Body & Soul1 min ago
Lowest Of The Lows...
92 Answers
http://
He is utter filth and him and cor bin laden are no more than traitors....lets hope people like these two never ever get the chance to weild real power in this country, ever..both friends of the terrorists
and just to add salt in the wounds another totally unbiased bbc leftie rent a mob for the occasion...
He is utter filth and him and cor bin laden are no more than traitors....lets hope people like these two never ever get the chance to weild real power in this country, ever..both friends of the terrorists
and just to add salt in the wounds another totally unbiased bbc leftie rent a mob for the occasion...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't share or appreciate your extreme language and rhetoric baz, but for the record I agree with dave on this matter. I think we should get behind the UN and get involved in a concerted campaign against ISIS.
Here is another shock to your system ! ...There are lots of people against dave's motion here, in his own Party as well as the opposition Parties, and I think Corbyn should allow a free vote.
Here is another shock to your system ! ...There are lots of people against dave's motion here, in his own Party as well as the opposition Parties, and I think Corbyn should allow a free vote.
-- answer removed --
Mr. Livingstone is entitled to his opinion; and I'm sure every evil terrorist has a cause that they believe in; and the suicide ones clearly give up their lives as they take the lives of innocents. Should go without saying.
I didn't see the programme but this sounds an emotional over-reaction to comments that may appear to put atrocities in a positive light: but I don't believe that try to understand what goes on in a terrorist's mind is anything to get het up about.
I didn't see the programme but this sounds an emotional over-reaction to comments that may appear to put atrocities in a positive light: but I don't believe that try to understand what goes on in a terrorist's mind is anything to get het up about.
"but this sounds an emotional over-reaction to comments that may appear to put atrocities in a positive light"
i havent forgiven this odious vile little man for how he trashed what was a once great part of london... Brent...he made sure it was turned into a thrid world schitehole and did everything he possibly could to alienate whites...
he is a friend of terrorists...if you can be bothered look up his past platform sharing and sympathisng with "terrorist" organisations
i havent forgiven this odious vile little man for how he trashed what was a once great part of london... Brent...he made sure it was turned into a thrid world schitehole and did everything he possibly could to alienate whites...
he is a friend of terrorists...if you can be bothered look up his past platform sharing and sympathisng with "terrorist" organisations
I was under the impression this was about his comments on last night's BBC’s Question Time. I am not keen on the fellow, but he is known for wanting to find explanations for terrorist activities, so it should be no surprise that he has an opinion which stops at that point.
The bigger issue is that one can go back through a whole chain of hypothesised cause & effect actions and it doesn't move the present issue along any. Trying to going back one step only, in order to explain the final atrocities, doesn't help solve the problems.
But I'm more disappointed that this forum seems to be getting more threads that pick a controversial figure to base the thread on, apparently just so all can throw insults. I was hoping that the forum was above that.
The bigger issue is that one can go back through a whole chain of hypothesised cause & effect actions and it doesn't move the present issue along any. Trying to going back one step only, in order to explain the final atrocities, doesn't help solve the problems.
But I'm more disappointed that this forum seems to be getting more threads that pick a controversial figure to base the thread on, apparently just so all can throw insults. I was hoping that the forum was above that.
OG...I echo your last paragraph. One post has already been removed.
If and when dave calls for a vote on this matter, there will be people who will vote yes or no according to their conscience. And those votes will be spread across all political Parties. Don't forget, dave has already lost one vote on this very topic, and it wasn't an exclusively Labour opposition that defeated him back then.
I have made my position clear but we should respect other people's opinions as well.
The UN has given a lead here.
If and when dave calls for a vote on this matter, there will be people who will vote yes or no according to their conscience. And those votes will be spread across all political Parties. Don't forget, dave has already lost one vote on this very topic, and it wasn't an exclusively Labour opposition that defeated him back then.
I have made my position clear but we should respect other people's opinions as well.
The UN has given a lead here.
I really don't understand where your bile and vitriol comes from bazwillrun.
Ken Livingstone stated that the terrorist bombers died for their beliefs and for their cause - that is a fact.
Stating it as a fact does not in any way seek to support or condone that activity, or the motives, or the organisation behind it.
Historical facts are just that - facts, and elucidation of them does not confer support from the person making the observation.
If that were true, no history teacher would be able to teach children about Hitler and the Nazis, for fear of attack on a thread like this one.
Ken Livingstone stated that the terrorist bombers died for their beliefs and for their cause - that is a fact.
Stating it as a fact does not in any way seek to support or condone that activity, or the motives, or the organisation behind it.
Historical facts are just that - facts, and elucidation of them does not confer support from the person making the observation.
If that were true, no history teacher would be able to teach children about Hitler and the Nazis, for fear of attack on a thread like this one.
To say that a suicide bomber "dies for his beliefs" can be expressed in a single word: martyrdom. The problem is that this gives a certain legitimacy to the act. Martyrs can be revered for having the courage of their convictions in the face of certain, possibly painful, death -- except that historically martyrs had a tendency to die for their beliefs without also killing a dozen or so bystanders at the same time. And that changes the nature of the act from a religious sacrifice into mass-murder.
It's also not all that he said -- Livingstone was not-so-subtly shifting the blame for 7/7 from the innocent martyr-esque terrorists who were compelled into this noble act of self-sacrifice by religious considerations in response to an invasion of their country, and giving it instead to that evil cruel *** leader who attacked Iraq in the first place.
I think a lot of people on AB feel that Tony Blair has a lot to answer for, and certainly the Iraq Invasion has turned out to have been less than successful (understatement) -- but is responsibility for 7/7 his, as Ken Livingstone stated (and not just implied, either, but directly stated)? Absolutely not. As in many other cases, people have a tendency to conflate poor decisions made by victims with responsibility for the crimes committed against them. But there is no justification, whatsoever, in any way, for blowing yourself up in a train, or on a bus, or marching into a concert hall, and killing people indiscriminately.
We need to be careful in the language used around this. Western policy in the Middle East has been a failure, but that does not at all mean that it is directly responsible for the response by some of turning to terrorism.
It's also not all that he said -- Livingstone was not-so-subtly shifting the blame for 7/7 from the innocent martyr-esque terrorists who were compelled into this noble act of self-sacrifice by religious considerations in response to an invasion of their country, and giving it instead to that evil cruel *** leader who attacked Iraq in the first place.
I think a lot of people on AB feel that Tony Blair has a lot to answer for, and certainly the Iraq Invasion has turned out to have been less than successful (understatement) -- but is responsibility for 7/7 his, as Ken Livingstone stated (and not just implied, either, but directly stated)? Absolutely not. As in many other cases, people have a tendency to conflate poor decisions made by victims with responsibility for the crimes committed against them. But there is no justification, whatsoever, in any way, for blowing yourself up in a train, or on a bus, or marching into a concert hall, and killing people indiscriminately.
We need to be careful in the language used around this. Western policy in the Middle East has been a failure, but that does not at all mean that it is directly responsible for the response by some of turning to terrorism.
jim - Succinctly argued - most impressive.
I entirely agree that suicide bombing cannot be condoned, indeed no terrorist act can, but we should be wary of trying to infer that a government's foreign policy actions rest on the shoulders of one individual, which clearly it did not, and does not.
That said, if bombing in Syria is sanctioned, history will show David Cameron's name writ large as the person responsible for any backlash that can be attributed to that action.
I entirely agree that suicide bombing cannot be condoned, indeed no terrorist act can, but we should be wary of trying to infer that a government's foreign policy actions rest on the shoulders of one individual, which clearly it did not, and does not.
That said, if bombing in Syria is sanctioned, history will show David Cameron's name writ large as the person responsible for any backlash that can be attributed to that action.
"They gave their lives, they said what they believed. They took Londoners’ lives in protest at our invasion of Iraq.’ " Ken Livingstone
If he has said this during WWII with reference to Herman Goering and the Nazi party he would have been at the very least arrested.
Maybe him and his mate Corbyn would like to be in the first wave of trucks into Syria with humanitarian aid? - or better still strap them both to a Drone and send them in to talk to ISIS
If he has said this during WWII with reference to Herman Goering and the Nazi party he would have been at the very least arrested.
Maybe him and his mate Corbyn would like to be in the first wave of trucks into Syria with humanitarian aid? - or better still strap them both to a Drone and send them in to talk to ISIS
Togo - //Perhaps the 'impartial' BBC will organise another Question Time. And bus in an audience of victims and their families to put questions to the creep Livingstone, and of course be allowed to voice their opinions of his deliberately
contentious approval of the murderers. //
I refer you to my previous post - stating a fact is not the same as offering approval.
contentious approval of the murderers. //
I refer you to my previous post - stating a fact is not the same as offering approval.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.