NationStates Jolt Archive

Any UK folks have any comments regarding the following article, especially in light of the recent bombings in London?

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200507\POL20050707c.html

Any UK folks have any comments regarding the following article, especially in light of the recent bombings in London?

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200507\POL20050707c.html

Ken Livingstone is a foul little shit. When Thatcher put the kibosh on him in the 80s I was happy. I never imagined that he would get a second chance.

Ken Livingstone is a foul little shit. When Thatcher put the kibosh on him in the 80s I was happy. I never imagined that he would get a second chance.
What did PM Thatcher do to him?

Bump

Are we gonna reinterpret everything people said during the last 20 years, each time there is a terrorist attack?

When I was 12 years old, I once said "I like bombs".
I guess it makes me a suspect. And a traitor.
You can start a thread on the subject.

What did PM Thatcher do to him?
Mr Livingstone was leader of the Greater London Council, and Mrs Thatcher abolished it along with six other metropolitan councils.

Mostly because she was a neocon and they were being irritating lefties with their talk of fairness.

Are we gonna reinterpret everything people said during the last 20 years, each time there is a terrorist attack?

When I was 12 years old, I once said "I like bombs".
I guess it makes me a suspect. And a traitor.
You can start a thread on the subject.

Who's reinterpreting? It was wrong for him to support a person believing that suicide bombing was justifed back then. It's just that it looks even more ridiculous now.

Oh yeah right, lets all blame Ken Livingstone for this bombing after all he has been blamed for everything in the past and will be blamed for everything in the future, so why not now eh?

I've lived through two bombings while living in London, both during Margaret Thatchers reign of terror.
I hated the woman's guts for what she did to this country and what we are having to deal with now, but I didn't sit there and say yeah lets blame Maggie this is all her fault, no I bloody well didn't.

I notice by most of the signatures of the contributors here that there are few, if any British amongst you.
Do I need to comment further?

Mostly because she was a neocon and they were being irritating lefties with their talk of fairness.

Or maybe because he was part of the millitant tendency which advocated the complete destruction of the British way of life. Either one.

Oh yeah right, lets all blame Ken Livingstone for this bombing after all he has been blamed for everything in the past and will be blamed for everything in the future, so why not now eh?

I've lived through two bombings while living in London, both during Margaret Thatchers reign of terror.
I hated the woman's guts for what she did to this country and what we are having to deal with now, but I didn't sit there and say yeah lets blame Maggie this is all her fault, no I bloody well didn't.

I notice by most of the signatures of the contributors here that there are few, if any British amongst you.
Do I need to comment further?
Who's blaming him for the attacks? The only people responsible for the attacks are - the attackers themselves!

The title says it all - David Livingstone has directly supported, in the recent past, a person who promotes violence against Western civilization. Such support would seem to indicate an intolerable attitude for a person in such a position as his.

we shouldn't blame people for what they did in the past, because we must move forward not backwards
hr
BUMP

we shouldn't blame people for what they did in the past, because we must move forward not backwards
That is one of the most inane and completely unsupported statements I've heard yet on this forum. When you go get a job, the employer does - guess what? - look at your PAST. When a person runs for office, their past is closely scrutinized. Past performance is an indication, though not a guarantee, of future performance. And it's not like this happened ten years ago. The article states Livingstone's support for this man was indicated a year ago - after 9/11, and darn close to the Madrid bombings!

CNS News? Why don't you just quote your own ass instead? It's got just about as much credibility and might be more entertaining.

Are we gonna reinterpret everything people said during the last 20 years, each time there is a terrorist attack?


Thats right....stick your head deeper into the sand Neville.

Well, what about these, then, if CNS is so horrid.

Scotsman (http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=799652004)
Ynet (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3053932,00.html)

CNS News? Why don't you just quote your own ass instead? It's got just about as much credibility and might be more entertaining.


Does that somehow lessen the fact that he invited a controversial guy to city hall?

Or maybe BBC takes your fancy?

BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/news/mayor_comments.shtml)

Thats right....stick your head deeper into the sand Neville.
Ay ay, sir!

(Note: Don't Neville me. And I won't McCarthy you. Or whatever else.)

Senator Joseph McCarthy would be ashamed, and exceptionally angry, to be put next to Neville Chamberlain, the one being a man dedicated to his cause, even during persecution, against Communism, the other being a traitor to his country, and giving a facist regime what it needed to start WWII.

Before you rant on McCarthy, by the way, look up the "Venona Project". That'll explain why I'm right, and I won't have to type it all.

Ay ay, sir!

(Note: Don't Neville me. And I won't McCarthy you. Or whatever else.)

McCarthy didnt lead to the deaths of 40 million people.

Before you rant on McCarthy, by the way, look up the "Venona Project". That'll explain why I'm right, and I won't have to type it all.
Careful with your high blood pressure.

I'll be fine, but that demanded an explanation.

I remember this guy.
He was the one who refused to recognize President Bush as the leader of the United States.
As if anybody would care.
Anybody have about twenty feet of rope and a handy lampost? Actually, an extension cord would do.

CNS News? Why don't you just quote your own ass instead? It's got just about as much credibility and might be more entertaining.
For the sake of argument, let's say that the Guardian reported this story. Would you believe it then? If not, what source would you believe it from? Or are you so inflexible as to never be convinced of anything bad about someone that has your ideology. And, the ultimate question, even if someone could convince you this reporting was true, does it even bother you? Are you OK with your mayor supporting a man that supports terrorism around the world?

McCarthy didnt lead to the deaths of 40 million people.

Neither did Neville Chaimberlain. Not that you'll listen but personally I'm glad of the guy. We'd have lost without him.

Neither did Neville Chaimberlain. Not that you'll listen but personally I'm glad of the guy. We'd have lost without him.
Neville Chamberlain could sell Poland to Hitler in 1939 full well. The UK was woefully unready for war, with small Army, Air Force full of obsolete aeroplanes, and Navy almost crippled by the Government adhering to every article of the Washinton Treaties.

Going to war for Poland was a noble deed, and Chamberlain takes credit for that.

Neither did Neville Chaimberlain. Not that you'll listen but personally I'm glad of the guy. We'd have lost without him.

True that. Really more Baldwin's fault. Still you can't praise a man who was asking the French to disarm while encouraging the Nazi's to do so.

History is not really your strong point is it?

Neville Chamberlain could sell Poland to Hitler in 1939 full well. The UK was woefully unready for war, with small Army, Air Force full of obsolete aeroplanes, and Navy almost crippled by the Government adhering to every article of the Washinton Treaties.

Going to war for Poland was a noble deed, and Chamberlain takes credit for that.

Let's be honest, Chamberlain was backed into a corner at that point. And there was nothing noble about going to war for Poland.

Neville Chamberlain could sell Poland to Hitler in 1939 full well. The UK was woefully unready for war, with small Army, Air Force full of obsolete aeroplanes, and Navy almost crippled by the Government adhering to every article of the Washinton Treaties.

Going to war for Poland was a noble deed, and Chamberlain takes credit for that.
You might ask WWII veterans from Austria and Czechoslovakia how noble they feel Chamberlain was. Guess he just didn't want 3 strikes, you're out, after letting the Germans take over Austria and Czechoslovakia without firing a shot.

Let's be honest, Chamberlain was backed into a corner at that point. And there was nothing noble about going to war for Poland.
What was preventing him from striking another deal? Nothing. Daladier was looking at Chamberlain awaiting for his actions, not vice versa, I suppose. The French did not intend to face Germany on their own.

And Poland was no Belgium of 1914 with historical, three and a half centuries' old prohibition against letting a major Continental power to control Antwerp.

You might ask WWII veterans from Austria and Czechoslovakia how noble they feel Chamberlain was. Guess he just didn't want 3 strikes, you're out, after letting the Germans take over Austria and Czechoslovakia without firing a shot.
Noble Chamberlain? he was a politician, and politics and noble go together like oil and water.

Munich was an open betrayal and thundering disgrace, make no mistake about it. Nevertheless you have to give him credit where he deserves it.

These men were caught in situations that would give Sun Tzu a headache.
They tried...
But still, they failed. And that's how they will be remembered.

there was nothing noble about going to war for Poland.
Of course there wasn't. When was honoring your prior commitments ever noble, anyway?

What was preventing him from striking another deal? Nothing. Daladier was looking at Chamberlain awaiting for his actions, not vice versa, I suppose. The French did not intend to face Germany on their own.

And Poland was no Belgium of 1914 with historical, three and a half centuries' old prohibition against letting a major Continental power to control Antwerp.

Probably the fact that he forced the french into breaking their treaty with the Czecks 1938.

What was preventing him from striking another deal? Nothing. Daladier was looking at Chamberlain awaiting for his actions, not vice versa, I suppose. The French did not intend to face Germany on their own.

And Poland was no Belgium of 1914 with historical, three and a half centuries' old prohibition against letting a major Continental power to control Antwerp.
Poland was exceptional in that:
1. It did not have the anschluss qualification of German as its native tongue in any part of the country.
2. Poland did not let them walk in - they fought back, and many died.
3. I could be wrong, but didn't UK have a treaty with Poland?

Letting Poland go would have been political suicide at that point.

Of course there wasn't. When was honoring your prior commitments ever noble, anyway?

What prior commitment? No gaurantee of Polish territory was even made until just prior to the German invasion, and not until after Germany began to complain about the Danzig corridor.

In fact, during the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, the Polish took their share, and were widely condemned for their actions in England.

Senator Joseph McCarthy would be ashamed, and exceptionally angry, to be put next to Neville Chamberlain, the one being a man dedicated to his cause, even during persecution, against Communism, the other being a traitor to his country, and giving a facist regime what it needed to start WWII.

Before you rant on McCarthy, by the way, look up the "Venona Project". That'll explain why I'm right, and I won't have to type it all.

:rolleyes:

Oh please, McCarthy was an opportunistic bullying alkie who discovered during his career that pointing fingers at anyone and screaming "Commmie" was a great way to pad his resumé and generally get what he wanted. Dedicated to his cause my ass... do you then believe that the U.S. Army was chock full of Commies then?

Chamberlain might go down in history as a Nazi sellout, but unlike McCarthy he didn't go ruining people's lives directly and personally to pad his career.

Poland was exceptional in that:
1. It did not have the anschluss qualification of German as its native tongue in any part of the country.
2. Poland did not let them walk in - they fought back, and many died.
3. I could be wrong, but didn't UK have a treaty with Poland?

Letting Poland go would have been political suicide at that point.

Yes but Poland was not unique in a sense, as the remainder of Czechoslovakia, once the Sudetenland had been seized, was entirely non-German. The decision to go to war after the invasion of Poland was primarily because appeasement had completely failed and Hitler's intentions had become clear. We also had a treaty with the Poles.
It is important to remember than nations such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria only became independent political nations after the Great War and Britain took a leading role in creating them. As such, it was our responsibilty to protect them. The fact that we failed to do so shamed us, although we thought we were doing the best thing in avoiding war at the time.
The UK guaranteed Polish territory, but also had agreements with Czechoslovakia. This really means that Poland was not unique, but rather that it was a step too far in our eyes for Hitler to take. Anschluss, in general refers to the amalgamation/ alliance/ or bringing together of Germany and Austria. The attacks upon Poland followed Hitler's policy of "Lebensraum" or "living-space" for the German people, in which he hoped to expel the Poles to make way for German settlers. In fact, one in five poles died as a result of this action. Three million poles were jewish and of them, hardly any survived.
But, what does this have to do with "red ken" livingstone anyway?

Poland was exceptional in that:
1. It did not have the anschluss qualification of German as its native tongue in any part of the country.
2. Poland did not let them walk in - they fought back, and many died.
3. I could be wrong, but didn't UK have a treaty with Poland?

Letting Poland go would have been political suicide at that point.
Not quite, the Cliveden set was ambivalent at best on declaring war. The British establishment was full of Hitler sympathizers who wouldn't mind reneging on the March 1939 alliance with Poland.

Let's open another thread on Chamberlain and 1939, shall we?

Poland was exceptional in that:
1. It did not have the anschluss qualification of German as its native tongue in any part of the country.
2. Poland did not let them walk in - they fought back, and many died.
3. I could be wrong, but didn't UK have a treaty with Poland?

Letting Poland go would have been political suicide at that point.
Not quite, the Cliveden set was ambivalent at best on declaring war. The British establishment was full of Hitler sympathizers who wouldn't mind reneging on the March 1939 alliance with Poland.

Let's start another thread on Chamberlain and 1939, shall we?

David Livingstone

No, Ken Livingstone

Now let me get this right here....

Ken livingston was responsible for yesterdays bombings in London.
Neville Chamberlain was responsible for the second world war.

*sigh*

It's always better to blame others than look at yourselves isn't it?

Oh please, McCarthy was an opportunistic bullying alkie who discovered during his career that pointing fingers at anyone and screaming "Commmie" was a great way to pad his resumé and generally get what he wanted. Dedicated to his cause my ass... do you then believe that the U.S. Army was chock full of Commies then?


He was a great drinker, though. You have to give him that. :D

Now let me get this right here....

Ken livingston was responsible for yesterdays bombings in London.
Neville Chamberlain was responsible for the second world war.

*sigh*

It's always better to blame others than look at yourselves isn't it?

Somehow, I don't think the bombers were Welsh, English, Irish, or Scots.

I suspect that:

they were Islamic Males between the ages of 18 and 35, of Arabic Descent, and strong, possibly radical, ideological and religious convictions, whose psychology is that of the Sociopathic Radical.

Just a guess, mind.

Somehow, I don't think the bombers were Welsh, English, Irish, or Scots.

I suspect that:

they were Islamic Males between the ages of 18 and 35, of Arabic Descent, and strong, possibly radical, ideological and religious convictions, whose psychology is that of the Sociopathic Radical.

Just a guess, mind.

Well I don't jump to conclusions, but your suspicions are probably correct.

However, my point is that everyone is down on Ken Livingston actually had the principals and courage to stand up and give his personal opinion, therefor he is to blame and Neville Chamberlain made the best decision he thought he could make given the time and the place and the situation.

BUT it is thier fault, no-one elses.
I just get a little tired of everyone blaming someone else for what is and has happened.

I'd just like to say, as a Londoner (meaning my opinions on my own mayor are probably slightly more relevant), I fully support Ken Livingstone.

I don't see what taht article has to do with the attacks. The one in no way influences the other.

So stop dumping blame on the laps of thsoe who had nothing to do with it. Watch the news footage of him speaking, he looks awful, cause this is his city and he cares.

So stop with the bullshit!

~~V

*Stands up and bows her head to Taeo*

I'd just like to say, as a Londoner (meaning my opinions on my own mayor are probably slightly more relevant), I fully support Ken Livingstone.

I don't see what taht article has to do with the attacks. The one in no way influences the other.

So stop dumping blame on the laps of thsoe who had nothing to do with it. Watch the news footage of him speaking, he looks awful, cause this is his city and he cares.

So stop with the bullshit!

~~V

I'd like to say, as a Londoner, that Ken Livingstone is a dangerous appeaser on the level of Chamberlain.

I remember watching him on TV a year ago as he hugged this man who advocates suicide bombers stepping onto busses and blowing up women and children.

I was disgusted then, and my opinion hasn't really changed.

I'd like to say, as a Londoner, that Ken Livingstone is a dangerous appeaser on the level of Chamberlain.

I remember watching him on TV a year ago as he hugged this man who advocates suicide bombers stepping onto busses and blowing up women and children.

I was disgusted then, and my opinion hasn't really changed.

ok on that logic Prince Charles is evil because he shook the hand of Robert Mugabe. That must mean that Charlie agrees with everything Mugabe has done.
Who else can I think of, oh yeah what about Blair and Gadafe (sp?). Must be in bed with eachother.
Bush and the Saudi royal family, must mean that Bush agrees with all the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia

ok on that logic Prince Charles is evil because he shook the hand of Robert Mugabe. That must mean that Charlie agrees with everything Mugabe has done.
Who else can I think of, oh yeah what about Blair and Gadafe (sp?). Must be in bed with eachother.
Bush and the Saudi royal family, must mean that Bush agrees with all the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia

Charles was caught by surprise,

Livingstone on the other hand had read three days of vitriole in the papers about his reception of the cleric, mentioned the papers in his speech, then called him an honoured guest and hugged him.

I don't think Bush agrees with the human rights in Saudi Arabia, but I think it's highly probably that he doesn't really care enough to sever financial links with their ruling family.

I'm not too peachy on Blair & Gaddaffi either, but Blair has at least stated he'd like to see reform in Libya.

Livingstone is quite happy with hugging people who advocate baby killings. In fact he even apologised to the Cleric that the newspapers had critisized him!

He hugged the man, honoured him, quite deliberately, in the full knowlege that he supports killing babies.

That's quite different to having a hand shoved in your face and shaking it on instinct.

Charles was caught by surprise,

Livingstone on the other hand had read three days of vitriole in the papers about his reception of the cleric, mentioned the papers in his speech, then called him an honoured guest and hugged him.

I don't think Bush agrees with the human rights in Saudi Arabia, but I think it's highly probably that he doesn't really care enough to sever financial links with their ruling family.

I'm not too peachy on Blair & Gaddaffi either, but Blair has at least stated he'd like to see reform in Libya.

Livingstone is quite happy with hugging people who advocate baby killings. In fact he even apologised to the Cleric that the newspapers had critisized him!

He hugged the man, honoured him, quite deliberately, in the full knowlege that he supports killing babies.

That's quite different to having a hand shoved in your face and shaking it on instinct.

killing babies ? Ok find me quote that this man says he supports killing babies.

killing babies ? Ok find me quote that this man says he supports killing babies.


Al-Qaradawi's theological justification for suicide bombings is entitled, "Hamas Operations Are Jihad and Those Who [Carry it Out and] Are Killed are Considered Martyrs"

Hamas kills women, children and babies every single week.

Not just a quote, he's written an entire treatise justifying killing babies in the name of holy war.

Al-Qaradawi's theological justification for suicide bombings is entitled, "Hamas Operations Are Jihad and Those Who [Carry it Out and] Are Killed are Considered Martyrs"

Hamas kills women, children and babies every single week.

Not just a quote, he's written an entire treatise justifying killing babies in the name of holy war.

I'm sorry but where does it say "killing babies"? I'm sure you have read this supposed document and it has been translated perfectly. I'll admit the guy sounds like a loon but I dont see what this has got to do with Livingstone

I'm sorry but where does it say "killing babies"? I'm sure you have read this supposed document and it has been translated perfectly. I'll admit the guy sounds like a loon but I dont see what this has got to do with Livingstone

Like I said, Hamas kills women, children and babies every single week, this man supports Hamas and says they are holy people.

Logic suggests that since Al-Qaradawi says he supports Hamas killing civilians on busses and in public places, he therefore does support Hamas killing civilians. Yes this obviously includes babies.

Livingstone said that Al-Qaradawi is a 'moderate' and an 'honoured guest', and he said that in the face of several days campaigning by british newspapers. I don't think Livingstone really believes those things, I think he's an appeaser in the same vein as Chamberlain was.

Al-Qaradawi supports the tactics of Hamas. Hamas tactics include killing babies. Al-Qaradawi supports killing babies.

You cannot support the tactics of Hamas without supporting what they do.

He doesn't just sound like a loon, he is a loon, and a particularly evil one at that.

Livingstone obviously knows that, yet he thinks appeasement is the way to treat with monsters, and that disgusts me.

Like I said, Hamas kills women, children and babies every single week, this man supports Hamas and says they are holy people.

Logic suggests that since Al-Qaradawi says he supports Hamas killing civilians on busses and in public places, he therefore does support Hamas killing civilians. Yes this obviously includes babies.

Livingstone said that Al-Qaradawi is a 'moderate' and an 'honoured guest', and he said that in the face of several days campaigning by british newspapers. I don't think Livingstone really believes those things, I think he's an appeaser in the same vein as Chamberlain was.

Al-Qaradawi supports the tactics of Hamas. Hamas tactics include killing babies. Al-Qaradawi supports killing babies.

You cannot support the tactics of Hamas without supporting what they do.

He doesn't just sound like a loon, he is a loon, and a particularly evil one at that.

Livingstone obviously knows that, yet he thinks appeasement is the way to treat with monsters, and that disgusts me.

well this dude isn't muslim by definition then. None of Hamas are IMO
Still the title of this thread says that Livingstone supports terrorism which is ridiculous. Ok so he had a dodgy dinner date. Big deal

Oh and just as an aside, Livingstone recently shouted at a Jewish photographer that he was 'an Auchwitz camp guard' (Auchwitz was a death camp where the Nazis killed two million Jews).

He later refused to apologise when asked if he would on multiple occasions, saying he didn't think it was insensetive.

Sorry, but I don't think Livingstone is a particularly nice man.

Ken Livingstone is a foul little shit. When Thatcher put the kibosh on him in the 80s I was happy. I never imagined that he would get a second chance.

Thats because liberalism runs amuck in the UK. It appears conservatives are slowly taking back over. But this muppet is Mayor of London.

Oh and just as an aside, Livingstone recently shouted at a Jewish photographer that he was 'an Auchwitz camp guard' (Auchwitz was a death camp where the Nazis killed two million Jews).

He later refused to apologise when asked if he would on multiple occasions, saying he didn't think it was insensetive.

Sorry, but I don't think Livingstone is a particularly nice man.

I don't think many politicians are

well this dude isn't muslim by definition then. None of Hamas are IMO
Still the title of this thread says that Livingstone supports terrorism which is ridiculous. Ok so he had a dodgy dinner date. Big deal

He didn't have a dodgy dinner date, he held two very public conferences with Al-Qaradawi during which he repeatedly fawned over a man who supports killing babies.

And no, Al-Qaradawi isn't muslim by definition, but what does that have to do with anything?

He didn't have a dodgy dinner date, he held two very public conferences with Al-Qaradawi during which he repeatedly fawned over a man who supports killing babies.

And no, Al-Qaradawi isn't muslim by definition, but what does that have to do with anything?

I still wouldn't mind reading this document. Does anyone remember what these conferences were about?
This guy claims to be representing muslims by meeting Livingstone isn't he? Sothe fact that hes not muslim by definition would still be significant.

on a side is this the same guy?

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article25.shtml

http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/misguided/qaradawi.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi

he seems quite strange ahh well. I stll cant find that document but he does say he supports suicide bombings as part of the resistence of the Isreali occupation. still i think hes a loon

on a side is this the same guy?

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article25.shtml

http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/misguided/qaradawi.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi

he seems quite strange ahh well. I stll cant find that document but he does say he supports suicide bombings as part of the resistence of the Isreali occupation. still i think hes a loon

He also advocates executing gays.

And Livingstone hugged him while knowing this.

He advocates men beating their wives, as long as it is with their hands and not with a stick.

And Livingstone embraced him while knowing this.

He advocates Suicide bombings against Women, Children and Babies.

And Livingstone called him a Moderate.

He also advocates executing gays.

And Livingstone hugged him while knowing this.

He advocates men beating their wives, as long as it is with their hands and not with a stick.

And Livingstone embraced him while knowing this.

He advocates Suicide bombings against Women, Children and Babies.

And Livingstone called him a Moderate.
why do you repeat yourself?

why do you repeat yourself?

Poetic arrogance or boredom, you decide.

I notice by most of the signatures of the contributors here that there are few, if any British amongst you.
Do I need to comment further?

I notice absolutely nothing in your signature would tell anyone you were British.

Well Im from London and Ken doesn't bother me

Well Im from London and Ken doesn't bother me

Even though he hugs people who support killing babies in the name of holy war?

Nice.

Even though he hugs people who support killing babies in the name of holy war?

Nice.

yes he hugged a man who supports suicide bombing therefore he supports suicide bombing. And obviously he doesn't bother me therefore I'm not against suicide bombing :rolleyes:
Hell lets take this idiotic way of thinking further, 35.7% of people who voted in the last mayoral elections 1st choice was Ken Livingstone so they must have voted for suicide bombings.

Wait a minute Ken is part of the Labour party which must mean they are for suicide bombings.
Ridiculous

Oh and just as an aside, Livingstone recently shouted at a Jewish photographer that he was 'an Auchwitz camp guard' (Auchwitz was a death camp where the Nazis killed two million Jews).

He later refused to apologise when asked if he would on multiple occasions, saying he didn't think it was insensetive.

Sorry, but I don't think Livingstone is a particularly nice man.

ARGH! What a stupid leftie with his believe in 'equal opportunities!'. Poor children obviously deserve their fate granted to them by god - they don't deserve a free NHS in case they get ill, and they should starve to death if needs be!

Honestly. How dare he compare a particuarly annoying journalist a prison guard, not knowing he was a Jew? Saying anything whatsoever related to the Nazis at a Jew, knowingly or unknowingly, is pure evil - he is insulting a superior race. Of course, if he'd called an asian reporter a 'stupid fucking paki' or something similar we would have saluted him, but that is only because arabs are sub human, unlike Jews.

It's just political correctness gone mad.

ARGH! What a stupid leftie with his believe in 'equal opportunities!'. Poor children obviously deserve their fate granted to them by god - they don't deserve a free NHS in case they get ill, and they should starve to death if needs be!


I'm a leftie and believe in crap like equal rights and integrity.


Honestly. How dare he compare a particuarly annoying journalist a prison guard, not knowing he was a Jew?

I think most of the anger directed at him was because he refused to admit the comment was in bad taste.

You don't think it's in bad taste?


Saying anything whatsoever related to the Nazis at a Jew, knowingly or unknowingly, is pure evil - he is insulting a superior race.

Ahh I guess you don't then.


Of course, if he'd called an asian reporter a 'stupid fucking paki' or something similar we would have saluted him, but that is only because arabs are sub human, unlike Jews.

Who brought social darwinism into this? Oh it was you, never mind.


It's just political correctness gone mad.

It's politically correct to think that sane people shouldn't embrace supporters of suicide bombers (Who kill babies, children and civilians)?

Who's gone mad here?

It's politically correct to think that sane people shouldn't embrace supporters of suicide bombers (Who kill babies, children and civilians)?


I'm so glad for a minute I thought you were gonna say something different

yes he hugged a man who supports suicide bombing therefore he supports suicide bombing. And obviously he doesn't bother me therefore I'm not against suicide bombing :rolleyes:
Hell lets take this idiotic way of thinking further, 35.7% of people who voted in the last mayoral elections 1st choice was Ken Livingstone so they must have voted for suicide bombings.

Wait a minute Ken is part of the Labour party which must mean they are for suicide bombings.
Ridiculous

You're totally missing my intent.

Nowhere did I say Livingstone supports suicide bombing.

I said he was a political appeaser on the order of Chamberlain who doesn't care enough about the victims of suicide bombing to want to avoid (Or God forbid actually condemn) all those who support the Wahabi'ist cause.

"Either you're with us or you're against us", that's the mantra of GW Bush isn't it?

Well Politics is not black and white you know George old buddy, please don't label me so quickly.

I'm so glad for a minute I thought you were gonna say something different

I happen to believe consistancy is worth striving for, don't you?

You're totally missing my intent.

Nowhere did I say Livingstone supports suicide bombing.

I said he was a political appeaser on the order of Chamberlain who doesn't care enough about the victims of suicide bombing to want to avoid (Or God forbid actually condemn) all those who support the Wahabi'ist cause.

"Either you're with us or you're against us", that's the mantra of GW Bush isn't it?

Well Politics is not black and white you know George old buddy, please don't label me so quickly.

I don't need a lesson in labelling from you.

And congratulations you didn't metion suicide bombers who kill babies.

I happen to believe consistancy is worth striving for, don't you?

Diversity is the spice of life

I don't need a lesson in labelling from you.

And congratulations you didn't metion suicide bombers who kill babies.

Reletavistic absolutism isn't going to be helpful here, quit trying to claim the moral lowground.

Diversity is the spice of life

Power is knowlege.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

All cliches are trite crap.

All Whabi'ists support suicide bombings against civilians as a valid tactic of holy war.

All Whabi'ists support suicide bombings against civilians as a valid tactic of holy war.

Good job Livingstone isn't one of those then

Good job Livingstone isn't one of those then

Yeah but he does embrace those who are.

You've said this doesn't bother you, may I ask why not?

ARGH! What a stupid leftie with his believe in 'equal opportunities!'. Poor children obviously deserve their fate granted to them by god - they don't deserve a free NHS in case they get ill, and they should starve to death if needs be!

Honestly. How dare he compare a particuarly annoying journalist a prison guard, not knowing he was a Jew? Saying anything whatsoever related to the Nazis at a Jew, knowingly or unknowingly, is pure evil - he is insulting a superior race. Of course, if he'd called an asian reporter a 'stupid fucking paki' or something similar we would have saluted him, but that is only because arabs are sub human, unlike Jews.

It's just political correctness gone mad.

I'm not even gonna start on your stupid ramblings on the NHS because it would be completly lost on you.

The case with the Mayor and the Daily Mail/Evening Standard, IMHO, was just, and was one of the first things I've seen him do which I commended. The story being, that a daily mail reporter had been bugging the mayor throughtout his history as a politician. As British people probably know, the Daily Mail isn't a nice newspaper. It has a xenophobic agenda (whether you believe we have an 'Asylum Crisis' or not, you can't deny the way it presents it's stories in a horribly biased way), and a history of bigotry (ie supporting a facist political party during WW2). When Ken questioned him, the reporter said 'I'm just doing my job'. So the mayor, knowing this person was a Jew, made the comparison to a Nazi Guard.

OK, maybe he went a bit far, but he put his job on the line by refusing to apolagize because he wouldn't mean it, this is even after being asked to apolagize by Tony Blair. If he had apologized after that I would have lost all respect for him, but he stood his ground and was honest - not a normal trait of a politician. I usually don't particularly like Ken, but I really do applaude him for that.

Yeah but he does embrace those who are.

You've said this doesn't bother you, may I ask why not?

mainly because he is trying to encourage friendship. But what do we do? Splash all over the papers something this guy has said. London has a large muslim base and his only mistake was choosing the wrong person to meet. His intentions were to meet with muslim leaders to talk about Muslim needs in London and he met a Muslim leader who is an extremist, at least he tried

mainly because he is trying to encourage friendship. But what do we do? Splash all over the papers something this guy has said. London has a large muslim base and his only mistake was choosing the wrong person to meet. His intentions were to meet with muslim leaders to talk about Muslim needs in London and he met a Muslim leader who is an extremist, at least he tried

He meets plenty of moderates too, all the time, which I applaud.

He also chose to meet an extremist (Twice), and deliberately praise him in the full knowlege of who he was and what he believed in.

You do say that this was a mistake however. Hmm.

*snip*

OK, maybe he went a bit far, but he put his job on the line by refusing to apolagize because he wouldn't mean it, this is even after being asked to apolagize by Tony Blair. If he had apologized after that I would have lost all respect for him, but he stood his ground and was honest - not a normal trait of a politician. I usually don't particularly like Ken, but I really do applaude him for that.

Now there's an attempt to justify Livingstone's behavior that I can at least understand, if not agree with.

Wasn't the man in question not a reporter, but a photographer?

Its sad when a good debate turns into a bitter argument between two good people, who both refuse to acknowledge any good points.

The credibility of the article IS a little suspicious, but it does seem to echo everything about him. Being one of these new-age lefties, he thinks all these fancy and poetic ideas, and when faced with a bit of bother, will bend over backwards to appease. He was desperate for the muslim vote during the mayoral elections, and has done everything possible to appease and make life easier for them (as has the damned labour party). It is by these leftist policies that these people got in the country in the first place, and by these leftist policies that this murderous incident was allowed to happen. Hell, the first thing they called out to do, wasn't to help investigations or find those responsible, nor to help the families who lost loved ones, but to go and protect muslims from attack! What the hell is going on! They can take care of themselves as a group. We should focus on what is important now - THE MAJORITY of people-the ones at risk, not a minority of people, for whom in the world as a whole, nothing has changed.

Doesnt Ken Livingstone (back on topic :rolleyes: )look and sound a lot like George Galloway (when he had the moustache especially). Both a right bunch of commies, but also both people who seem to care disproportionatly about the palestinians, muslims, iraqis, afghanis, iranians...... what about the fucking british?!

Remember people. (With VERY few exceptions in the world) Not all muslims are terrorists......

....but all terrorists are muslim.

Its sad when a good debate turns into a bitter argument between two good people, who both refuse to acknowledge any good points.

Aww I was having fun.



Remember people. (With VERY few exceptions in the world) Not all muslims are terrorists......

....but all terrorists are muslim.
No way am I falling for that one!

Oh wait I just did. :(

Who's reinterpreting? It was wrong for him to support a person believing that suicide bombing was justifed back then. It's just that it looks even more ridiculous now.

He's the Lord Mayor of London. His job is to represent eveyone in London. Including vicious assholes like Al-Qaradawi.

I don't think it looks rediculous at all.

He's the Lord Mayor of London. His job is to represent eveyone in London. Including vicious assholes like Al-Qaradawi.

I don't think it looks rediculous at all.

Al-Qaradawi isn't from London, he doesn't live in the UK either, and he's not a british national. He actually comes from Qutar and the 'vicious asshole' only came here because Livingstone invited him.

well said