CoobyS

Same thing. I prefer to use the former as it's easier to pronounce

suprabeast

i do love the words "illegal war". war is war

CoobyS

Dumbo, we are talking about what Ken said in the papers yesterday, specifically about the war in Iraq.

suprabeast

no we were discussing ken suporting any forms of terrorism... it doesnt change just cos its a few years later

Flatcapdriver

You might have been but all I can see is an overreaction to comments he made in the papers and on radio which seem to have been distorted out of all recognition by the ill informed and the tabloids. Livingstone has some strong opinions many of which I don't agree with and until I see some evidence that he openly supported the IRA I'll take it with a pinch of salt.

He's simply stating the obvious and asking the same questions that should have been asked after September 11th. Why do these terrorists feel so strongly about what the West is doing/has done and why do they continue to attack us? Not easily answered questions...

Brendan Hughes

Yes, and if it's waged in immediate self-defence it's considered to be legal. If it's one country wading in because it doesn't like another for one reason or other, it's considered to be illegal. Anyone who says there are no rules in war can't protest about British being beheaded in Iraq - they're just enemies being killed, like what happens in all wars, no? And surely if they don't like what happens there they should just f**k off back to the country they came from? ((c) NSR 2000-2005 ad nauseam)

Of course, then you get people bending the rules. Saddam invaded Kuwait as the Kuwaitis overproduced oil, undercutting the price and his revenues just after a crippling war with Iran, so he claimed they were threatening him economically. And the US bombed sites in Colombia as they said cocaine production and import was a threat to the national security of their country. And we all know on what basis the last invasion was, don't we? A thesis found on the Internet in 45 minutes...

KiwiGTI

It a very complex situation and saying the UK's involvement in Iraq caused these bombings is vastly oversimplifying the state of relations between Muslims, Extremists and the West.

Just because the majority think that is the case doesn't mean that they are correct.

The real reasons will probably remain with the bombers.

I don't have any answers or opinions because I am sick of arguing on this forum but it seems whatever the West does they are in a lose-lose situation.

If they withdrew completely from all Muslim countries immediately, I'm sure that there would be widescale bloodshed between Muslims themselves (Shiites and Sunnis etc) condemning countries and millions of people to even further misery and poverty.

If they stay, even as welcome guests as in Saudi Arabia, then different sections of the Muslim community will still terrorise and attack the West because of pure hatred.

You can keep thinking of dozens of scenarios, I can't think of one that is of benefit to everyone because in the end we can't rid the world of the bad human traits (jealousy, greed, hatred, violence etc) that exist on both sides.

gsm1

The Intelligence Services said Invading Iraq would increase the threat of terrorism against the UK. Post invasion they've said again, in a leaked document, that Iraq is a contributory factor. A British thinktank have also made the same conclusion. Even an Israeli think tank has said invading Iraq has boosted support for Al Qaeda and was most likely the reason for the London bombings.

Still idiots like Blair call this 'twisted logic'. So according to Blair he knows better than British Intelligence.

moses

i luv ken my hero


tony got some help yesterday he called his pal the puppet karzai , anyone hear the speech

i have to say alot of stuff karzai said was right , its sad what the taliban done but the rest of the scum warlords like dostum and abdullah and abudallah were the same

its a pity they were ok to use as proxy when they were the rapists and killers and looters , evil just as the taliban was

gsm1

Yes, of course, they hate our freedom. They just hate us for nothing. You just wake up one day and think...I know I'll hate the west. Oooh..you b*stards are so damn free...I hate you..I hate you.

America has been the primary target here and that's been down to their own involvement in the middle east. .

The majority of muslims in the world have always rejected the rhetoric of these extremist groups when they've been busy causing mayhem in their own countries. Instead of working with muslims and the international community to clamp down on terrorism Blair has not only increased the ranks of these terrorist groups and sympathy for them but has now made us a target as well.

KiwiGTI

How silly of me to think that, their hatred must build up over the years because of their legitimate grievances, just like the BNP and National Front.

moses

abu hamza and qatada and omar bakri deserve death anyway i say cleanse the saudi regime too bros and lets purify islam we need hamza yusof, siraj wahaj ,qardawi, zakir naik and jamal badawi's like their awesome

gsm1

I didn't say the actions of people like Bin Laden were legitimate did I. Try reading what I was actually saying.

And Moses, let the Saudis sort their own problems out instead of sticking our noses in and propping up a bunch of tossers.

Brendan Hughes

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dail..._date=20050715

moses

saudi regime r the problem

CoobyS

Yeah, we can get Blair, Bush and Sharon to help out - I bet they'd be more than happy.

gsm1

. This guy has some excellent animations too:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/lite.html

peterpeter

that my friend is what I call a spot on post.

Its also the answer to Bliars twisted logic horse****.

Its also the reason why he is such a ****.

BTW people who said the majority voted for him...

no they didnt. there was only a 35 percent turn out and more people in england voted tory than labour. Unfotunately the Welsh and Scots get a say in how we run our govt.

moses

very good bros

albob

the following is an extract from a speech Ken livingstone made on the 07/07 (day of the bombings) - doesn't sound like he supports terrorists??


"I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.

That isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted faith - it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other. I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, that the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I'm proud to be the mayor of that city.

Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.

I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

In the days that follow - look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.

They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail."

Leslie

No riddle intended CoobyS and I find it truly surprising that you are unable to see what was meant by it. Try reading your previous posts.

Les

Chip

I'd have a think about that statement if I were you.

Chip

hedgehog

This is the same Ken who last year welcomed Sheik Yousef Qaradawi to London? The Sheik is known as the "theologian of terror" and has described suicide bombings as "heroic operations of martyrdom."

Once the shock is over and the investigative journalism starts Ken is in deep, deep trouble no matter how hard he tries to paper over the cracks while people are still in shock and willing to believe his weasel words.

When the truth comes to light on all this it will be interesting to see if Ken has blood on his hands. Of course he might choose to go down the "some terrorists are freedom fighters but not the ones who bomb me" route but I would hope that the people of London will see through that.

AsifScoob

I happen to completely agree with what I saw Ken saying on CH4 news and I was glad that someone had the ***** to say those things.

I think the disease of over zealous Political Correctness works not only for the 'Liberal' cause as certain people are fond of saying.

I can't believe that no one appears to be challenging Blair for his absolutely ridiculous views that it is all some evil coincidence and that they just hate us coz we are so great - it is unbelievable!

From what I gather Qaradawi was trying to raise the profile of the Palestinian issue and why they do what they do - although there is a link I believe that the Palestinian situation is fairly unique. I do not think he advocated Suicide Bombing per se, just that in very extreme circumstances (Palestine) it was understandable. I may be wrong, thats just what I heard on the news.

As for the descriptions of him, well any Bush/war/Blair supporting media could have come out with that, does that mean its true?

As I said above, there is this huge reaction, from some quarters, when talking about the real reasons for all this - whats at the heart of the matter? For me its the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and how its been conducted. Ken, to be fair to him, went straight to the nub and he was right.

Try to tell this to people however, from Blair downwards and the reactions are, "NO NO NO! They hate us just for what we are/colour of our skin, our freedoms (Bush's favourite)!" Take your pick.

Try to mention the real reasons for all this and the PC Right Wing swoop down on you from their perceived moral high ground - very wrong.

You're NEVER going to deal with something unless you get real and address the real problems. Otherwise more people just carry on dying, on all sides.

Just my opinion.

Asif

AsifScoob

Hey Kiwi?

FWIW I agree with a few of your points there. Its definately complex, but thats why we need to work hard to a solution.

Keep posting on here, its good to get different views, only suggestion I would make, if I may, is calm down a little at times? But then I would say that to a lot of people on here.

Not sure that the West pulling out (of the ME) would cause widespread inter communal violence, after all, Iraq and Afghanistan aside, we are not exactly patrolling the streets like policemen.

We should get out and let them deal with their own affairs. If that means the end of our great friend the Al Saud family, then so be it, IMO. They will still sell us oil, that is an economic fact and lets face it, price could notbe much higher than it is now. The Al Saud's can just live in exile in the US with the billions they have invested over there already, no ones loss.

If the Saudi people kick them out, at least it would have been done by them, to their own govt. Also dont forget that Saudi bred almost all of the 9/11 hijackers, and of course OBL. They have let the fundamentalists grow into the Frankensteins monster it now is.

I agree with you that there is hatred, but I do not believe that it is perpetual, or some sort of universal constant. It can be tackled, issues can be resolved (if people want to) and people can be de-fundamentalised!

There are risks to any 'peace', doesn't mean we shouldn't work for it, got to be better than we have now, IMO.

Asif