London mayor blames Middle East policy for bombings

Personally, I think he’s spot-on and has a clear and valid analysis of why terrorism has come home to roost.

=================================

Mayor blames Middle East policy

BBC News

  • “If at the end of the First World War we had done what we promised the Arabs, which was to let them be free and have their own governments, and kept out of Arab affairs, and just bought their oil, rather than feeling we had to control the flow of oil, I suspect this wouldn’t have arisen.” - Ken Livingstone, London Mayor

You’re probably right.
(Happy birthday, this week, dunno if you got my message earlier :smiley: )

I did… cheers!

Personally, I think he should be sacked. He’s a disgrace. It’s one thing to hold and express such opinions as a private citizen. Quite another when you are at the helm of the City. Even if you believe them to be true, it’s no comfort to anyone but the bombers.

Ralph the Wonder Llama

Personally, I think he should be sacked. He’s a disgrace. It’s one thing to hold and express such opinions as a private citizen. Quite another when you are at the helm of the City. Even if you believe them to be true, it’s no comfort to anyone but the bombers.

Nonsense. All the quote-unquote leaders who are running around NOT telling it like it is are the ones who are betraying their people. We hire them to lead, not to utter comforting lies, thereby guarranteeing that nothing will change.

If you’re sick and you go to the doctor and he says “it’s all in you’re head, you’re fine”, he’s either imcompetent or committing malpractise. If he knows that you’re sick, its definitely malpractise.

~~

There is a cure for terrorism, and it’s an attainable one. Canada found it easily when we had our bout of terrorism in the seventies, and the UK found it hard with the IRA after 20 or 30 years of futile action, and Israel has never found it.

All the “No talks with terror” sloganeering is worse than useless; it merely makes the problem continue and guarrantees that useful action becomes impossible. Livingstone points the way out of the morass.

I tend to think perhaps if we were to have maintained better “buisiness” relations with the middle east instead of trying to play world puppeteer, things would have turned out differently…
not to say that the recent terrorism would or would not have been avoided, we just might be on better terms to actually team up with the middle-eastern countries to tackle this problem without so much bloodshed.
You do make some good points…

It’s just the Blame Game and nobody wins. Are his words comforting to anyone IN London? Is the intellectual satisfaction of understanding the root causes of terror helpful if your spouse was blown to bits and you may be next? B.S.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda, yes I can see where you’re going with that, but recognition of a possible cause could help us prevent another cenario like the one we’re in now, however improbable that cause might seem.
I’m sure that 30 years ago we could have never seen this coming, but there may have been things we ‘coulda’ done differently.

Simon is spot-on. The controlling aspect of Imperialist nations has resulted in this sort of thing since the beginning. You’d think the world might have learned something by now, but the sad fact is that the Imperialists haven’t – they’ve only modernized their mistakes.

The point that the right keeps missing about terrorism is that it’s rational; or rather this kind of terrorism is rational.

The UK authorities estimate that a substantial percentage of the UK moslem population supports the terrorists. Only one thing produces widespread popular support, and that’s the presence of a real, substantial grievance. Terrorism being a last resort, we should know that this population has found all other attempts to address their issue–whatever it is–to be futile.

So, a percentage of the group turns to terror. With such substantial support, no attempt to eradicat the terrorists by force can be entirely successful; there will always be a reservoir of new recruits to the cause, because the grievance remains unaddressed. Wars on terror are endless and unwinnable. Israel has spent the past 40 years proving this; the best attainable result is a low-level endless stalemate, accompanied by the loss of freedom and the nation’s soul. France in ALgeria, the brits with the IRA, and eventually the USA will all discover this to be the truth. There is no solution in the “get tough” approach.

The only possible solution requires that the active terrorists be seperated from the popular support which feeds, hides, supplies and reinforces them. That can only come by providing an alternate avenue for the resolution of the grievance behind the anger.

Once cut off from their base, those who have carried out terrorist acts can then be rooted out and neutralized.

~~

Canada followed this past with the FLQ terrorists in the seventies. If we’d followed the “get tough” mantra, they’d still be around, blowing things up and killing people. Instead, however, their cause became part of Canada’s peaceful political landscape. Quebec seperation became a goal attainable through peaceful means via elections and the referendum process. The canadian genius for compromise saved us.

Once quebec seperation became a peaceful political goal, and the underlying grievances which fed it were addressed, then the population of quebec has found that it no longer needs to seperate after all.

Nobody’s winning in any regard, unless you consider being entitled to play the victim game “winning”.

Sadly, our govornment knows not the meaning of peaceful compromise.
I hope my previous post wasn’t misunderstood, I am absolutely against our filthy war, and the way that the govornment is handling the problem of terrorism…I was speaking from my experience in business that, when two parties have a relationship (goods, services exchanged for money, etc.), that relationship has to be maintained within the bounds of civility if you don’t like eachother, and friendship if you do.
Apply that to the way that the US handled the mid-east in the past, at least as far as our oil is concerned.

Sorry, but there is a vast difference in the goals of the Quebecois to radical Islam.

I think he was trying to draw relativity to the methods in which they handled them, not comparisons to radical Islam.
I honestly do not think that we have or had explored all our options before going to war…
if we might have, and it was still felt neccisary to go to war, we might at least have been better equipped to handle the problem, and with some justification.

You’re missing the point again. Fundamentalist Islam is the vehicle, not the driver in this dispute. Give the driver another viable vehicle to drive, and fundamentalist Islam will lose it’s appeal.

The secret is to stop the radicalization of new recruits to the cause by addressing the concerns which made them radical in the first place.

Remember, the middle east has come very late to fundamentalism. Their populations have tried democracy and tried socialism first. They’re not married to the ideology of fundamentalism; it’s a tool.

However, this may be too much complexity, and it doesn’t map well to good/evil binaries.

However, nothing much in politics ever does.

Simon, I agree…
It seems as though we ignore (and have ignored for years) people’s legitimate gripes with the US.
Even if people’s gripes weren’t legit, we could still address them peacefully and hopefully be able to convince them of that. The very least that could be done in those situations where there are irrational gripes against the US is try to come to the peaceful conclusion that we all have things about ourselves that are going to agrivate or piss off the other party, we just have to learn to live with the things that annoy us.
The US could have been great friends with the mid-east, instead of the adversarial atmosphere that exists now, even between the US and our supposed alies there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072200709_pf.html

Attacks on UK will continue, radical cleric says

By Gideon Long
Reuters
Friday, July 22, 2005; 10:57 AM



LONDON (Reuters) - Militant Islamists will continue to attack Britain until the government pulls its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the country’s most outspoken Islamic clerics said on Friday.

Speaking 15 days after bombers killed over 50 people in London and a day after a series of failed attacks on the city’s transport network, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said the British capital should expect more violence.

“What happened yesterday confirmed that as long as the cause and the root problem is still there … we will see the same effect we saw on July 7,” Bakri said.

“If the cause is still there the effect will happen again and again,” he said, adding he had no information about future attacks or contacts with people planning to carry out attacks.

Bakri, a Syrian-born cleric who has been vilified in Britain since 2001 when he praised the September 11 hijackers, said he did not believe the bombings and attempted attacks on London were carried out by British Muslims.

He condemned the killing of all innocent civilians but described attacks on British and U.S. troops in Muslim countries as “pro-life” and justified.

In an interview with Reuters, Bakri described Osama bin Laden, leader of the radical Islamist network al Qaeda, as “a sincere man who fights against evil forces.”

Bakri said he would like Britain to become an Islamic state but feared he would be deported before his dream was realized.

“I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world,” he said.

MESSAGE OF PEACE … MESSAGE OF WAR

A hate figure for the British tabloid press, the bearded and bespectacled Bakri said Islam contained “a message of peace for those who want to live with the Muslims in peace.”

“But Islam is a message of war for those who declare war against Muslims,” he said.

“I condemn any killing and any bombing against any innocent people in Britain or abroad, but I expect the British people to condemn the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

However, asked about Islamist attacks on British and U.S. troops and on Israelis, he said: “If violence is pro-life I don’t condemn it.”

Britain has around 1,100 troops in Afghanistan and 8,500 in Iraq. Prime Minister Tony Blair supported the United States in its respective invasions of both countries in 2001 and 2003.

Bakri, a 46-year-old father of six, was born in Syria and lived in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. When the Saudi government expelled him in 1985 he came to London.

Nicknamed “The Tottenham Ayatollah” after the area of north London in which he lives, he has infuriated many Britons with his firebrand speeches and refusal to condemn suicide bombings.

He founded the British branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which describes itself as a non-violent political party dedicated to creating an Islamic caliphate centered on the Middle East.

But he split from the group in 1996 and set up al Muhajiroun, which won notoriety in 2001 for celebrating the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon which killed nearly 3,000 people.

Bakri has Syrian and Lebanese citizenship and says he thinks the British government might deport him to one of those two countries in the wake of this month’s bombings.

“But I think that would be political suicide for the British government if they started to deport and imprison all extremists and radicals,” he said.

“Because if, God forbid, something happened again, they would have nobody left to blame.”

He condemned the killing of all innocent civilians but described attacks on British and U.S. troops in Muslim countries as “pro-life” and justified

You hear a lot of abortion clinic bombers say that too…

" a lot" of abortion clinic bombers?

Laughable, not to mention incomparable.