Red Ken blames West for radicalism

Jags gonna love this ~D

Quote:

---

Vol XXVIII NO. 123 Thursday 21 July 2005



Red Ken blames West for radicalism

LONDON: Western foreign policy has fuelled the Islamist radicalism behind the bomb attacks which killed more than 50 people in London, the British capital's mayor Ken Livingstone said yesterday.

Livingstone, who earned the nickname "Red Ken" for his left-wing views, won widespread praise for a defiant response which helped unite London after the bombings.

Asked what he thought had motivated the four suspected suicide bombers, Livingstone cited Western policy in the Middle East and early American backing for Osama bin Laden.

"A lot of young people see the double standards, they see what happens in (US detention camp) Guantanamo Bay, and they just think that there isn't a just foreign policy," he said.

"You've just had 80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of a Western need for oil. We've propped up unsavoury governments, we've overthrown ones that we didn't consider sympathetic."

Turkish student buried

ISTANBUL: A Turkish student killed in the London bombings was buried yesterday after a funeral ceremony at an Istanbul mosque.

Gamze Gunoral, 24, was the only Turkish citizen known to have been killed in the explosions on three underground trains and a double-decker bus on July 7 which killed 56 people.

The funeral was attended by the governor of Istanbul, the city's police chief and two British policemen who flew in from London, the Anatolia news agency reported.

Third Polish victim named

WARSAW: British police have identified a third Polish national among the 56 people killed in the bomb attacks in London nearly two weeks ago, the Polish embassy in Britain said yesterday. The victim was identified as Anna Brandt, 43, who was probably killed in the explosion on the London Underground train near the King's Cross station on July 7, embassy spokesman Aleksander Kropiwnicki told the Polish news agency PAP.

Two other Polish women, Karolina Gluck, 29, and Monika Suchocka, 23, were previously named as among the fatal victims of the attacks.

Mosque failings in focus

LUTON, England: Mohammed Rashid would like to employ a British-born imam in his mosque in this southern English town, but limited resources and a shortage of candidates mean he has to recruit from abroad.

"It's a problem, there's no doubt about it," said Rashid, president of the Central Mosque in Luton, whose 35,000 Muslim inhabitants have come under close scrutiny since the July 7 bombings in nearby London.

"We can't afford to pay our imam more than £300 (BD197) a week," Rashid explained.

"If our young Muslims know they can earn £500 in the private sector, then why are they going to work as imams?" Muslim leaders say Rashid's problem is replicated across Britain. There is a chronic lack of well-qualified, homegrown English-speaking imams in Britain and, even when they are available, many cannot afford them. They therefore recruit imams from abroad who accept low wages but speak poor English, preach a conservative strain of Islam and are out of touch with their worshippers.

Britain 'ignored threat'

LONDON: The leader of a defunct Islamic militant group blamed Prime Minister Tony Blair's government and its "crusader views" of Muslims for the attacks. In an interview, Anjem Choudary, leader of the disbanded Muhajiroun extremist group, also said the British public shared the blame for ignoring Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's warning last year that Britain would be attacked if it did not withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Omar Bakri, the Muhajiroun group's radical founder and spiritual leader who is apparently being closely watched by British security forces, had on many occasions glorified suicide bombings in Iraq and by Palestinian militants in Israel. Choudary himself has been reported as saying that Islam regards as legitimate the kidnappings of Westerners in "occupied Muslim lands," such as Iraq.

Choudary criticised Blair's meeting on Tuesday with two dozen members of the Muslim community to discuss anti-terror legislation the government plans to introduce by the end of the year. "This is not the time for talking; it's time for action," he said. Blair, he added, has "got to do something (about the policies) which have caused 7-7."

"When Muslims talk about jihad, suddenly they're cast as terrorists and they're threatened with deportation. I think this is double standards, that's blatant racism, isn't it?"

---

And Ken is right - as he often is. A great man, you should take heed of what he says.

I knew it ~D

My goodness, what is that shining brightness? I have seen the light!

I'm sure giving billions to unaccountable African warlords in a valiant but foolhardy effort to eliminate poverty will surely stop middle class Britons from blowing apart their fellow countrymen in subways!

JAG, seriously, it wouldn't matter if noone was poor and the world was a socialist utopia, the fanatics would still try to destroy the west.

Crazed Rabbit

And what portion of blame does religious fundamentalism get?

Ken talked about causes, not blame. Blame is an emotive word that makes a good headline, but, in this case sheds little light because it is not accurate.

Sorry last time I look democracies that teach science are not a hotbed of religious fundamentalism.

If we are guilty of propping up dictatorships we get blamed.

At the same time the very act of standing up to dictators is the spark for AQ (the west having bases in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War).

The cause of the immense stupidity that is religious fundamentalism can (w)holy be laid at the feet of the religious fundamentalists. They will pick any excuse to match their agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Ken talked about causes, not blame. Blame is an emotive word that makes a good headline, but, in this case sheds little light because it is not accurate.

---

So then, he says the West caused radicalism? I guess that's better than blaming us for it.

The West can be just as radical as the Islamic Fundamentalists, we just have a different definition of Radicalism than they do ~;) Although I have to agree with some points, while the West certainly did fuel the fires of modern Islamic Radicals, it was still there (and always has since the beginning of Islam). I think this guy has many good points, but underestimates the niave nature of humanity... the first walls have come down in human progression... how many more will have to come down before we realize these endless wars are nonsense? I don't think it will happen in a VERY VERY long time... maybe never.

Red Ken right again. Good bloke. Knows a lot about newts too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

And what portion of blame does religious fundamentalism get?

---

religious fundamentalism is the prime responsible....but, religious fundamentalism won´t work if it doesn´t have loads of people that feel wronged and desperate to prey on.

i´m pretty sure that if a person lives a good dignified life it´s gonna be that much harder to convince him(her) to go blow him(her)self up in the name of some deity.

I can see how it AFFECTED the bombings but I doubt that it is a primary cause...People feel wronged and jealous all the time when they see wealth and I don't blame them. But thesemen were not poor, so how were they affected? By some madhat imam who can barely speak english? I really don't know with this one

Of course Ken is right.

Situation A:
Islamic Pupil - So why should I join your crowd then?
Radical Teacher - Look at what the west is doing - it's trying to crush Islam state by state.
Islamic Pupil - Really? Where's that then.
Radical Teacher - Chechnya, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Thailand, Kashmir
Islamic Pupil - Sounds terrible - sign me up and strap a bomb to me!

Situation B:
Islamic Pupil - So why should I join your crowd then?
Radical Teacher - Look at what the west is doing - it's trying to crush Islam state by state.
Islamic Pupil - Really? Where's that then.
Radical Teacher - Er.. not really anywhere - but they might do if we let them.
Islamic Pupil - Sorry mate - not really sold that too me.

What he said is equivolent to blaming the US oil embargo for the Pearl Harbor attack.

In any event, why would you come out so close after your city had been attacked and sympathize with the enemy's cause.. it makes no sense.

You kill the people who are trying to kill you and leave such things to the historians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

What he said is equivolent to blaming the US oil embargo for the Pearl Harbor attack.

In any event, why would you come out so close after your city had been attacked and sympathize with the enemy's cause.. it makes no sense.

You kill the people who are trying to kill you and leave such things to the historians.

---

panzer...where i come from they have a saying....it translates as "the worse kind of a blindman is the one that doesn´t want to see"...

no one is sympathizing with the enemy´s cause....no one can sympathize(in his right mind) can agree with a cause that calls for holesale murder in the name of some extremist´s view of religion...

but opening your eyes to the conditions that help that cause grow and flourish and the role that western countries had/have in that is not sympathizing...it´s trying to deal with the problem.

you can try to kill them all, that´s like trying to stop a fire with gasoline, helping them further their propaganda and influence another young man or woman so that they strap some explosives to their chest and blow some more inocents up.

if you do that i´m afraid it won´t just be a matter for the historians...your children will still be here fighting this very same fight.

Despite the fact that the man is simply dead wrong, dont you think the timing and publicity was a bit off?

France and England didnt come out after the invasion of Poland and say "Well you know, we really shouldnt have been so hard on them at Versailles.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing your own role in such an event, but there is a time and place to make such statements.

How will stating such a thing help? It really doesnt matter what happened in the 80s, they are our enemies now and our public officials should be resolved to fight them and not make statements that appear to empathize with them.

How long has it been since the London bombings.. a week or so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Despite the fact that the man is simply dead wrong, dont you think the timing and publicity was a bit off?

France and England didnt come out after the invasion of Poland and say "Well you know, we really shouldnt have been so hard on them at Versailles.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing your own role in such an event, but there is a time and place to make such statements.

How will stating such a thing help? It really doesnt matter what happened in the 80s, they are our enemies now and our public officials should be resolved to fight them and not make statements that appear to empathize with them.

How long has it been since the London bombings.. a week or so?

---

the timing is correct....a solution is needed now not later...

the ww2 situation is diferent....despite that there were responsabilities from the versailles situation that wasn´t really important in finding a resolution for the conflict, you had a standard conflict, with a standard enemy that had armys that could be defeated, a navy that could be sunk and infrastructure that could be attacked and destroyed in order to gain victory....so it was really a situation of "let´s kick their ass, what caused this isn´t really important now"

the situation with AQ is not the same, you can´t bomb their capital back to the stone age because there´s no capital!
What you can do here is take away their propaganda tools, disrupt their action as much as possible(by force, i don´t think we should just do the other stuff) and mostly take away their recruitment base by reducing the numbers of impressionable people in dificult life conditions that fall into their lies.

so if a solution is needed now...those questions have to be asked now...if those sting a little so be it.

Quote:

---

So then, he says the West caused radicalism? I guess that's better than blaming us for it.

---

Proper argument please. Obviously no-one has said the "the West" caused "radicalism". Not me and not Ken.

Quote:

---

What he said is equivolent to blaming the US oil embargo for the Pearl Harbor attack.

---

He did not blame anyone. The oil embargo was a motivation for the Pearl Habor attack, though.

Quote:

---

the timing is correct....a solution is needed now not later...

so if a solution is needed now...those questions have to be asked now...if those sting a little so be it.

---

He didnt ask any questions, he stated that it was the wests fault.

You didnt answer the most important question. How were his words helpful to finding a solution to terrorism? Its not as if you can go back and change the 1980s.

There is a time for self criticism, but to do so now, right after your city has been attacked, only emboldens the enemy.

Quote:

---

He did not blame anyone. The oil embargo was a motivation for the Pearl Habor attack, though.

---

Wrong on both counts. He blaimed the west and the motivation for Pearl Harbor was an aggressive Japanese empire.

Quote:

---

Wrong on both counts. He blaimed the west and the motivation for Pearl Harbor was an aggressive Japanese empire.

---

If you read the article carefully, you will see he was asked about motivation. He was not asked whose fault the attacks were. He was not talking about blame. You are also wrong about Pearl Habor. Some historians would even argue that the oil embargo was a deliberate provocation. If we are talking black and white and no grey areas blame, then Pearl Harbour was the Japanese's fault and the London attacks are the fault of those who planned and carried them out, but if you want deeper analysis of underlying causes, then you need to listen to what Ken said, because there is an element of truth in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Wrong on both counts. He blaimed the west and the motivation for Pearl Harbor was an aggressive Japanese empire.

---

Wrong on both counts yourself.

Quote:

---

Livingstone cited Western policy in the Middle East and early American backing for Osama bin Laden.

---

The motivation for Pearl Harbour was partly the oil embargo and the US and Japan's competing colonial/capitalist interests in the Pacific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

If we are talking black and white and no grey areas blame, then Pearl Harbour was the Japanese's fault and the London attacks are the fault of those who planned and carried them out, but if you want deeper analysis of underlying causes, then you need to listen to what Ken said, because there is an element of truth in it.

---

Panzer doesn't do sophisticated analysis - he just laps up and regurgitates the usual trite nonsense fed to him by the US media.

Quote:

---

Panzer doesn't do sophisticated analysis - he just laps up and regurgitates the usual trite nonsense fed to him by the US media.

---

3 personal attacks in one day... and my total for the week must be over 10, not counting those deleted by Ser Clegane. Im about as popular as Darth Vader around here... and ive been trying to be nice! ~:eek:

Re: Japan. The oil embargo would have never occurred had Japan not pursued her aggressive empire building. To state that the oil embargo was the cause of Pearl Harbor is to disregard the most basic motivation.

Its all about cause and effect. Japan's motivation was empire. America reacted to that by applying the oil embargo. Japan's motivation for empire caused it to attack any threats to that motivation.

The basic motivation for islamic extremists has nothing to do with America. They want to create a muslim world order and simply attack the biggest threats to that ideology. American foreign policy in recent years has simply been a reaction to that basic motivation.

Red Ken was wrong, and his timing was terrible. Way to build up moral and resolve! ~:rolleyes:

Oh please. Blaming the west for terrorism is like blaming the butterfly in China for the hurricane in Florida.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Despite the fact that the man is simply dead wrong, dont you think the timing and publicity was a bit off?

France and England didnt come out after the invasion of Poland and say "Well you know, we really shouldnt have been so hard on them at Versailles.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing your own role in such an event, but there is a time and place to make such statements.

How will stating such a thing help? It really doesnt matter what happened in the 80s, they are our enemies now and our public officials should be resolved to fight them and not make statements that appear to empathize with them.

How long has it been since the London bombings.. a week or so?

---

In fact there were people of influence and power in both France and Britain (note: Britain) during the inter-war years who felt that Versailles had been to harsh. Almost as soon as it was signed in fact, and on even as the panzers rolled through Eastern Europe. Such thinking was certainly remembered in the peace after the War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Oh please. Blaming the west for terrorism is like blaming the butterfly in China for the hurricane in Florida.

---

As stated above Livingstone was giving an opinon on the motivation of the bombers, not attriubting blame. Please read the text and avoid the rhetoric (though that is hard enough in this forum).

American foreign policy in recent years has simply been a reaction to that basic motivation.
Well in that case perhaps it is time to reassess the "reaction" , as it doesn't seem to be working very well .

Oh please. Blaming the west for terrorism is like blaming the butterfly in China for the hurricane in Florida.
Exactly , because everyone knows that the butterfly had nothing to do with the hurricane , it was that nasty little insect that caused the heatwave in Arizona , the one that caused the hurricane is the one that flapped its wings in Sweden .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Red Ken was wrong, and his timing was terrible. Way to build up moral and resolve! ~:rolleyes:

---

We don't do knee-jerk rhetoric the same way you yanks do. We prefer an intelligent discussion of these things as opposed to lots of sabre rattling and flag waving.

So glad you are posting again Idaho, you save me the need and the warnings. ~D

Red Ken was wrong, and his timing was terrible. Way to build up moral and resolve!
Yes what he should have done to build up moral and resolve was get loads of Londoners together for a free concert to say F-U to the terrorists , you are not going to get us down , we are standing together.
Maybe call it something resolute and morale boosting , like "London United" .

Oh , but he did that didn't he ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

So glad you are posting again Idaho, you save me the need and the warnings. ~D

---

I've realised that on message boards the critical thinkers need a range of specialists working for them. I rough them up, and leave the details to others ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Oh please. Blaming the west for terrorism is like blaming the butterfly in China for the hurricane in Florida.

---

You know looking at the thread on AQ Im even starting to doubt the varacity of that statement.

Quote:

---

Livingstone cited Western policy in the Middle East and early American backing for Osama bin Laden.

---

Now this one is starting to make sense. Whats happening to me ? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

You've just had 80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of a Western need for oil. We've propped up unsavoury governments, we've overthrown ones that we didn't consider sympathetic.

---

Totally agree with Ken Livingstone. He couldn't say it better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Oh please. Blaming the west for terrorism is like blaming the butterfly in China for the hurricane in Florida.

---

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

At the end of the WWI, ownership of and access to Iraq's petroleum was split by the British Mandate in five ways: 23.75% each to the UK, France, The Netherlands and the USA, with the remaining 5% going to a private oil corporation. The Iraqi government got none of the nation's oil. This remained the situation until the revolution of 1958.

---

It doesn't appear to me, that the West was simply flapped its wings in China!

Arabs are full of angry with the West. They could be living in rich, with their abundant-almost endless-oil resources, but instead they live in extreme poverty, being high oppressed and killed by their fierce governments and the lunatic and fundamentalistic terrorist.
Until middle 70's, Arabs used to support the radical nationalistic Left-wing groups and parties, but those groups failed to achieve their goals;independence, free state of Palestine, etc; and by the early of 90's they remained only shadows, obliterated by the radical Islamists who filled the gap.
Radical Islam was supported by the West, as counterbalance to Left nationalist (See US support on Mujahedins in Afganistan, against Soviet forces) and by middle 70's start to gain popular support and finally overthrow Arab Left-wing nationalism, as the only force which defies the West and Israeli occupation of the Palestine.