posted July 20, 2005 12:16 PM            

So, why is it always the radical leftists who give cover for and attempt to justify the wholly unjustifiable acts of terrorists...and...Why is this guy still walking around?

Leftists at large and especially the radical leftist press can't even bring themselves to a point where they call terrorists...well, ummm terrorists. Nor can they bring themselves to call terrorism... well, ummm, terrorism. Freedom fighters...yes. Insurgents...yes. Foreign fighters...yes. Terrorists...no....and without terrorists, there can be no terrorism.

You see, it's like this...and radical leftists buy into this; you're either are a Muslim or you're an infidel. If you're an infidel, Muslims can kill you, kill your children, kill your family, friends or anyone who is an infidel...without regard as to whether they're killing civilians or not...and that's not terrorism...because in the radical Islamic Fundamentalist Muslim world, there is no distinction made for civilians...all are fair game.

So, the question is worth repeating. Why is this terrorist and terrorism apologist and enabling mayor of London still walking around?

London mayor says West fuelled Islamic radicalism

LONDON, July 20 (Reuters) - 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 on Wednesday.

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. But he has revived his reputation for courting controversy in recent days.

Asked on Wednesday 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 (U.S. detention camp) Guantanamo Bay, and they just think that there isn't a just foreign policy," he said.

Police say they believe there is a clear link between bin Laden's al Qaeda network and the four British Muslims who blew up three underground trains and a double-decker bus on July 7.

"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," Livingstone said.

"I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s ... the Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians to drive them out of Afghanistan.

"They didn't give any thought to the fact that once he'd done that, he might turn on his creators," he told BBC radio.

ANGER OVER IRAQ

Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has insisted the bombings have no link to its foreign policy, particularly its decision to invade Iraq alongside the United States.

But an opinion poll this week showed two-thirds of Britons see a connection between the Iraq war and the bombings. A top think tank and a leaked intelligence memo have also suggested the war has made Britain more of a target for terrorists.

That did not stop the right-wing Daily Telegraph castigating Livingstone, a maverick member of Blair's Labour party who was celebrating London's selection as host of the 2012 Olympics just hours before the bombers struck.

Wednesday's edition of the paper featured a picture of the mayor between photographs of two radical Muslim clerics under the headline: "The men who blame Britain".

Livingstone has made clear he condemns all killing, including suicide bombing. But is also a long-standing critic of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians.

"If you have been under foreign occupation, and denied the right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, often denied the right to work, for three generations, I suspect if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves," he said on Wednesday.

Israel's ambassador to London Zvi Heifetz accused the mayor of expressing sympathy for Palestinian militants.

"It is outrageous that the same mayor who rightfully condemned the suicide bombing in London as `perverted faith', defends those who, under the same extremist banner, kill Israelis," he said in a statement.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005072008510002145444 &dt=20050720085100&w=RTR&coview=

posted July 20, 2005 12:27 PM            

Critics of Tony Blair's policy in Iraq and Afghanistan claimed yesterday that Britain must share some of the responsibility for the Underground and bus bombings in London.

While moderate Muslim leaders agreed to try to dissuade disaffected youths from turning to terrorism, radical clerics blamed the Government - and even the public for re-electing Mr Blair - for making the country a target.

Omar Bakri Mohammed: 'I blame the Government'
Mr Blair was forced on the defensive by the leaking of a top secret intelligence report saying that events in Iraq were fuelling "terrorist-related activity" in Britain, while an opinion poll found that two thirds of Britons thought there was a link between the London bombs and the Iraq war.

Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, suggested that decades of western intervention in the Middle East and the Iraq war could have influenced the bombers.

"I suspect the real problem was that we funded these people as long as they were killing Russians. We gave no thought to the fact that when they stopped killing Russians they might start killing us."

The suggestions that the Government and even the voters must share some of the blame angered Mr Blair and overshadowed talks at No 10 between representatives of the Muslim community and leaders of the main parties.

After what were described as "robust and frank" discussions, Muslim leaders agreed to set up a task force to confront radical clerics who were preaching extremism.

Ken Livingstone: 'We funded these people'
Mr Blair told them it was time to defeat "this evil ideology" while Michael Howard, the Tory leader, said that Muslim leaders had to prevent "the merchants of evil" from influencing young people in their communities. But the Muslim leaders made clear their concern that the Iraq war could have played a part in radicalising young Muslims.

After the talks, Imam Ibrahim Mogra said that, as Muslims, they felt the "pain and suffering of our brothers and sisters around the globe every day". The war had been a "successful recruitment sergeant for people who wish to preach hatred for our country and our Government".

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, condemned the bombings as an "act of criminality" but said the leaders had made clear that Mr Blair could not "simply shun the issue of foreign policy".

Radical Muslims who did not take part in the talks said they would not be silenced by warnings of new legislation making it a crime to glorify or condone terrorism.

Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said that support for America over Afghanistan and Iraq and the re-election of Mr Blair had all contributed to the attacks.

Anjem Choudary: 'The real terrorists are the police'
"I blame the British Government, the British public and the Muslim community in the UK because they failed to make the extra effort to put an end to the cycle of bloodshed which started before 9/11 and on July 7 was devastating for everybody," he told the Evening Standard.

Anjem Choudary, the British leader of the militant Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, said that Muslim leaders should not meet Mr Blair for talks while Muslims were being "murdered" in Iraq.

Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, he declined to condemn the London bombings, which killed 56 people, and said there was "a very real possibility" of a repetition.

"The British Government wants to show that they are on the side of justice and of truth, whereas in reality the real terrorists are the British regime, and even the British police, who have tried to divide the Muslim community into moderates and extremists, whereas this classification doesn't exist in Islam."

Mr Blair used a press conference with Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, at No 10 for separate talks, to dismiss the suggestions that Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan had provoked the attacks.

"Of course these terrorists will use Iraq as an excuse," he said. "But let's be clear: if it wasn't that, it would be something else and nothing, but nothing, justifies what they are doing.

posted July 20, 2005 01:08 PM            

'Terrorism'? Who's to say?: Informed sources
National Post
July 19, 2005

What follows is a memo distributed to CBC staff describing the CBC policy on use of the word 'terrorism.'

'Terrorist' and 'terrorism': Exercise extreme caution before using either word.

Avoid labelling any specific bombing or other assault as a "terrorist act" unless it's attributed (in a TV or Radio clip, or in a direct quote on the Web). For instance, we should refer to the deadly blast at that nightclub in Bali in October 2002 as an "attack," not as a "terrorist attack." The same applies to the Madrid train attacks in March 2004, the London bombings in July 2005 and the attacks against the United States in 2001, which the CBC prefers to call "the Sept. 11 attacks" or some similar expression. (The BBC, Reuters and many others follow similar policies.)

Terrorism generally implies attacks against unarmed civilians for political, religious or some other ideological reason. But it's a highly controversial term that can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict.

By restricting ourselves to neutral language, we aren't faced with the problem of calling one incident a "terrorist act" (e.g., the destruction of the World Trade Center) while classifying another as, say, a mere "bombing" (e.g., the destruction of a crowded shopping mall in the Middle East).

Use specific descriptions. Instead of reaching for a label ("terrorist" or "terrorism") when news breaks, try describing what happened.

For example, "A suicide bomber blew up a bus full of unarmed civilians early Monday, killing at least two dozen people." The details of these tragedies give our audience the information they need to form their own conclusions about what type of attack it was.

Rather than calling assailants "terrorists," we can refer to them as bombers, hijackers, gunmen (if we're sure no women were in the group), militants, extremists, attackers or some other appropriate noun.

It's not practical to draft a list of all contexts in which the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" are appropriate in news stories. For instance, we might write that Canada and other countries have passed "anti-terrorism" legislation, or that intelligence agencies have lists of groups that they consider "terrorist" organizations, or that the U.S. government has issued another warning about an increased risk of "terrorist attacks" in the next few weeks, or that certain people have been charged with acts of "terrorism." Use common sense.

The guiding principle should be that we don't judge specific acts as "terrorism" or people as "terrorists." Such labels must be attributed.

posted July 20, 2005 04:23 PM            

I also love how you throw any viewpoint that is different to yours into "radical liberalism." I bet its easy for your puny brain to just put everything in the same category, when really there are many shades of grey. Much like the nazi party, you cannot see any wrongdoing in your faithful leader. Your blind and zealous following of the status quo and the liberal media are what lead to horrid events like genocide.

Maybe some day you'll pull your head out of your ass and try to see politics from a more elevated vantage point. I can see both sides of the equation, and from my high view I can see how close minded and pathetic your reasoning is. Don't take this to mean I'm in support of terrorists. It's just obvious, and common sense, that it alwasy takes two to tango. Even a radical british commy pinko can see this. Because you are an ignorant and stupid southerner, you will never be able to see this.

posted July 20, 2005 05:34 PM            

"That woman would NOT have been raped had she not been so pretty or sexy" (Obviously, it is HER fault for looking as she does that the guy just HAD to rape her).

"The family would NOT have been robbed it they hadn't been so damn successful and had so many nice things in their house" (In other words, they MUST have been showing off and those less fortunate had not other choice than to rob them).

"That person would NOT have been murdered if they had just given the assailant what they wanted - i.e. the car keys, money...." (Obviously if they weren't at that place at that time, then they would have lived).

So, we say that the terrorist would NEVER have tried to kills, maim or bomb any of the infidels had it NOT been for Western Civilization or the US getting rid of a dirt bag like Saddam Hmmm... now that is sound logic.

posted July 20, 2005 06:15 PM              

Besides the truth that we are the ones who employ them when we are "terrified" by their actions,,because without scaring and feeding off of our terror- what would a terrorist realy be or have ?

No the western world cant be blamed for all of theri actions,, thats insane to sugest.

but,,, we certainly dont seem to be very effective at not encouraging more terrorism, and terrorist enlistments.

Few are gona see my point in this... but in trying to put my self in the shoes of a extremist millitant, or terrorist,, and figuring out what it would take to make me dedicate my life to that... I came acrost a couple interview storys [from very independant of left or right viewed magazines] with peaepl taking tours and trips though countrys like Iraq, Iran, Libya, Pallistien, Isreal.

One of the Pallistien storys sticks out the most in my mind now. It was an interview with a 13 year old boy, and his 7 year old sister. The musician interviewing asked them why they are crying, and staying in the same spot in the road for almost a weak... The boy went into detail about how Israly millitary had busted thourhg their door a few days ago, stating that the house had 10 minuits to pack up and leave, becasue there is a wall for Israli security thats gona be built through theri home in a couple hours. This was done to the enitre block and neighboorhood. When the Mother tried to ask them to calm down, and stop making a mess they threw her to the floor, the Father tired to pick her up, he was kicked down as well,,older brother tried to defend Father- shot to death, rite in the face...Im sure you all can figure out what was spoken in hte rest of the interview from this....It was a fammly massacer.

This little boy and girl where prob sitting there crying,,, trying to figure out what all of that was about. Find answers to questions like "why God". Later on in a few years when somebody finaly takes them into their home,, the boy and girl will probalby learn some of the pollitics and ongoing strugles , and territiorial ******* contests that started theri whole dismay and ordeal. When they learn little facts like those crapy m-16's the Israly soldiers shot his fammly with where all funded by the US of A,, they may even hold it against our country as well.

If he and she dont find something to appease theri hearts, and to find comfort in,,, thier hearts may blacken. Distress may cause them to beceom a little demented and corrupted. They may start to listen to the terrorist and millitant recruters when things seem desperate and lost enough... These terrorist recruters will seem to the boy and girl like the only ones who have cared,,, since their parrents where obliterated that is.

posted July 20, 2005 08:47 PM            

You go on BlueRoamer to suggest the US isn't "flawless"...as though the actions of the US and actions of murderous radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorists strike some moral equivalence. Bullsh*t BlueRoamer, putting women's panties on terrorists heads, keeping them up past their bedtime, playing music for them that Americans spend millions of dollars to buy isn't the moral equivalent of beheading civilians or setting off bombs in subways, crowded streets or buses....just to name a few things that are not morally equivalant

Moving right along, you suggest I'm talking about liberalism...but I didn't mention liberals...which you most certainly are not, or which the apologists for and enablers of terrorists and terrorism most certainly are not either. Nor did I mention liberalism. You managed to sneak the Nazi party into your bullsh*t argument, apparently in gross ignorance of the fact the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers Party. You sure you're playing with a full deck BlueRoamer?

posted July 20, 2005 11:27 PM            

No where in BR's post is there a terrorist apologist. If any post in here is being a terrorist apologist it would be MoM's, who is trying to convey how everything is interconnected, and how perception can move a person to terrorism.

The tone of BR's post is arrogant, but no more so than the tone you take in most of your posts.

The point of BR's post is to say that you don't ever seem to want to look at Western action in the Middle East. You seem to want to insist that terrorists are attacking without provocation or reason. To a certain degree this is true, but not completely. You do have to look into the motivation of terrorists. Even the people you support look into the motivations of terrorists. Why can't you?

------------------------------------

What's interesting here, kind of in relation to Pidaua's point is this notion of innocence.

According to Jwhop, it's every American's duty to have defeating terrorism as a goal. If every American DID take defeating terrorism as a personal goal then there really wouldn't be any innocent people save maybe those under 18, because we could all be considered warriors for America's cause.

What makes American's innocent is that most Americans don't have any direct interaction with the Middle East. For most of us our only interaction with the Middle East is through our government.

posted July 20, 2005 11:49 PM            

Second, do you know the meaning of the word...goal? Are you suggesting it is not in the interests of every American to defeat terrorism..terrorism aimed at the United States and our Western allies? That has to be one of the most asinine comments you've made.

As for despotism Acoustic, America is an idealist nation...from it's inception. Of course the goal of Americans would be the defeat of despotic regimes around the world, despotic regimes which starve, torture and murder their own citizens.

No one said anything about every American picking up a gun and killing terrorists and despots or using military power to overthrow all despots around the world.

posted July 21, 2005 01:22 AM            

quote:

---

You sound neutral to the subject of terrorists and terrorism Acoustic. Trust me Acoustic, terrorists aren't neutral in their feelings about you...as you will find out if they ever get a chance to kill you.

---

Right they will, because they perceive us as one gang of like-minded individuals who whole-heartedly support everything our government does.

We have to take away their motivation. A lot of that can be done through military action and by taking away assets.

posted July 21, 2005 10:17 AM            

Please list the Christian principles you believe should be applied by the US towards the people of the Middle East.

Is your Christian talk code for withdrawing support for the existence of the nation of Israel?

You do realize you are on shaky ground here, don't you Acoustic? There are many here who would tell you America is not and never was a Christian nation and was not founded by Christians nor on Christian principles.

posted July 21, 2005 12:12 PM              

Nor am I sure if we should totaly stop supporting them.. But I would like to see us stop funding them. Espeicaly the amounts of cash we throw every year to Isreal.

posted July 21, 2005 12:29 PM              

quote:

---

Use specific descriptions. Instead of reaching for a label ("terrorist" or "terrorism") when news breaks, try describing what happened.

---

quote:

---

Because you are an ignorant and stupid southerner, you will never be able to see this.

---

quote:

---

Please list the Christian principles you believe should be applied by the US towards the people of the Middle East.

---

quote:

---

As for despotism Acoustic, America is an idealist nation...from it's inception.

---

jwhop, you know perfectly well our government isn't flawless and never has been, and likely never will be. And yet, if anyone takes issue with that you want to pull out your handy radical leftest label and slap it on them. One of those "ideals" you spoke of was the right to question and/or disagree with government. That does not make one a leftest or a radical. And, to say that the US has had no part to play in helping to create the mess that is the middle east is just absurd. Surely you know better than that!

posted July 21, 2005 11:12 PM            

I think everything has been pretty well answered without me. No shaky ground here.

I'd add integrity to SaturnChild's list of Christian values. We can't have another Abu Graib, and in good faith we ought to have allow the UN to inspect conditions at Guantanamo if they felt the need to. Looking as if we have something to hide is never good.

To add to this we ought to reconstruct Iraq quickly and with noticable flourish if possible. Ideally we should make Iraq the envy of the area, so they can point to the great and noble Americans. When a native speaks poorly of the U.S. other natives should be able to point to all of the positive things we've done.

posted July 22, 2005 09:43 AM              

quote:

---

To add to this we ought to reconstruct Iraq quickly and with noticable flourish if possible. Ideally we should make Iraq the envy of the area, so they can point to the great and noble Americans. When a native speaks poorly of the U.S. other natives should be able to point to all of the positive things we've done.

---

quote:

---

We need to be transparently good. This is what I mean by taking away the motivation. If we are notably and honestly good it will be noticed, and it will help our cause for our own security as well as world security.

---

I could kiss you for this one AG.

This is not empty-headed idealism. This is practical. Did we learn nothing from Germany and Japan? Bonus points for anyone who remembers the Marshall Plan.

"notably and honestly good", "with noticable flourish", "we need to be transparently good" *sniffle* my moon in saggie could just cry