Livingstone leaps to defence of Bin Laden
Discussion
oyster said:
So you believe in summary execution without trial?
Every time a missile is used to target people, it is summary execution. There is no trial, no 'there side of the argument', and yet I doubt you have spoken up about that? As I said, Osama is not a representative of a government, or authority. He is a terrorist, and I have no issue with him being shot. His participation in terrorist activities is not in dispute, is it? Just for the record, HMG sanctioned assassination without any trial in recent history. This is what happened. In 1942 SOE with HMG approval sought to kill a close ally of Hitler, namely Reinhard Hiedrich, who was the Nazi chief in Chezechoslovakia. The attack was carried out by Czech agents, but the reprisals were severe. From then on no such methods, to the best of my knowledge were ever again authorised!
oyster said:
So you believe in summary execution without trial?
Believe? I'm not religious about it. I do think such things are for peacetime and I'm not convinced that applied here - would you have had the special forces team risk their own lives to protect his?oyster said:
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?
Minimum innocent deaths then. Seems like a good thing to me.The US was at war with him. Its that simple.
You always have to remember, there are 2 very extreme sides to the American psyche. On one hand they are very very attached the absolute nature of the law. America has always taken the law very seriously, hence the myth of the American lawman. The other side of the coin is the cowboy aspect, a man protect his own, etc. and the myth of gun toting trigger happy Yank.
Take those 2 charcter traits, make them Sovereign and then add a 3rd aspect which has characterised American foreign policy for the last 200 yrs...America looks after itself, first, foremost and last regardless of all else. It was a lesson they learn from Imperial British policy!
Yes it is a shame they didnt snatch him, but c'est la vie.
You always have to remember, there are 2 very extreme sides to the American psyche. On one hand they are very very attached the absolute nature of the law. America has always taken the law very seriously, hence the myth of the American lawman. The other side of the coin is the cowboy aspect, a man protect his own, etc. and the myth of gun toting trigger happy Yank.
Take those 2 charcter traits, make them Sovereign and then add a 3rd aspect which has characterised American foreign policy for the last 200 yrs...America looks after itself, first, foremost and last regardless of all else. It was a lesson they learn from Imperial British policy!
Yes it is a shame they didnt snatch him, but c'est la vie.
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.
Not really. He's courting their vote by being anti-US, not pro-terrorism. Galloway did similar in Bradford:“A Muslim is ready to go to the US Senate, as I did, and to their face call them murderers, liars, thieves and criminals. A Muslim is somebody who’s not afraid of earthly power but who fears only the Judgment Day. I’m ready for that, I’m working for that and it’s the only thing I fear.”
As davepoth said, the timing of this is very telling.
0000 said:
oyster said:
So you believe in summary execution without trial?
Believe? I'm not religious about it. I do think such things are for peacetime and I'm not convinced that applied here - would you have had the special forces team risk their own lives to protect his?oyster said:
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?
Minimum innocent deaths then. Seems like a good thing to me.However it would have been better to put him on trial, if we had the chance and if it had not caused any extra danger to US soldiers. Do you agree?
Doesn't it read better to say innocent deaths and casualties rather than collateral?
oyster said:
As it happens, OBL attempted to evade capture and possibly fired at the US soldiers so his death was of his own doing.
However it would have been better to put him on trial, if we had the chance and if it had not caused any extra danger to US soldiers. Do you agree?
Yes, in an ideal world, that would almost certainly have been a preferable outcome. I'm not sure it gave us any moral high ground with the way Hussein was treated though.However it would have been better to put him on trial, if we had the chance and if it had not caused any extra danger to US soldiers. Do you agree?
oyster said:
Doesn't it read better to say innocent deaths and casualties rather than collateral?
Doesn't particularly bother me personally, there's no fluffy wrapping around the term collateral in my head, but it is more succinct.0000 said:
oyster said:
As it happens, OBL attempted to evade capture and possibly fired at the US soldiers so his death was of his own doing.
However it would have been better to put him on trial, if we had the chance and if it had not caused any extra danger to US soldiers. Do you agree?
Yes, in an ideal world, that would almost certainly have been a preferable outcome. I'm not sure it gave us any moral high ground with the way Hussein was treated though.However it would have been better to put him on trial, if we had the chance and if it had not caused any extra danger to US soldiers. Do you agree?
oyster said:
Doesn't it read better to say innocent deaths and casualties rather than collateral?
Doesn't particularly bother me personally, there's no fluffy wrapping around the term collateral in my head, but it is more succinct.Victor McDade said:
+1
I'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.
Shortly after 9/11 graffiti supporting Bin Laden and the TT attacks started sprouting up on some of the less salubrious estates in Tower Hamlets. Could have just been kids but it was around. I'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.
martin84 said:
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.
Are 'honest working' Muslims the only ones who can vote? 2002 ICM UK Poll:1) From what you have seen and heard do you think the USA and its allies are justified or unjustified in blaming Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda group for the attacks in America on September 11th last year?
56% Unjustified, 17% Don't Know
So the majority don't seem to believe he's a terrorist in the first place.
2) From what you have seen and heard do you think the USA and its allies are justified in blaming Al Qaeda for other attacks like the one in Bali in October?
64% Unjustified, 20% Don't Know
3) Would you regard further attacks by Al Qaeda, or similar organisations, on the USA as justified or unjustified?
Justified 11%, Don't Know / Refused 10%
That's better, a minority, but don't you think it's significant?
4) Would you regard attacks by Al Qaeda or similar organisations, on Britain as justified or unjustified?
Justified 8%, Don't Know / Refused 7%
5) Some people have said that the attacks by Al Qaeda and associated organisations are justified on the grounds that muslims are being killed by America and its allies using American weapons. Do you agree or disagree?
Agree 44%, Don't Know / Refused 9%
Almost half polled support terrorism as we define it.
GFK UK Poll 2006
1) Do you believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy by America and Israel?
45% Yes, 35% Don't Know
So half the Muslims polled don't believe that 9/11 is anything extremism has to answer for.
2) To what extent do you agree that the July bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror?
11% Strongly Agree, 11% Agree, 17% Don't Know
Wow.
TheHeretic said:
Does anyone else find it worrying that there is enough Muslim votes out there to be won by talking of 'support' for Bin Laden, and that it could make a difference?
I guess it depends.Presumably people of that persuasion do not make up 50% of the population of London, so perhaps the more worrying thing is that people who are not of that persuasion are too apothetic/lazy/whatever to vote...
I'm more upset that he said this:
I think they should have moved Bin laden into Ken's spare bedroom, I'm sure they would get on like a house on fire. Then nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Red Ken said:
Responding to claims that he appeared tired, the 66-year-old added: “I have lost a stone in weight on this campaign. I went for my annual medical and the doctor almost had an orgasm because I am so fit.”
I'm sure.I think they should have moved Bin laden into Ken's spare bedroom, I'm sure they would get on like a house on fire. Then nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
colonel c said:
Interesting response. We should also remember that three other men and a woman were killed in the operation. funny how their lives appear to have had zero value.
You're equating media interest with intrinsic value. You're on a hiding to nothing when you approach it that way, because millions of people die every day with no media mention, and no concern is raised about their value.Two different concepts, really
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff