Skip to main content

View Diary: Ken Livingstone's statement on the attacks in London (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bullshit (none)
    We will never be safe if we keep believing lies:

    But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

    Translation: "They hate our freedom." Bullshit.

    What they want is for us to get the hell out of the middle east, stop propping up dictatorial regimes, and stop propping up Isreal.

    We need to keep our eye on the ball here. If Bush had kept his eye on al qaeda in Afghanistan we might not be having this conversation (and many others) now.

    What you dare to Dream, dare to Analyze

    by MarkInSanFran on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 06:51:05 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  He isn't George Bush (none)
      and Al Qaeda does want to establish a caliphate and provoke a war with America.  They are fundamentalists beyond a doubt, and Ken is against both Christian and Muslim ones.   I think we should get out of their too, but let's not blind ourselves to the fact that these people are fundies.  Also you realize Britain is getting out of Iraq now, so why the fuck did Al Qaeda strike them at this point?

      Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

      by NoAlternative on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 06:54:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes they would like a world-wide caliphate (none)
        Just as Saddam "craved" nucular weapons (one of Bush's series of excuses for Iraq). But I believe you know as well as I do that any grand desires for world domination are not why al qaeda did this, and not why they did 9/11. They did those things for the reasons that I gave above.

        As for why they hit London, I think it is plausible that the G8 meeting elsewhere in the UK was probably the cause of the timing. As far as Britain pulling out of Iraq, somehow I doubt that our (and Blair's) words carry much weight these days.

        What you dare to Dream, dare to Analyze

        by MarkInSanFran on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 07:08:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So you sound like Bush in linking Al Qaeda and (none)
          Saddam.  They aren't linked in any way.

          I don't see any motivation for Al Qaeda's attacks beyond fundamentalist ones sorry!

          Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

          by NoAlternative on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 07:15:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course there is no link between (none)
            Sadaam and al qaeda! I was simply making an analogy. Sorry about the nuance.

            As for al qaeda's motivation for the attacks, if you see fundamentalism as the only one then you have fallen completely under the spell of Bush et al.

            "They hate our freedom" => Our foreign policy choices are irrelevant. Our only option is to attack them.

            "War against terrorism" => Well, if it's a war then we must militarily attack an arab country.

            Works nicely, doesn't it?

            What you dare to Dream, dare to Analyze

            by MarkInSanFran on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:19:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  They just need a mother's love (/snark) (none)
      Give me a break buddy. They DO hate our freedoms. They HATE to see women as equals with men. They HATE to see gay marriage. They HATE any code of law not based on Islamic law. I don´t buy the argument that as soon as we leave the Middle East they will leave us alone. Our occupation of the Middle East is just icing on the cake for them.

      If you don´t believe me, why don´t you go and try reasoning with them. Tell them you understand their plight, that you want america out of the Middle East as well. And you would see how in about a minute your neck would be meeting their machete, and you could kiss your appeasment filled head goodbye.

      We are not going to leave the Middle East ever. It would be a strategic error. Iraq was/is a mistake. But we will be in the Middle East until we eradicate Al Qaeda and for many, many years after.

      I don not claim the US is perfect in its current form, but it is a whole hell of alot better than the option they present.

      •  Doubt if they'd give two pins (none)
        what Americans did or didn't do, if you minded your own business and just did it in America. Canadians are a lot freer than Americans, and nobody hates us (except, ok, a few of our singers).

        As for al Qaeda, reactions like yours are exactly what they want. They're playing you for a fool. They don't want you to notice that pursuing the illusory, unachievable goal of "eradicating" al Qaeda with military force, puts the US exactly where they want it to be: stuck in the quicksand.

        You could have eradicated al Qaeda, at one point, with international police methods and worldwide cooperation. But the US just spit on any methods that might have worked, calling them "appeasement" -- and went for a big macho military fireworks show that has so far killed fifty or a hundred thousand non-terrorists, many of them under 5 years old.

        Now it's too late for police methods; thanks to GWB's pigheaded warmongering, al Qaeda is going to be a fact of life around the world for at least a generation.

        Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

        by Canadian Reader on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 08:40:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Extremists want war. (none)
      This attack happened because Blair was going to draw down British forces in Iraq. That doesn't fit the al Qaeda plan at all, at all. Why, if the British could get away with leaving, next thing you know, the US might even think about withdrawing its troops too, and then where would al Qaeda be? Fighting Iraqis who wanted them to leave the country, too, that's where. No glory in that.

      They want the war to continue, and escalate.

      Terrorists profit -- financially, and with increased personal power and prestige -- when governments react to their attacks with military force. The last thing terrorists would ever want is for peace to be considered as an option.

      This isn't a guess. It's a pattern you can see operating, quite predictably, wherever terrorists have a foothold. Cease-fire being considered? Peace talks under way? Moderates starting to notice that they outnumber the extremists? That's always the cue for a rash of vicious bombings. This ties the hands of any politicians working for peace, because, well, "you can't let the terrorists win!"

      Which is precisely the reaction the bombs are intended to elicit.

      Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

      by Canadian Reader on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 07:55:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly which is why Livingston is most (none)
        certainly not George Bush.  This is also why the Israeli right attacks him as is well documented in this thread.  We have three fundamentalisms in two camps desperately trying to draw liberal society into their archaic pissing contest.

        Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

        by NoAlternative on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 08:23:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site