Next time London mayor Ken Livingston professes to speak for London’s outrage at the 7/7 attack, perhaps his long standing support for Islamic extremists (not to mention Irish terrorists) needs to be thrown back at him. Moreover those who continue to support him must not be allowed to avoid these issues either and if the Labour party wants Red Ken ‘back in the fold’, they must be made to pay a suitable political price.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
29 comments to Ken Livingston, hypocrite |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
“Livingstone has in the past labeled Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi a “man of peace” and a “moderate,” despite the fact that Al-Qaradawi has supported suicide bombings and the targeting of American allies.
Livingstone welcomed Al-Qaradawi to London’s City Hall last year as an honored guest, and the mayor appeared in a video shown at a solidarity conference for the sheikh on Feb. 17 of this year in Doha, Qatar. Livingstone has publicly defended the sheikh against critics in the media and various grassroots organizations. ”
Not much else needs to be said about this slimeball.
Just been reading some of his fatwas. Amongst other eye-openers it seems Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is quite relaxed about female circumcision. But – steady now – don’t over-react. He only supports it when the barest tip of the clitoris is removed. So that’s okay then.
His various fatwas can be found at Islam Online. They make scary reading…
GM
GM, I find it disgusting when people like Blair and Red Ken, who do their best to destroy traditional Brit values, promptly turn round and call on those values when politically expedient.
It was equally ironic hearing Livingstone singing the praises of London as a city where people come to live in freedom to pursue their lives as they wish.
Presumably, in the heat of the moment and awash with emotion, he simply forgot to add: ‘provided it’s in a way I approve of.’
The man’s inconsistencies (as Peter Tatchell has repeatedly pointed out vis a vis gay issues) are quite monstrous.
He is just a despicable, cynical opportunist.
It is an incredible thing, Keith, that they do it without so much as a flinch. It makes me wonder… Are they such artful liars that they can say such things and, in the moment of saying them, actually believe them?
Or do they truly not realise just how they are destroying England and replacing it with something alien?
I doubt they know themselves….
GM
Livingstone is,of course ,the man who wants to get us out of our cars and onto the tube.
Were any travelling by bus or Tube because of the congestion charge?
They lie because they have narcissistic personalities,if Livingstone had a brain he would be dangerous.
Gary Monro
Could you state exactly where you found that.
Well I’ve just read a bunch of them and didn’t find anything I would call scary. Please give some examples along with where they can be found.
I would imagine that if Livingstone had come out in favour of the terrorists then all his hard
bribery and corruptionwork in securing the Olympics for London could have been very easily reversed. Given that it was only a day after London had won the bid, I dare say it wouldn’t have taken much for the IOC to take it off London and give it to Paris instead.Galloway and Livingstone – what on earth did we wrong do to deserve such two unspeakable individuals?
On the 7th and 8th the London congestion charge was not in operation. London congestion charging is one of Ken’s great achievements. This begs some questions;
Was it felt by TFL that the congestion charge was exposing people to dangers they would not otherwise be exposed to? It is obvious that there is less danger from terrorism where the public transport system is a target if people are not using it.
If the above was acknowledged by TFL then why aren’t they discontinuing the congestion charge policy?
Julian Taylor – Three. Blair.
If I were a Londoner, I would try to bring a class action to get the Olympics pulled from the city, all things considered. By having this trashy dog and pony show in London and bringing countless tens of thousands of extra people into the city, they are elevating London as a desirable target and endangering the lives of the legitimate residents.
Despite the superb performanc of the emergency services – and there isn’t enough praise in the world for them – this devastation was on a normal London day. What can be done with tens of thousands of extra people plus the worldwide focus on the Olympics while they’re happening doesn’t bear thinking about. It is insanity to go ahead.
Actually, it was insanity to bid and was done to feed the egos of two men: Livingstone and Blair.
If they don’t want this to be the last Olympics, the Olympic committee should withdraw its decision now.
Remember Munich.
And that was then. Before the terrorists really hit their stride and were getting funding, training, weaponry, materiel and other support from the Saudis.
Verity makes a good point but I don’t think it will get much of a hearing. The games now come under the heading of “London as usual” so it is unthinkable to cancel them.
Blair was quick to say that the timing of the bombs was coincident with the start of the G8 conference, as if everything revolves around him. My first thought was that it came on the very next day after the IOC decision to award the games to Blair and Livingstone.
I don’t see any advantage to the bombers in the first case. They may have disrupted a meeting but that is all they had to gain from that. Whereas if there is any significance connected with the IOC decision then they have a lot more to gain. The security costs for 2012 will now go out the roof and there will be no way of hiding them. And the security measures will be no match for a dedicated terrorist.
Knowing that London was bound to have a terrorist attack should perhaps have disqualified it as a candidate for the games. Then again perhaps not. We cannot plan our futures around the treat of terrorism.
Oops Freudian slip:-) That last line should the the “threat of terrorism” and not the “treat of terrorism”.
Well, of course, everyone has a theory and mine is that they had been targetting London for three or four years and they saw their window of opportunity when they learned that half the Met was going up to Scotland to protect a few very self-important men instead of the millions of Londoners who pay their taxes to be protected.
They knew that London would be less able to respond swiftly (they didn’t know that police from counties surrounding London had been trained and rehearsed in coping with a terrorist attack and could be brought in fast). It was opportunistic, that is all.
I don’t think it had anything to do with the Olympics, because they would have had to make plans to bomb three very different cities – London, Paris, New York – on short notice, depending on which bid was successful, and I’m not sure they stretch to that. The bombing took place within a day of the announcement; not much planning time for something so complex. I don’t think it had anything to do with the Olympic decision (That will come later.) They knew that half the police force would be away, that’s all.
Verity, Keith
Please do not categorise Tony Blair with Galloway and Livingstone. The latter two actively court the support of homophobes, misogynists, anti-semitics and murderers. Whatever else you may think of Blair, he doesn’t.
Gary – thanks for the link to Islam Online. I found it fascinating reading, mostly for its categorical denounciation of violence toward non-Muslims.
Pommygranate – Re Blair – he does nothing on principle. He goes where the votes and glory are. So do Livingstone and Galloway. Different constituencies is all.
And yet they still get into power time after time again… You’d think people know better than to vote for them.
TWG
Verity you may well be right. I wasn’t putting my thoughts forward as a definitive theory but I am sure the purpose of the bombings wasn’t to disrupt G8 as Phoney said it was.
The idea of it coinciding with G8 for security reasons makes some sense but I don’t think these kinds of actions require that much planning. I don’t get the complexity of it at all. You need some knowledge and materials to make bombs. Once you have those it is merely a question of placing them where you want them. There were probably at least 4 people involved but not necessarily any more than that. Leaving a time detonated device in a bag or briefcase on the floor of a train or bus in the rush hour would not be difficult and it is unlikely to be noticed very quickly. They could have gotten off the trains or bus at the stop before the detonation or even several stops before.
Bernie says: They could have gotten off the trains or bus at the stop before the detonation or even several stops before
Why would they want to do that? Miss out on an opportunity to blow themselves to bits for Allah and get going on those 72 retread “virgins”?
Re Tone “It’s all about meeeeeeee” Bliar, he said these bombings were particularly serious as the G8 was going on. Not particularly serious because 47 innocent people died and 700 others had arms and legs and heads blown off, were blinded, had shards of glass and steel buried in their faces, were permanently deafened. No. Particularly serious because it interfered with Tony hosting a very important party. Words fail me.
“…his long standing support for Islamic extremists (not to mention Irish terrorists) needs to be thrown back at him.”
Hear, hear!
Yes Red Ken has long supported terrorist linked people – both in relation to Ireland and to the Middle East.
However, the people of London know that – and a clear majority of votes have elected him twice.
It is the great question of representative democracy, why do people vote for politicians who clearly support things that they (the voters) mostly do not?
For those who say “but they do support these things” I say that I do not agree. I do not think that most of the people who voted for the National Socialists would have voted “yes” to a question that said “should the Jews be exterminated”, and I do not believe that most of the people who voted for Red Ken support either Irish Nationalist or Islamic extremist terrorism.
As William F. Buckley once said (but did not understand the force of his own words) “I would rather be elected by the first 50 names in the Boston telephone directory, than by the people they elect”.
Paul Marks writes:
“It is the great question of representative democracy, why do people vote for politicians who clearly support things that they (the voters) mostly do not?”
Very often the answer comes from looking at the opposition. People voted less for Livingstone, I would suggest, than against hopleess stooges like Dobson and Norris.
One could probably say the same about the recent general election.
I was about to write a similar post and see G Cooper beat me to it. If either the socialists or the Tories ran someone charismatic (I realise that ‘socialists’ and ‘charismatic’ is an oxymoron), I think they could beat Livingstone. I can’t remember the percentages, but I think most people didn’t vote in the last election. Reflecting, in fact, the national mood. No one to vote for, so we just won’t bother. So the people who do vote, get their candidate in.
Bernie:
Some links, as requested, to Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi’s scarier comments. The emphasis in any quotes is mine:
Female circumcision
Includes this:
It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a midwife: “Reduce the size of the clitoris but do not exceed the limit, for that is better for her health and is preferred by husbands”. The hadith indicates that circumcision is better for a woman’s health and it enhances her conjugal relation with her husband. It’s noteworthy that the Prophet’s saying “do not exceed the limit” means do not totally remove the clitoris.
On divorce he includes this passage:
If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to admonish her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas. In no case should he resort to using a stick or any other instrument which might cause pain and injury.
On organ donation he says:
it is not permissible to donate it to an apostate as he is no more than a traitor to his religion and his people and thus deserves killing.
His views on Israeli civilians include this one:
“Israeli society was completely military in its make-up and did not include any civilians.”
Which makes them all legitimate targets…
My comments are not part of an anti-Muslim rant – as you’ll see if you read my posts on British Muslims on my own blog. I am pointing out simply that Livingstone has at least one friend whose views are incompatible with the norms of this society – nor with the norms of many British Muslims.
GM
My own pet theory is that Livingstone is planning, yes, at this very moment planning – to gloriously reverse himself 180 degrees a few short months from now and declare that the only way to assue the peace in London is to withdraw all troops from abroad, sever relations with Israel, etc.
By this reasoning, there are two reasons for the bait-and-switch delay.
1) To ride out the current short-lived illusion of unity and steadfastness. I am assuming it will indeed be short-lived. It lasted about 1 year or so here in the US, after 3000 were killed, so I assume Britain has at most until the end of this year.
2) To be able to use his previous, seemingly principled remarks to boost his credibility when he changes course. “You all know I stood firm, but…”
It’s a bit conspiracy minded, I realize. I was wondering what you brits think.
Paul Marks: I think it was “I would rather be governed by the first 50 names in the Boston telephone directory…”
Another question for the brits among ye:
verity wrote that Blair “does nothing on principle. He goes where the votes and glory are”.
Blair gets a lot of glory over here for having taken Britain into Iraq, but wouldn’t he have gotten more votes in Britain if he hadn’t? Furthermore, didn’t he even realize this at the time?
Just wondering.
Thanks
Ajami,
My own conspiracy theory regarding Blair and Iraq: despite doctored intelligence Blair probably believed there really were WMDs in Iraq. If he were part of the invasion force that destroyed them, saved western civilisation (Blair’s big on saving people – Africa’s the latest) from Iraqi terror and helped install democracy in a previously vicious dictatorship then he gets himself a ‘Maggie moment’, akin (although not quite the same) as the Real Deal when Mrs Thatcher removed the Argentians from the Falklands.
Blair would like to leave office with a legacy. And where some weaker personalities in the Conservative Party want to out-Blair Blair, Blair himself would love to out-Thatcher Thatcher. Iraq could have helped him in this; it didn’t.
Just a pre-breakfast theory for you.
GM
I don’t know if Mr De Havilland has made good on his promise to emigrate to New Hampshire, but he seems sadly out of touch with London politics.
It is not a question of Ken Livingstone’s chance of being taken back into the Labour fold. He was officially readmitted before winning an easy victory at the last mayoral election.
ajami writes: Paul Marks: I think it was “I would rather be governed by the first 50 names in the Boston telephone directory…”
Correct. And William Buckley, a very keen intellect indeed, was well aware of the force of what he was saying. That’s why he said it
Blair gets a lot of glory over here for having taken Britain into Iraq, but wouldn’t he have gotten more votes in Britain if he hadn’t? Furthermore, didn’t he even realize this at the time?
Yes, we know that the Americans think Blair is wonderful and this is because they think ethnocentrically. They think he loyally stood by the United States – a misconcept intentionally boosted by all those clipped, WWII movie wing commander speeches he gave over there. The stiff upper lip – oh, pulleeeeze! – the dramatic pauses, that barely controlled trembling jaw that grows so trembly I sometimes worry that he has Parkinson’s (his Diana jaw), etc etc etc. Just because Americans are ignorant about the nature of the man and are too lazy and politically naive to figure it out doesn’t mean he’s what he says he is.
Blair miscalculated the reaction of the British public because he doesn’t understand patriotism. The British supported Maggie because she was fighting for a far-off piece of British territory and saving British people from foreign conquest. They didn’t give a stuff about the Iraqis and still don’t. He thought he was going to have a Maggie moment. Plus, of course, he has ambitions in the US for after he FINALLY leaves office.
How can the people in Britain allow that S.O.B Livingston to stay in office. He is a treasonist bastard. He is so evil! Your country is slowly but surely committing suicide with their stupid and insane liberal immigration policies! I read that Blair signed on to Euros Human Right’s Act in an article the other day. It said Blair’s government will not have terrorists extradited back to their original countries because they fear the terrorist will recieve harsh treatment! Is Blair out of his mind?? Lots a luck to you Brits, because you’re sure gonna need it.