Last year, Ken invited Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi to London insisting that Qaradhawi was a man of moderation and tolerance, and called his visit an honour.

Al-Qaradhawi — the Theologian of Terror, had called suicide bombings ‘heroic operations of martyrdom’ and ‘divine justice’, and has urged Muslims to ‘destroy the aggressive Jews’.

Now we see the folly of Ken’s actions. You cannot reason with fanatics. They interprete your openness and willingness to talk as weakness.

The Daily Telegraph had a good quote this morning: Bin Laden's men fight with hate in their hearts. One of their intentions is to provoke hate in return - hate and fear. Londoners are bound to look a little differently at their fellow Britons in hennaed beards or burqas after yesterday.

The bombers' greatest wish is that sorrow will turn into anger - anger that is directed at Muslims.

Londoners will resist the temptation.

6countyprod

I personally doubt very much that the most militant and violent extremes of arab islamicism care one way or the other what Ken Livingstone says, or even if thet have ever heard of him. I don't recall that New York was particularly weak on security in the Guiliani era, and if memory serves, they were attacked too around September 2001.

In fact, the one thing uniting the victim nations recently has been their HARD line, not their SOFT line i.e. all supporting the united states in operations in the middle east.

"In fact, the one thing uniting the victim nations recently has been their HARD line, not their SOFT line i.e. all supporting the united states in operations in the middle east."

Did Bali support the US?

Did Casablanca?

The idea that supporting the US led coalition is what gets you attacked is a pernicious lie.
France argued against the war, and saw itself be threatened with attack for daring to have laws reaffirming the secularity of the repubic.

These people are going to attack, they will eventually find an excuse to do so.
Let's not heap false guilt upon the shoulders of their victims.

I have no time at all for Ken Livingstone.
When I saw him pop up on TV yesterday I cringed wondering what he might say.
I was expecting a tour round the world's trouble spots by way of blame-shifting.
But no, he was marvellous.
His speech was really uplifting, avoided any told-you-so comments and was concerned only with ordinary innocent people and those that saw fit to murder them.
It was, clearly, heartfelt.
He looked close to tears and to be honest, so was I.
Ken, whatever his politics and no matter what positions he adopts in the future, has went up quite a few notches in my book.

Beach Tree,

My point is, Red Ken was wasting his time with the Sheikh, and also giving him credibility and respectability.

These people are intent on destroying our way of life, no matter who is president or prime minister. We stand in the way of their dream of a world eradicated of Jews and dominated by Islam. The war in Iraq is just a lame excuse for their long-planned, indiscriminate barbarism.

Livingstone is a disgrace to the fine city of London and there IS plenty wrong in his speech. We cover it on ATW.

"did Bali support the war?"

Well, since the Bali attack was clearly primarily aimed at Western, particularly Australian tourists, it actually backs up my point TAFKABO, not yours.

Did Casablanca?

Again, the primary targets were a spanish owned business, the belgian consulate and a jewish group. Again only strengthens my point!

At no stage did i say supporting America "gets you attacked" - but it certainly doesn't stop you being attacked, and by and large the attacks so far have been on targets associated with supporting the American military actions.

And it's nothing to do with blaming the victim.

a) I'm not claiming dead civilans actions were an issue, but quite living politicians.

b) I suggested for not one second that fault, and moral culpability lay with anyone but the murderers. To suggest otherwise is a sownright lie, TAFKABO, and you knwo it.

My only point, quite clearly was to respond to an earlier suggestion that a "soft" or "tolerent" line (in that posters opinion) on who is allowed to make inflammatory commnets does not of itself lead to an increased prevelance of terrorism within your borders, as weas suggested, that in fact, statistically at least, the opposite was the case. The Hardline states have clearly suffered disproportiantely badly. That's not a moral jusgement, it's simply a mathematical fact.

Let's give ATW the wide berth it deserves - I can just imagine the toxic outpourings on it.....

Ken has for whatver his faults are , has always been committed to harmonising cultures and creating a peaceful & respectful mutlicultural city. Thatr's what London is famous for and his comments are fully understandable and right on the mark.

Ken was fantastic. The best unquoted bit:

This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.

That isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted faith - it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other. I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, that the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I'm proud to be the mayor of that city.

Beach Tree.

You completely miss the point.

Bali and Casablanca were attacked for daring to allow people vist from a country, whose government held a specific policy.
If this is an argument of how we can see cause and effect, then it is pretty pathetic.

What next?, countries being attacked because people drive motor cars made in America?

I repeat, these fanatics will eventually find a reason to attack everyone who is not the same as themselves, and if they succeeded in killing everyone else, they would then start to attack each other over the length of their beards, or something similar.

It is the height of futility to argue or engage in debate with mindsets like these.
You cannot rationalise with irrational people.

La Dullerosa,

And the sheer stupidity of your comment may explain why others give Slugger a wide berth.

Guess who said; ""O God, destroy the Zionist, the American, and the British aggressors. O God, shake the ground under them and protect us from them"? Answer, peace loving Red Ken's Jidahi du jour from last year Sheikh Al-Qaradari.

The fact which few on Slugger want to accept is that Livingstone is NO Rudi Giuliani despite his ludicrous speech. (PS - would it have been morally acceptable to the Slugger crowd who cheer on Red Ken if the Jihadists HAD targeted the rich and powerful? Say the Royal Family - or the British Houses of Parliament?

Vance: Unlike your mate Rummy Rumsfeld, Ken has not been in the dirty business of selling arms to people like Saddam or cosying up to BL when it suited US interests.

Mick,

out of interest, how many daily hits does Slugger get?

Over the years, Ken has had, to put it as kindly as possible, an ambiguous attitude towards terrorism. If he is now unequivocally opposed to terrorism, then that is welcome.

Al Qaeda makes no distinction between Western countries, nor between Western countries and "apostates". They are all legitimate targets in their eyes.

This quote from Christopher Hitchens sums up Al-Qaeda's outlook very well:-

"We know very well whatthe "grievances" of the jihadists are.

The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.

David, you once said in reference to Ann Coulter :

"By the way, I am a BIG fan of Ann Coulter, she has a nice hairstyle :-)" and "Give me Ann Coulter over Franken anyday"

Ann Coulter in her past has said things like :

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. "

and

""My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

I invite other Slugger contributors to compare and contrast Coulter's extreme views with those of muslim extremists, and ask questions about the apparent contradictions in David Vance's hate-filled anti-muslim sectarian bloodlust. Remember, bombing civilians isn't a big problem and certainly isn't terrorism provided you do it while you're in a fighter plane carrying the flag of a Western nation.

Sean Fear, you appear to have listed a range of grievances that I also see expressed right on Slugger, particularly by folks like our beloved David Vance.

While I'm on the subject of Mr Vance, he once said in reference to Ann Coulter :

"By the way, I am a BIG fan of Ann Coulter, she has a nice hairstyle :-)"

and "Give me Ann Coulter over Franken anyday"

For the benefit of other Slugger contributors, Ann Coulter is pretty typical of the kind of insane whackos Mr Vance embarassingly likes to associate himself with. Just for a taster, Ms Coulter in her past has said things like :

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. " (in reference to the 9/11 attacks)

and

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

I invite other Slugger contributors to compare and contrast Coulter's extreme views with those of muslim extremists, and ask questions about the apparent contradictions in David Vance's perspective on life. Remember, bombing civilians isn't a big problem and certainly isn't terrorism provided you do it while you're in a fighter plane carrying the flag of a Western nation.

Comrade Stalin,

Well now - you didn't give quite the full story, did you? Let's just set you straight.

Ann Coulter wrote the lines "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." after hearing that her friend, Barbara Olsen had been killed when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at around 700mph. Don't you think she is allowed a little slack in such a context?

As for the McVeigh comment - here is her defence,
"Of course I regret it. I should have added, "after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."

As for your invitation for Slugger readers to "ask questions about the apparent contradictions in David Vance's perspective on life" - I merely say - Bring it on. Like I'm bothered what sheeple think about me.

Livingsone is a grotequerie who would be better suited to a zoo than the role of Mayor of London. He may think this is a wannabe Rudi moment but his every word condemns him. I note that not ONE of the brave Slugger readers addressed the Al-Qaradawi issue. Baaaaaa.....

A Tangled Web - a place where Ulster's chickenhawks go to flap their wings.

PS - deleted: moderator

Young Fogey,

I always thought you were had more about you than this and the comment you left on ATW. I'm disappointed in you. If ATW is where "chickenhawks" flap their wings, is this the place when birdbrains gather?

David,

Although not an admirer of Livinstone's, I found his remarks genuinely affecting. His comments about the terrorists not targetting leaders should not be read in my view as an implicit endorsement of such an attack, but rather making the point that it was unjustifiable even when judged by the debased morality of its perpetrators.

PS - deleted: moderator

Why?

Vance replied :

"Don't you think she is allowed a little slack in such a context?"

No, I don't think anyone should be allowed slack to advocate illegal invasions and sinister mass religious conversions. Do you expect that your reaction would be similar ? I guess that would say a lot about you. I can't say how I'd react if a relative of mine were killed in a terrorist attack, but I'll take a rough guess and imagine that I'd be too upset to think about invading other people's countries and looking for revenge. What would Jesus do ? Oh of course, he'd lead a squadron of F16s on the attack, round up the leadership and subject them to forced baptisms.

The McVeigh comment that Coulter made was just as callous as anything Galloway has ever said. The only difference between Galloway and Coulter - both of them nutters in my book - is that you agree with one of them.

Fortunately you appear to be in a pretty isolated minority regarding your opinions on Livingstone. While many liberals I know in New York (having just returned from a visit there) kept domestic politics out of it when it came to 9/11 and Guiliani, you just couldn't wait to leap on the opportunity to engage in a silly partisan attack on one of your pet hate figures. Sometimes I wonder where in the world you would be if there weren't terrorist attacks for you to get worked up about.

Don't try to tell us you don't care for opinion of your views - it obviously matters deeply to you what people think about your opinions, that's why you have a blog and a variety of outlets where you give the public the benefit of your warped fanaticism - suitably moderated of course to fit the audience (for example when you're nestling alongside INLA or dissident republican articles in The Blanket or among the pinkos at the BBC, whose Hearts and Minds invites and cheques you rather happily seem to accept despite constantly condemning their journalism and supposed liberalism).

Comrade,

You know, coming from an individual who chooses the name of the greatest tyrant of the 20th century (In admiration?) your comments about Coulter's alleged callousness ring a trifle hollow! I think that Ann wrote with passion and in righteous rage - and I don't think she needs to retract a word.

I note your silence on Al Qaradawi and the man of peace, Livingstone. Don't worry it can be our little secret, natch.

As for my concern about lefties think - yeah, I'm soooo bothered. But being a kind hearted type, I will happily use whatever media outlets are available to me to educate people like yourself. Look on it like a public service - like the BBC.

Power to the people, Comrade.

You ignored my question David. About the BBC, you once said "The BBC is a menace to democracy in this country and that is one more reason why it should be privatised.". Have you told them that yourself when you're there collecting your fee - do you use the opportunity to give them your opinion of their journalistic standards ? Or do you just keep schtum ?

I haven't commented yet on this thread about Ken and whether I support him or not. If it's OK to use inferences then I could just as neatly mention your convenient ignorance of the Bush administration's little ties to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, a matter you consistently avoid addressing when heaping your lavish praise on their actions. Your double standards on organizations such as the Irgun are pretty well established at this point; and I'm unsurprised that you regard an advocation of the indiscriminate invasion of countries as "righteous rage". Go back and play with the rest of the armchair generals and chickenhawks on ATW, and get back to us when you've actually been on military service.

Comrade,

Ever heard of the expression taking the devil's money to fight the devil? Have a little think about that. If you follow my BBC contributions you will doubtless have noted my repeated references to lickspittle mass media. Do I have to S-P-E-L-L it out for you?

I note that you haven't answered my questions about Livingstone and his Jew-hating American-hating pal, Al-Qaradawi. I'm sure it's a moral poser for you.

Now then, might I suggest that Michael Moore is probably not the ideal primer for your hilarious allegations re Bush and lonely ol' Saddam and the sadly deceased UBL. Lunatic fringe leftism is always entertaining but you can't expect me to waste any time on it?

Finally, over on Chickenhawk central, we always welcome errant leftist birdbrains.

[Try playing the ball - ed. Mod]

PS - trim the ego please. Posts deleted without explanation (I'm still waiting after 12 hours). It was certainly a hard ball but it wasn't exactly libellous.

For those interested I was pointing out the hypocrisy of chickenhawn right-wing bloggers who ask for ever more extreme military action yet are happy to continue their comfortable little lives in safe little towns in Britain and America.

the sadly deceased UBL

Ha ha ha. Stop living in denial David. He got so involved 'liberating' Afghanistan and Iraq that he got away with it.

"Ever heard of the expression taking the devil's money to fight the devil?"

The last time I heard it, it was when republicans used it to justify going on the dole and accepting money from the British exchequer. It's funny how much you guys have in common.

"hilarious allegations re Bush and lonely ol' Saddam"

Only David Vance would try to pass off a photographed and documented visit from Rumsfeld (official in all three Bush administrations) to Saddam Hussein as "lunatic leftism".

"sadly deceased UBL."

This comment tells us how serious you really are about defeating terrorism. Despite the reappearance of Bin Laden during the Presidential elections and the complete lack of evidence that he's dead (chances are he's being shielded by our "allies" in the Pakistani intelligence services) you'd much rather believe the output of the propagandists.

I have no doubt in my mind that the Bin Laden's continuing evasion of Western intelligence services is a huge morale booster for the AQ related terrorists; they believe they're invincible. Of course, addressing that isn't a priority for the rightwing chickenhawks.

Your attempts to draw inferences about Livingstone are just making you look silly. Whatever makes you think I'm in the business of apologising for him in the same way that you are in the business of apologizing for Irgun-organized hotel bombings ?

"Ever heard of the expression taking the devil's money to fight the devil?"

The last time I heard it, it was when republicans used it to justify going on the dole and accepting money from the British exchequer. It's funny how much you guys have in common.

"hilarious allegations re Bush and lonely ol' Saddam"

Only David Vance would try to pass off a photographed and documented visit from Rumsfeld (official in all three Bush administrations) to Saddam Hussein as "lunatic leftism".

"sadly deceased UBL."

This comment tells us how serious you really are about defeating terrorism. Despite the reappearance of Bin Laden during the Presidential elections and the complete lack of evidence that he's dead (chances are he's being shielded by our "allies" in the Pakistani intelligence services) you'd much rather believe the output of the propagandists.

I have no doubt in my mind that the Bin Laden's continuing evasion of Western intelligence services is a huge morale booster for the AQ related terrorists; they believe they're invincible. Of course, addressing that isn't a priority for the rightwing chickenhawks.

Your attempts to draw inferences about Livingstone are just making you look silly. Whatever makes you think I'm in the business of apologising for him in the same way that you are in the business of apologizing for Irgun-organized hotel bombings ?

Oh look. The FBI doesn't think that Bin Laden is dead, and still has a "wanted" ">notice out for him. I guess this is more errant loonie leftism.

Moderator

"errant leftwing birdbrain" is fine but an accurate characterisation of right wing christian militarists is unacceptable ?

Explain please ?

Comrade

Your point about NY liberals is well made. Both Guiliani and now Livingstone delivered speeches and gave leadership in the immediate aftermath of atrocities which put their leaders in the shade. Bush was in a funk in the aftermath of 9/11 and probably required coaching from war heroes Cheney and Rove before he could emerge from Airforce 1. Even Victoria Wadley has made peace with Ken. Thankfully however the Liberation front for a very small part of the UK is still holding out, in the estimable person of DV. The integrity of their quarrel is one of the few institutions that have been unaltered in the cataclysm which has swept the world.

May I point out that referring to those of us who occupy a political position somewhat to the left of wacko Ken as "Chickenhawks" rather cancels out any generalised references to birdbrains.

Also, I am impressed that just because a bunch of moaning liberals on Slugger and elsewhere suddenly view Red Ken "The Suicide Bomber's" friend (In the form of Al-Qaradawi) as Rudi incarnate does NOT mean others view him for what he is. On ATW you will find dozens of links to sites around the world who share my contempt for this wretch.

I wonder if those who admire Red Ken have heard of the expression "Moonbats"? I think they should look it up as a coherent description of their nuamced and no doubt deeply held views.

Oops...that should read "to the RIGHT" of Red Ken. Bin Laden is not even to the left of Red Ken.

That should also read "nuanced", David.

Moonbat, indeed ;p

peteb,

Yes - a typo really does alter the substance, doesn't it?

Now, David.. we both know that it depends on the typo.

But you might as well cover all the errors, if you do come back to alter the substance of your comment..

[to the right of the] Moonbat.

peteb,

The substance of my comment is that not ONE of Slugger's illustrious band of posters on this thread has felt able to explain WHY Mayor Livingstone, their fondly imagined "Rudi" figure, condemns Islamofascist terrorism in London whilst INVITING Islamofascist leaders like Al-Qaradawi to London. Forget the typo's and focus on the substance - even Moonbats should be able to concentrate for that long.

David Vance

As you probably know it comes down to Israel and unspoken belief that the tactics of terror are legitimate against that state.

I think we need to have a big debate about that in the West because the ambiguity is a disaster for us.

Israel is one of the family of democratic states and we should (while resereving the right to criticise) maintain an absolute political and moral clarity about its right to exist and its right to security.

Yes, I think you're absolutely correct about that Henry.

Guys

Does Israel's right to exist supercede the rights of the minorities within them to their dignity and rights and security ? If so, why please ?

David Vance,

RE: "Moonbats"? I think they should look it up as a coherent description of their nuamced and no doubt deeply held views.

I looked up the term on Wikipedia, and it says "This term has long been used to describe protesters on the political Left, and is sometimes used to describe protesters on the political Right, such as those protesting the Terri Schiavo case."

Thank you so much for the tip.

"has felt able to explain WHY Mayor Livingstone, their fondly imagined "Rudi" figure, condemns Islamofascist terrorism in London whilst INVITING Islamofascist leaders like Al-Qaradawi to London."

David, why would I be expected to explain it David ? I have generally little interest in Livingstone. I am not his personal biographer so I don't have any insight into his opinions.

I'm impressed by the way you, as a self-professed Christian, are so quick to cast the first stone. You should sit down and do some serious thinking about the rampant hypocrisy and bloodlust in your own perspective on life, before you start ranting about the hypocrisy of others. There is no consistency on your views of terrorism, and no rationality in your views on how it may be countered and defeated. The "Islamofascist" leaders that you are talking about in many cases have been supported or funded by the political bodies and governments you your daily cheerleading for. Questions about their present-day threat should be addressed to them before anyone else.

willis, thanks. I found during my visit that Guiliani is held in very high esteem across the political spectrum in NYC. While I wouldn't agree on many of his views, there can be no doubt that he left the city a far better place than he found it, and his leadership during 9/11 was an extremely significant source of strength for New Yorkers at that time.

Henry and Sean,

Thanks for your intelligent responses on the topic of the double standards some use when damning terrorist bombing in London and welcoming those who support terrorist bombing in Israel.

As for our dear Comrade Stalin;

Might I respectfully suggest that on a Slugger thread which is clearly based around an examination of Red Ken's views on terrorism, it might do you more credit if you gain rather better information on this topic before launching pointless comments on those of us in the vast right wong conspiracy? Thank you.

[Ball not man - Mod]

Wichser:

I hope your chosen 'nom de plume' is not a reflection on yourself, (see German-English dictionary) however your given e-mail address only adds to a belief that your attack on David Vance is to be taken very light-heartedly indeed.

I, however, have great difficulty in finding any sympathy for Vance's argument against Ken Livingstone at this time. Although I am not a great fan of Livingstone, I believe his recent statement correctly sums up the collective concerns of most Londoners. For my money, he even made it in a statesmanlike fashion.

I heard someone say yesterday (in fact a lecturer in politiocs at a London university) suggest that Rudi G got a tip off that there was going to be a bomb blast/s from secret services........

Conspiracy theory? don't know but nothing would suprise me.

David, I know what the thread is about; but I thought I would address the hypocrisy of your contribution to it which I am more than entitled to do. Your outlook is that of a hardline militarist who solves problems with violence, with a cavalier attitude toward civilian death, and the only thing separating you from the tube bombers of last Thursday is a degree of malice. I doubt you've ever shed a tear for the "collateral damage" of the military action you heartily endorse abroad from within the warm comforting glow of your computer monitor. I don't see how you consider yourself in a position to criticize others for their associations with the supporters of suicide bombers.

Hagrid

I agree on Livingstone.

It is clear thatthat inequality,insjustice, insufficiency will lead to instability. It is important to rememberhowever that there is never a justification for terrorism and vicious attacks on innocent people must be condemned on a worldwide basis.We must all work to solve the problems of our individual communities and the wider world by patient constructive action.
We must be unambiguous and unequivocal in condemning terrorism whether it emanates from Timothy McVea, the government of the USA/Uk or Zimbabwe,or the IRA or AL Quaeda.
Mayor Livingstone may well be reflecting on whether or not he has given previous political support to those whose hands are red with the blood of innocents murdered by terrorists here in Northern Ireland.
As for Mr. Blair-I found his speeches to be unnconnected to feelings-I feel I am listening to an actor,and a pretty unconvincing one at that, delivering a well crafted response to the situation without any degree of sincerity.
Do others have the same feeling?
T.Ruth

If I did not know who Livingstone was, his words would have moved me (positively). However I find it really difficult to tkae from someone who has unaplogectically befriended Sinn Fein/IRA.

Re Blair, I have long since lost any beleive that anything that man says is not part of a game plan. (In a parallel universe he is in the Big Brother house.) He has always given me the sence that he runs the country like it was a computer game that he can afford to foul up because he can just reload it again. All this I would readily forgive if I at least beleived that he had the best interests of the country and indeed the world at heart and that feeding his ego was just a by-product.

Wischer,

How interesting that your personal attack on me was not removed. Your high level debating skills have me in awe.

Apologies David,

The offending remark has been removed, but it appears the software is taking a little while to deal with it.

[Ball not man - this is not the place for personal attacks.]