2005 (UTC)

I am perfectly glad, and have been all along, to see this section totally removed from this article. When we spun out the fuller version of this, I wanted to delete this shortened version from here. However, if it stays, I remain concerned what it says, and you and I obviously disagree about that.

 As for your "obviously": Once again, you seem to be reading sentences out of context. Look at the context of this passage (italics added for emphasis):

"There was division within the left as to the invasion of Afghanistan.  Nonetheless, an international anti-war movement began to arise; in the U.S. and other countries whose governments enacted legislation analogous to the PATRIOT Act, it was equally a movement in protest of what were perceived to be assaults on civil liberties and immigrant rights."

"Most prominent in this loose coalition were..."

This is specifically about the protest movement at the time of the Afghanistan invasion (and was more exclusively so in earlier versions, because someone has now inserted "and Iraq" in the next sentence). You say there was no anti-Afganistan-invasion-movement worth mentioning. Don't know where you were. I was in London at the time. 50,000 of us were in Trafalgar Square, that's usually considered a large enough protest to be worth mentioning. I can't say for sure how large rallies were elsewhere at the time, but these links are suggestive: , . Here's a statement of protest by a Canadian Senator on October 26, 2001.. It would take a lot of time to really document the level of protest activity at that time, and it was certainly not nearly as much as later over Iraq, but it is much more relevant to the topic of the Left, becuase opposition was narrower and the Left had a more prominent role.   | Talk 07:16, Jan 4,