CoobyS

...all said in the papers today that the terrorist attacks that took place in London were motivated by the illegal invasions by the West in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the double standards we've shown for Israel.

The cheek!

What's going on over here? Where is the patriotism? Not to mention common sense that it was extremists out to kill and maim to satisfy their destorted religious beliefs.

bigJoe

They're just cashing in to stir things up, they all just want to ruin the country.......

Cook & Livingstone sould be ashamed of themselves

as for the familys of the terrorists, prehaps they should be locked up before they decide to follow their terrorists family members - there's family history here after all....

warrenm2

dont forget Cook opposed the war though.....

CoobyS

Well said mate...Spot on.

Can't these traitors understand that without the wars Britain would have been economically affected and ostracised by the Americans.

CoobyS

It doesn't mean he should use that as an excuse for justifying the terrorist attacks. FFS, whose side is he on? Why does he keep that beard? I reckon he just might be Muslim!

Leslie

Wake up and smell the coffee CoobyS.

Les

Brendan Hughes

Outstanding. Not only does our Prime Minister (last election votes - 30-something percent) illegally invade another country, but now as citizens we are unpatriotic if we disagree with him.

What particular dictatorship would you like us to live in?

BTW, Guardian poll yesterday said 64% of the citizens thought much the same, as did the nasty report by Chatham House, formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which said: "There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism."

Clearly the majority is wrong.

CoobyS

It's just the loud minority making all the noise. The silent majority (who don't read the Guardian) voted Blair into power and we all stand by him. Want proof? Just watch the result of the next election.

RussBoy

Wasn't Red Ken an IRA sorry, Sein Fein, sympathsiser in the 1980's as well??

hedgehog

Red Ken has always been keen to support terrorism, he was a keen IRA supporter for example and a supporter of other factions of Arab terrorism, and the head of the Met Police Federation said he "gave succour" to the IRA. Cearly his recent anti-terror words are nothing but a front, either he supports terrorism or he doesnt and by his actions he has shown that he does. I am sure the real Ken will come to the fore just as soon as all the fuss dies down a little.

OllyK

Since when has 30% been considered a majority?

CoobyS

Well...it's all about proportional representation. Anyway, let's see who wins the next election.

Brendan Hughes

The next election, like the last one, will have almost nothing to do with the illegality of the Iraq war, and all to do with the domestic economy, so your evidence does not support your argument.

OllyK

It isn't, that's the problem. If we had proportional representation, NL would not be in power with a majority - simple as.

Leslie

Your blind faith is misplaced CoobyS, try a bit of honest lateral thinkng.

Les

CoobyS

Please don't talk in riddles. Do you have a point relevant to the discussion?

Flatcapdriver

Huh? All Livingstone did was make some observations based on facts whilst clearly stating that he did not condone terrorist activitiy, in fact he denounced both terrorists and governments who further their cause by mass slaughter.

You're making a giant leap from those comments, which I happen to agree with, and then accusing him of being a traitor which is patently ridiculous.

suprabeast

So livingstone didn't condone the extremist leaders going round london promoting the killing of britons and the otehr terrorist activities around the world??

Flatcapdriver

Not according to the BBC report I've just read, no. He categorically stated that he didn't condone terrorism - full stop. What he said was that he could understand the motivation due to interference from the West over the last eighty years in the Middle East - big difference.

unclebuck

..

suprabeast

So he didnt pay londons money to personal police protection for these people while they preached around london??

Flatcapdriver

Which people? You'll have to elaborate.

suprabeast

extremists

Flatcapdriver

Look, I don't know what you're referring to but you'll have to point me in the right direction such as a newspaper article or a website link rather than opinion based on gossip or innuendo.

OllyK

I think the suggestion is, that because Ken promoted the right to free speech and provided protection for people with extreme views to air their views, that is being considered as him accepting and agreeing with their views.

CoobyS

Stop making things up.

Ken blatantly said in the papers yesterday that the illegal war in Iraq has had a direct consequence of terrorism in London. He went on to say that when people are frustrated and the only weapon they have is their body then there will be suicide bombers. He also said that the double standards for Israel (from the West) has also been an exasperating factor.

SJ_Skyline

exasperating or exacerbating?

Flatcapdriver

And he's probably right but that doesn't make him a traitor.

OllyK

So where in that does he say he condones terrorism? It says he can understand the issues that may drive somebody to becoming a terrorist, but not that he supports them. He says the west's 80 year history of meddling in the middle east is a significant contributory factor, I don't see how anybody could think otherwise.

suprabeast

you're either too young or ilinformed from the days of the IRA threat