Livingstone leaps to defence of Bin Laden
Discussion
Ozzie Osmond said:
"Labour’s candidate for Mayor of London said western democratic values could only be demonstrated through open justice and a fair trial, even for figures such as the late al Qaeda leader."
Yup, can't disagree with that.
Funny then how at the same time Livingstone cozies upto an ideology whose legal doctrine see's a 5 year old boy as having more rights than an adult woman. Yup, can't disagree with that.
He needs to make a choice. Liberal western democracy, or Islam. Cant do both.
Blib said:
Not exactly comparable. But, the Israelis tracked Eichmann down, kidnapped him and put him on trial.
A good point. Was certainly the best thing to do; removed any chance of mythology from the far right arising around him.The same goes for the Serbian war criminals. I don't see how or why bin laden should've been different.
vonuber said:
Blib said:
Not exactly comparable. But, the Israelis tracked Eichmann down, kidnapped him and put him on trial.
A good point. Was certainly the best thing to do; removed any chance of mythology from the far right arising around him.The same goes for the Serbian war criminals. I don't see how or why bin laden should've been different.
If one does, then one is going to be faced with some frankly unpalatable situations, but hey; no one ever said it was going to be easy.
The odious prat is right - Bin Laden should have been brought to trial for his crimes.
But one has to question quite why he's decided to bring up a year old foreign policy issue a very short time before the election.
On the face of it, it doesn't say anything, but it could easily be read as suggesting a softer line towards the more devout ends of the Muslim faith. And that's deeply troubling, because if he's lying to those people (as I believe he is) it'll come back and bite him, and if he's telling the truth it's going to put London in a very difficult situation.
But one has to question quite why he's decided to bring up a year old foreign policy issue a very short time before the election.
On the face of it, it doesn't say anything, but it could easily be read as suggesting a softer line towards the more devout ends of the Muslim faith. And that's deeply troubling, because if he's lying to those people (as I believe he is) it'll come back and bite him, and if he's telling the truth it's going to put London in a very difficult situation.
I dispise Ken Livingstone (and I've voted Labour twice) but unfortunately he does have a valid point. He's not defending anything Bin Laden has done, despite the dispicable title of this thread clearly suggesting that to be the case, he's saying the Americans should've acted democratically and brought him to justice in a court of law. Essentially they killed an unarmed man. If they'd put him on trial he'd have happily confessed to his crimes anyway and would've almost certainly been sentenced to death, yet he was killed without due democratic process. Although the chances of any fair trial anywhere in the World would've been incredibly remote.
Not only is the title of this thread disgustingly misleading in an attempt to make Ken Livingstone out to be a supporter of terrorism - he's many things but not that - but certain posters assertion that he's courting the muslim vote with these comments is quite disgraceful. Do you think the majority of honest working muslims in London support the actions of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? If Ken was showing support for Bin Laden's acts the muslim population would be even more outraged than us.
The greatest part of true democracy is everybody is entitled to basic rights irrespective of what they've done. You seem to forget these are values which extremists like Bin Laden detest the Western World for. When we disobey our own protocols and make martyrs out of these people - they are winning. Its exactly what they want to see us do. The fact is though nobody will shed any tears for his execution and if we're honest, most of us would've done the same thing.
Not only is the title of this thread disgustingly misleading in an attempt to make Ken Livingstone out to be a supporter of terrorism - he's many things but not that - but certain posters assertion that he's courting the muslim vote with these comments is quite disgraceful. Do you think the majority of honest working muslims in London support the actions of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? If Ken was showing support for Bin Laden's acts the muslim population would be even more outraged than us.
The greatest part of true democracy is everybody is entitled to basic rights irrespective of what they've done. You seem to forget these are values which extremists like Bin Laden detest the Western World for. When we disobey our own protocols and make martyrs out of these people - they are winning. Its exactly what they want to see us do. The fact is though nobody will shed any tears for his execution and if we're honest, most of us would've done the same thing.
vonuber said:
Blib said:
Not exactly comparable. But, the Israelis tracked Eichmann down, kidnapped him and put him on trial.
A good point. Was certainly the best thing to do; removed any chance of mythology from the far right arising around him.The same goes for the Serbian war criminals. I don't see how or why bin laden should've been different.
Soovy said:
Bing.
Thank you Labour. Treason.
As i understand it (and i may well be wrong)Thank you Labour. Treason.
Liabore and prior government's have quietly removed the offence of treason from statute
to allow for the signing of various EU treaty's n charters which would otherwise
have been contrary to the treason act's (both of them) buy giving up sovereignty
to (a foreign power)the EU!
this> http://www.tpuc.org/node/35 < page lists it rather nicely.
(note i am not connected to or promoting that site it came up via google)
However it would seem that no one can be charged with treason in the uk
because the "UK" as we the mushrooms understand it no longer exists!
martin84 said:
Not only is the title of this thread disgustingly misleading in an attempt to make Ken Livingstone out to be a supporter of terrorism - he's many things but not that - but certain posters assertion that he's courting the muslim vote with these comments is quite disgraceful. Do you think the majority of honest working muslims in London support the actions of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? If Ken was showing support for Bin Laden's acts the muslim population would be even more outraged than us.
+1I've never met a single Muslim who has any sympathy towards OBL at all. Yes, many have strong views over Israel/war in Iraq/Afghanistan etc but no one has uttered a word in support of OBL. I think it's disingenuous to suggest that Bin Laden would even be an election issue for London's muslims.
Victor McDade said:
it's disingenuous to suggest that Bin Laden would even be an election issue for London's muslims.
Its not about OBL per se .. but more that Ken's statement shows he supports the rights of Muslims to a fair trial wherever..which *would* help get the muslim vote in London.He is playing to the gallery ....he wants to be seen as the "muslim's friend" in London and a "defender of democracy"
He is an odious hypocrite..
martin84 said:
I dispise Ken Livingstone (and I've voted Labour twice) but unfortunately he does have a valid point. He's not defending anything Bin Laden has done, despite the dispicable title of this thread clearly suggesting that to be the case, he's saying the Americans should've acted democratically and brought him to justice in a court of law. Essentially they killed an unarmed man. If they'd put him on trial he'd have happily confessed to his crimes anyway and would've almost certainly been sentenced to death, yet he was killed without due democratic process. Although the chances of any fair trial anywhere in the World would've been incredibly remote.
Well why didn't you say this before they Americans went in? You could've just been parachuted in and asked him to come nicely. 
Of course, I'm not quite sure how quickly the unarmed man would have used the AK-47 or the pistol he had with him, but I suspect you'd be left wishing he'd used it. It might not have been in the traditional sense, but he was very much at war with the US and you can't expect to be taken alive in those circumstances, surely?
0000 said:
Well why didn't you say this before they Americans went in? You could've just been parachuted in and asked him to come nicely.
Of course, I'm not quite sure how quickly the unarmed man would have used the AK-47 or the pistol he had with him, but I suspect you'd be left wishing he'd used it. It might not have been in the traditional sense, but he was very much at war with the US and you can't expect to be taken alive in those circumstances, surely?
Just out of interest, what do you think would have happened if Pakistan sent special forces into America without prior notice let alone consent, and killed an unarmed man, with the justification that if they'd gone through official channels nothing would have happened?Of course, I'm not quite sure how quickly the unarmed man would have used the AK-47 or the pistol he had with him, but I suspect you'd be left wishing he'd used it. It might not have been in the traditional sense, but he was very much at war with the US and you can't expect to be taken alive in those circumstances, surely?
Marf said:
Blib said:
Not exactly comparable. But, the Israelis tracked Eichmann down, kidnapped him and put him on trial.
More comparable would be how the Israelis tracked down and killed the Munich terrorists in an extrajudicial fashion.
Osama is no head of state. He is a terrorist. RYH64E said:
Just out of interest, what do you think would have happened if Pakistan sent special forces into America without prior notice let alone consent, and killed an unarmed man, with the justification that if they'd gone through official channels nothing would have happened?
Hugely speculative, but if a non-US citizen had done everything he could to destroy Pakistan, succeeded in killing hundreds and then thousands of Pakistanis in the name of his crusade, if the US had said it would support Pakistan in finding him and very publicly committed resources to it but every time Pakistan let the US know where he was he suddenly disappeared? If they then found out he was hiding in the states and they had a narrow window to get to him, his assault rifle and hand gun inside a secured compound down the road from a US military base...Well, they'd probably not have made it far over the border, but if they did I suspect there would have been a similar result - lots of shouting, some serious US embarrassment and not a lot else. What else could happen when both nations have nuclear weapons after all.
0000 said:
85Carrera said:
He is a scumbag, but what he says about bin laden being brought to trial is right, unfortunately.
How can we take the moral high ground against his type if we stoop to their level?
The US spent a fortune chasing him and found him in in a compound in Pakistan, who were suspected of knowingly harbouring him, down the road from a military base. An awful lot of people have died because of him, and then some.How can we take the moral high ground against his type if we stoop to their level?
I don't think it was immoral or stooping to their level to take the quickest route available to ensure he was there and put an end to him with minimum collateral.
And sorry but that word collateral is very grim. It's a pathetic, cowardly way of the US military referring to innocent people. I'm not even sure it's an English word is it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff