelis or antisemites.
  • The rallies have been hijacked by Islamists or antisemitics group to become hate rallies against Israel (the percieved enemy of the Arab world).
  • The organizors support this act and the policy behind it.
Moreover, in American anti-war rallies, major groups souch as ANSWER and IAC refused to allow criticism over Saddam in the rallies they sponsered. An act which made look like hypocrites and was criticized justfully by moderate left wing and anti-war activists (see Jmabel written part in the US anti-war movements).
MathKnight 19:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It was said people did not hate Osama Bin Laden as much as Ariel Sharon. Although many Europeans are opposed to some of Sharon's actions like building the fence, sponsoring more settelements, or murdering alleged terrorists, accepting "collateral damage", I have never seen or heard of any mass demonstrations against him. The demonstrations against Osama Bin Laden after 9/11 and the expression of condolescence to the US happened throughout our continent. People are less critical of Arafat than Bush because they do not blame the crimes committed by his fellows as directly on him. In an environment of permanent mutual violence, surrounded by tanks and without a working democracy, police force, etc. people do not expect that Arafat can stop terrorism. Europeans however expect from a democratically elected leader of a superpower that he takes responsible decisions. Get-back-world-respect 23:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to note this page no longer plays the role of being the main article to a section of the Left-wing politics article. That role has been taken over by The Left and War. This amoung other things has made this article redundant, on top of its inherent POV problems this has motivated me to nominate it to be merged with different pages see merge and delete section below.--JK the unwise 13:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why I changed my mind about that National Review citation[edit]

Yesterday, as I was editing this just before having to head out the door, I had defended a citation of http://www.geocities.com/emorseraf/the_london_streets.htm in what is now the tail end of the second paragraph of the "Allegations..." section. (BTW, MathKnight, good job reorganizing the structure, this is much better, putting more of this material under "criticisms" rather than in the section on the European movement is much more appropriate.) I noticed that it was a private page's reprint of a National Review article that is not on National Review's own site, and I defended it because National Review is a pretty major right-wing U.S. publication. (If we want to restore the link we should probably use http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/707, same story, better site.) However, I now see that it's just another of Taheri's many reworkings of the same article we discuss at length above. MathKnight, or someone, if you can cite someone else (or, better, several someone elses) saying this fine, but until then I just cahnged this to "such as Taheri" and dropped the citation. -- Jmabel 05:27, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

War for Oil[edit]

I think of how to incorperate some the issue raised in this article into the Wiki article. I would like to hear some comments before I proceed. MathKnight 18:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring the odd conflation of the "war for oil" theory with the matter of anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, this also involves a misunderstanding of what is meant by "war for oil". The issue isn't the price at the pump this year. The main issue is the situation some 20+ years out, when world oil supplies are running low, and a secondary issue is whether oil is priced in dollars or euros (not so much for its effect on the price of oil, but on the value of dollars). You might look at Nayna Jhaveri's Petropolitics page for a coherent statement of this position. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:33, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

To the French, it really WAS "all about oil"....all about sweat-heart oil deals for Total Al Fina... as usual, the anti-war crowd is just a bunch of pawns for Paris. 69.209.190.94 13:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd estimate[edit]

This edit drastically reduces the crowd estimate for DC on September 29, 2001 without providing a source. Since the old estimate did not cite a source, either, I'm not reverting, but given that there is apparently controversy over the number, can someone cite a source? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge and delete[edit]

This page is writtern in a POV editorial orriginal reasearch fasion. I belive that this partly steams from the title which sets the article up to present an editorialised content.

To solve this problem I want to propose merging the content of the article into Anti-war, Opposition to the 2001 Afghanistan War, Protests against the invasion of Afghanistan, Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, Protests against the 2003 Iraq war and The Left and war and then deleting the page.--JK the unwise 11:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Attention[edit]

This article requires a Wiki Veteran attention. If you are one of them then please resolve the proposed merges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zer T (talk • contribs) 15 Dec 2005

JK is duly "veteran" himself. I just think he is wrong. This article provides a narrative that needs to be somewhere to tie together a disparate group of related articles. If he thinks its tone or slant is wrong, then he should work on its tone or slant. Most of its citations are pretty solid: I know because they were the result of a long struggle between me (active in the movement) and User:MathKnight (clearly opposed to it) and neither let the other get away with bogus citations. In fact, I did a lot of research to cite his material better; if anything, I put far more work into that than into "making a case" for my own views, so I suspect that the views from within the movement are still quite underrepresented in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red-green-brown alliance[edit]

I find the inclusion of Red-green-brown alliance in the "see also" section of this article detrimental, and think its presence reperesents a backdoor polemic. If there is evidence of the antiwar movement as being systematically and deliberately anti-Semitic, which I seriously doubt, then it belongs presented as such in the article and should justify a link to it in the text. If not, then this link does not belong in the article at all. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No on has responded in over 2 months. I am removing this. - Jmabel | Talk 20:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality dispute[edit]

Has it been resolved? There's been no change or comment regarding it for a month now. Kalkin 03:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few days, no objections, I'm going to remove the neutrality dispute notice. If anyone still disputes the article's neutrality feel free to put it back as long as you explain what's still wrong on the talk page. Kalkin 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the quotes from "proof" in the Background section regarding the Project For A New American Century. If you look at the wording, the sentence doesn't assert that it is proof merely that it is pointed to as proof. As it is now, the sentence doesn't address whether the PNAC does or does not constitute proof, which seems more neutral to me. Archaeoptryx

Lets try and sort this article out[edit]

This article is still highly editorial. In my opinion the very title sets it up to be as it is a POV assertion that the resent anti-war movement can or should be defined in relation to the September 11th terrorist attacks. I have smypathy with the idea that there we can gain some illumination from looking at the modern anti-war movement from this direction though I think a better title would be Opposition to the war on terror, the point remains though that it creates an air of an essay rather then an ensycolpedia entry. On top of this I think that there are a number of specific problems with the current content. There is a lot of stuff left over from the fact that this page originated Left-wing politics, there is now a page called The Left and war which has a section about the left's relationship to post-9/11 anti-war movements. Some stuff that has ended up here might be better off moved there. This page, if it is to remain, should have a wider focus on the anti-war movement.--JK the unwise 10:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be moved to a page called Opposition to the "War on Terrorism", perhaps with some content merger from Criticisms of the "War on Terrorism". Kalkin 18:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition to the "War on Terrorism" seems very problematic to me. This is about an anti-war movement. "Opposition to the 'War on Terrorism'" could also be construed to include the violent terrorist opposition. - Jmabel | Talk 18:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a potential problem with any "Opposition to..." article on an anti-war movement, yet every such article besides this one is titled in that format. It's broader, so it includes not only reasons but actions, which are actually much more clearly appropriate to Wikipedia, and confusion with violent opposition is pretty easily avoidable by a clear lead for the article. Kalkin 07:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism and Amir Taheri[edit]

The section on anti-Semitism leans heavily on the writing of Amir Taheri. Given the many recent accusation of fabrications by Taheri, he is at best a questionable source. Can someone cite this more solidly? - Jmabel | Talk 18:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Post–September 11 anti-war movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Post–September 11 anti-war movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Post–September 11 anti-war movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Post–September 11 anti-war movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Post–September 11 anti-war movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post–September_11_anti-war_movement&oldid=1204862433"