London mayor blames Middle East policy for bombings

[Tyler]

That was a few years ago, right?

Yeah, you know, the one dood who went places and conquered stuff

[s1m0n]

Did you ever hear the story of bill the conqueror's death?

~~

He grew to be a very big man--several hundred pounds. At the seige of something-or-other in France, his long-suffering horse stepped on a burning ember and shied, hurling the king into the pommel of his saddle.

He ruptured his gut in consequence and spent several painful days dying of peritonitis. ALmost as soon as it became clear that the king was gonna die, his knights scrambled back to their feifs to safeguard things in the sure-to-come chaos of the transition period. Many of his servants also looted the king's baggage and then split.

So after a few days, the king died. Because of the confusion, it took several days to arrange the funeral. In the heat, his ruptured gut began to fester. The king, already a fat man, started to to swell.

He got so big that at the end of the funeral mass, the lid wouldn't fit onto his coffin. Those officiating were impatient to get the funeral over with, so they tried pushing the lid into place. It didn't work. They pushed harder.

The king's body burst under the pressure and the ensuing stench cleared the church.

[TomB]

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articl ... =PA%20Feed

Of course, it's probably just a cheap tactic.

"There seem to be many people who, for reasons that are irrational, dislike the Anglo-Saxon way of life," he said.

Sounds familiar.

Yep, but don't get them confused with people who speak out against what their leaders are doing because they love their country, not hate it.

His comment on "shoot to protect" should insult all people living in Great Britian. It's callous and irrational- Hey, maybe he should be deported?

All the Best, Tom

[The Weekenders]

Did you ever hear the story of bill the conqueror's death?

.

(In Johnny Carson voice) I did not know that! Thanks for sharing, Si, though I am deferring the lunch hour for a bit!

[The Weekenders]

I like Tony Blair's style over Livingstones:

He said: "Let us expose the obscenity of these people saying it is concern for Iraq that drives them to terrorism. If it is concern for Iraq then why are they driving a car bomb into the middle of a group of children and killing them?

"We are not going to deal with this problem, with the roots as deep as they are, until we confront these people at every single level - and not just their methods but their ideas," he added.

In a 75 minute media conference Mr Blair said there was no justification for suicide bombing whether in Israel or in "Palestine, Iraq, in London, in Egypt, in Turkey, anywhere. In the United States of America, there is no justification for it. Period".

From the following story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4716505.stm

[s1m0n]

Blair's a far better actor that Red Ken, but he's a much less honest and less thoughtful man.

Livingstone talks up to his audience--actually trying to understand, and saying difficult things in consequence.

Blair's speech was classic demagoguery: using ad hominem, appeal to emotion, and the whole arsenal of rhetoric rather than thought or analysis. In other words, Blair talks down to his audience. Lviingstone thinks in public, but Tony only ever sells.

[The Weekenders]

I figured as much.

[jGilder]

I like Tony Blair's style over Livingstones:

Keep in mind that Blaire has complicity with Bush's lies that led to an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq that has resulted in the death and mutilation of thousands of people -- children being a significant number of them. He can't imagine driving a car bomb into the middle of a group of children, but he has no problem directing bombs from stealth planes or driving tanks into their villages and massacring them. He says there is no justification for it anywhere, but he has also supported Israel while they illegally occupy Palestinian territory and brutalize the people.

Livingston had the courage to address the root causes of terrorism, where as Blaire remains in a state of hypocritical denial.

[The Weekenders]

Keep in mind that Blaire has complicity with Bush's lies that led to an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq that has resulted in the death and mutilation of thousands of people -- children being a significant number of them. He can't imagine driving a car bomb into the middle of a group of children, but he has no problem directing bombs from stealth planes or driving tanks into their villages and massacring them. He says there is no justification for it anywhere, but he has also supported Israel while they illegally occupy Palestinian territory and brutalize the people.

Livingston had the courage to address the root causes of terrorism, where as Blaire remains in a state of hypocritical denial.

When did Brit or American tanks drive into villages to massacre children in Iraq? The only people massacreing children are insurgents.

I know its right out of the playbook, but somebody has to call you on it, once in a while. That has not been the intention (massive civilian death), ever, of the campaign to remove Saddam. But to read your words would imply that it was.

You have mentioned Fallujah repeatedly. The residents were told that the military would sweep the city as has been done in many other places. The military advantage was completely lost in order to SAVE lives and with limited success as the insurgents were able to escape, most likely.

You are playing fast and loose with YOUR demonizing of Bush and Blair. And, like those you attack, you are repeating your lies over and over, presumably in hopes that people will gradually believe it.

This isn't Vietnam, WW2 or Stalingrad and I wish you would just once stop parroting the Red-style rhetoric long enough to realize it....

During the initial invasion, its true that Stealth bombers were used when they thought they had legitimate targets of Saddam, his sons or his leadership. There were sad mistakes. But it was never the intent to kill innocents and as long as you spew this crap, I will challenge it. I know that you think everyone else is duped except you and your associates, but somewhere in there is some truth and the endless rhetorical flourishes only obfuscate it, rather than illuminate it.

[jGilder]

When did Brit or American tanks drive into villages to massacre children in Iraq? The only people massacreing children are insurgents.

I know its right out of the playbook, but somebody has to call you on it, once in a while. That has not been the intention (massive civilian death), ever, of the campaign to remove Saddam. But to read your words would imply that it was.

Enders, you haven't been paying very close attention I guess. A senior American officer told New York Times that the US forces besieging the predominantly Sunni Muslim Iraqi city of Fallujah could turn it into “a killing field in a couple of days”. That statement is filled with deadly intent and is only one of the more chilling indications that the Bush administration had ordered the military to, in effect, commit a massacre in a city of 300,000 making it an example of what will happen in other areas of Iraq if the uprising against the US occupation continued.

The Los Angeles Times reported on April 17 of that year: “Marine sniper teams are spread in and around the city, working night and day, using powerful scopes, thermal imaging equipment and specially modified bolt-action rifles that allow them to identify and target armed militants from 800 yards away... The Marines believe their snipers have killed hundreds of insurgents.” 3,500 marines had massed around Fallujah, backed by logistical support, squadrons of tanks and armored fighting vehicles, helicopter gun-ships and ground artillery. The US Air Force is flying at least 50 combat missions each day over the city and western Iraq.

You have mentioned Fallujah repeatedly. The residents were told that the military would sweep the city as has been done in many other places. The military advantage was completely lost in order to SAVE lives and with limited success as the insurgents were able to escape, most likely.

General James Conway, the commander of the marines preparing to attack the city declared: “If the situation comes to it, we will demand that noncombatants leave the city... We’d like the good people of Fallujah, who see that their country has a future, to separate themselves from those who have nothing to live for and are here to die fighting the infidels.” By implication, those who remain and are killed in the indiscriminate US attacks that follow, have only themselves to blame. I don't know how they expected 300,000 people to evacuate their city, but the military carried out their bloodbath regardless. The bloody and vicious campaign in Fallujah concluded with the local football stadium being turned into a mass grave for over 600 civilians, not "insurgents." I don't know what your definition of a massacre is, but that fits mine. The body count of over 100,000 people killed as a result of that war can't all be credited to the resistance -- the resistance isn’t even capable of that much death. The US and British military are responsible for the vast majority of those casualties. I don’t know how you define it, but that clearly spells massacre to me, especially when you consider that the war was preconceived and waged on lies.

You are playing fast and loose with YOUR demonizing of Bush and Blair. And, like those you attack, you are repeating your lies over and over, presumably in hopes that people will gradually believe it. I will challenge it. I know that you think everyone else is duped except you and your associates, but somewhere in there is some truth and the endless rhetorical flourishes only obfuscate it, rather than illuminate it.

I only wish they were lies… but sadly, they aren’t. For you to indicate they are only demonstrates your ignorance of the facts..

[missy]

jGilder wrote:
" The US and British military are responsible for the vast majority of those casualties."

I hope you don't mean the "rank and file" military in the above statement.

[jGilder]

jGilder wrote:
" The US and British military are responsible for the vast majority of those casualties."

I hope you don't mean the "rank and file" military in the above statement.

When I say "military" I'm referring to the ones giving the orders. I've made it clear many times that the soldiers are also victims of the Bush/Blaire policy in Iraq.

[GaryKelly]

The Mayor of London will say (and do) *anything* to prevent Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" flowing through the streets into the Thames. So will the Prime Minister.

It's amazing how some people will clutch at Ken Livingstone's words with such apparent desperation to justify their anti- Bush/Blair/Iraq war opinions.

Go back to the first post and read his words. Really read them. Thoughtful and intelligent? A clear and precise analysis? Telling it like it is, difficult truths in the face of world opinion?

Not in the slightest. It's a palliative. He might just as well have continued his "If only..." sop by going on to say "If only there hadn't been a first world war, if only some anarchist hadn't assassinated the Archduke Ferdinand, if only Henry V had gone on to annex all of Europe after sticking it to the French... and on and on back in time, I suspect none of this might have happened." He stopped in the time-line for a reason, and it's got nothing to do with any amazing analytical abilities on his behalf.

Those who choose to credit Ken Livingstone with astonishing political acumen on the basis of this one soundbite do so either with little or no political acumen themselves, no knowledge of Mr Livingstone's flawed and chequered past, or have an agenda of their own which a sentence or two from London's civic leader would on the face of it seem to support. And the likelihood is they don't live in the UK either.

[s1m0n]

Name a chequer or flaw from Ken Livingstone's past; one that's more anti-democratic than, say, the poll tax. Or more dishonest and disastrous than the Iraq war. Try to avoid the "loony-left" accusations made up by Maggie Thatcher's propagandists.

[SteveShaw]

I'm with Jack completely on all this (he may be surprised, going off my chequered history on A.N.Other forum! ). What's more, let's not forget the appalling loss of innocent life in Iraq which was a direct result of the UN sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War: http://zmag.org/Zmag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm
Just a bit of collateral damage I suppose. Madeline Albright thought so.

Steve