A news article worth reading.

digitally-yours

just came up this article
this is a mayor of london
and what he said is 100% true

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4698963.stm

Hope we see peace in this world soon

where every human has respect for fellow humans

Culchie

That guy is made of the right stuff, if only there were more politicians that had the courage to stand up and be counted.

He has restored some of my faith in politics. If only Bertie the puppet would take a lead from this and stand up to Bush and impose our neutrality and reputation for fair play once again.

toiletduck

The guys an idiot. He's a hypocrite. 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. After meeting Gerry Adams in the 80's, Livingstone said that Britain's treatment of the Irish over the last 800 years had been worse than Hitler's treatment of the Jews. :rolleyes:

Culchie

toiletduck wrote:

After meeting Gerry Adams in the 80's, Livingstone said that Britain's treatment of the Irish over the last 800 years had been worse than Hitler's treatment of the Jews. :rolleyes:

Whilst this is no doubt an exaggeration, the British did treat the Irish like Scum in the 1970's and 80's.

If you don't think Britain has been targeted as a result of their interference into the Arab states over the last 50 years ...then explain to me what is the reason.

Just because you are obviously blinded by the fact you dislike Livingstone, that you can't agree to on of the most honest appraisals of the current political situation I've seen in many years, if ever, from a British senior political source.


The talking and reconciliation has to start somewhere.

toiletduck

Culchie wrote:

If you don't think Britain has been targeted as a result of their interference into the Arab states over the last 50 years ...then explain to me what is the reason.

britain, america, russia (all the big powers) have been interfering in the ME, asia and south america for decades, however it's only the (extreme) muslims that are "striking back." (when was the last time you heard of a vietnamise person blowing themselves up in the states for the millions that died in that war and which ruined their country, where are the suicide bombers from africa blowing themselves up because of the current woeful state of their continent which they believe is the fault of the west.) therefore while i would agree that interference played a part, a much bigger part is the religious fanaticism, and those radical clerics who recruit/train the terrorists. this would have happened regardless of iraq imo.

Culchie

toiletduck wrote:

britain, america, russia (all the big powers) have been interfering in the ME, asia and south america for decades, however it's only the (extreme) muslims that are "striking back." (when was the last time you heard of a vietnamise person blowing themselves up in the states for the millions that died in that war and which ruined their country, where are the suicide bombers from africa blowing themselves up because of the current woeful state of their continent which they believe is the fault of the west.) therefore while i would agree that interference played a part, a much bigger part is the religious fanaticism, and those radical clerics who recruit/train the terrorists. this would have happened regardless of iraq imo.

For god's sake Toiletduck. I feel like shouting, but I won't.
You simply cannot be this naive.

Who supplied these 'extremists' with weapons?

Who supplied the money for them to be bought with?

Who trained them how to use them?

Who trained them in the art of modern and terrorist warfare?

Why Why Why Why do the USA/UK have any interest at all in these countries ...OIL OIL OIL .... simple as that

Just because they haven't fought back before doesn't mean it was OK to do it for the last 50 years.

You badly treat a dog, ignore it, kick it and starve it, then one day it's going to turn on you no matter how much food you dangle in front of it's dish.

The US foreign policy, it's favourable treatment of Israel, and the raping and pillaging of natural resourses in the Middle East is 100% directly related to the current political instability, and you can be sure it is going to get a hell of a lot worse, if the British government keep ignoring common sense input like that of Ken Livingstone's speech today.

toiletduck

Culchie wrote:

For god's sake Toiletduck. I feel like shouting, but I won't.
You simply cannot be this naive.

trust me, im not!

Who supplied these 'extremists' with weapons?

Who supplied the money for them to be bought with?

Who trained them how to use them?

Who trained them in the art of modern and terrorist warfare?

depends on who you define as "them," ill assume you're refering to the 'group' called al-quida (which dont exist and are actually a franchise of sorts). to answer your questions, the west did. they supplied them to fight the soviets, a case of "my enemys emeny is my friend." I wont fault the leaders at the time for doing this, because in their shoes i probably would have done the same thing. hindsight is a wonderful thing!

Why Why Why Why do the USA/UK have any interest at all in these countries ...OIL OIL OIL .... simple as that

of course, only an idiot would argue with that. oil is essential to our day to day living and well being.

You badly treat a dog, ignore it, kick it and starve it, then one day it's going to turn on you no matter how much food you dangle in front of it's dish.

if you read carefully what i said, you'll see i said this was a factor but the overwhealming (sp?) factor is religious hatred. the londn bombers were brought up in britain, they weren't "striking" back, they were probably recruited by being told of the "evil, decadent" west etc.

again ill ask you to point out were are the bombers from other dis-enfranchised (non-muslim) areas of the world striking 'western' cities?

digitally-yours

i completely agree with Culchie he is absolutely right
i am asian my self i know what ever the hell the bombers did was wrong
absolutely wrong there is no no way you can justify that in islam

but i can see the reasons why they do it

and ken livingstone has hit the nail on the head by saying "in justices in the world" and the "oil Greed"

toiletduck

digitally-yours wrote:

and ken livingstone has hit the nail on the head by saying "in justices in the world" and the "oil Greed"

wait until the oil runs out and the arabs realise they have little else (resources), that should be very interesting...

jman0

The overwhleming factor cannot be "religious hatred" because the bombers have no certainty of ascertaining the religious persuasion of their victims.

digitally-yours

well if oil runs out arabs will not be the only ones who will suffer

and it will b very childish to think that way
thats if oil runs out
there will b even more killings if the oil ran out coz of the aquiring resources

see how far is america from middie east and how come petrol is cheapest
there :mad:

america needs oil to survive full stop.

toiletduck wrote:

wait until the oil runs out and the arabs realise they have little else (resources), that should be very interesting...

mike65

Just a quick reminder to everyone here - we ALL use that oil and are glad to do so. Its not just about nasty politicans/politics. There are no excuses for
deliberatly blowing up civilians.

again ill ask you to point out were are the bombers from other dis-enfranchised (non-muslim) areas of the world striking 'western' cities?

Thats the underlying and unanswered question which bugs me the most, why do extreme Muslims do this so frequently. Those of other faiths rarely so. In moden times only Tamil Tigers have used the tactic as policy. In all other examples in history the targets were military not civilian.

Mike.

ps I dont rate Red Ken but his speech on the day of the attacks was a good one.

Culchie

toiletduck wrote:

wait until the oil runs out and the arabs realise they have little else (resources), that should be very interesting...

I've no idea what this is supposed to mean, however it's the undertone of it suggests to me, that you feel the arabs are worthless......their oil carries worth.

If I'm interpretating this statement correctly, you disappoint me very much as an Irish citizen. Yous hould be ashamed of yourself, and maybe you should have a look at the Irish Constitution and see what we fought for against the Empire, we are supposed to protect the weak, not exploit them.


If they had received proper compensation for their minerals, and the money was directed through proper government channels, then these countries and their citizens would be wealthy citizens indeed.

Instead corrupt governments were put in place by 'the west' and supported, and the money stayed in their pockets and never found it's way to the people. That's why they are wlaking around dusty streets with no shoes on their feet.

Compare that to Dubai or Norway.

These people have been pissed and crapped on from a great height, for a great many years.


Sadly, I feel I am wasting my time talking about this to you.

digitally-yours

culchie you are absolutely right
toilet duck has his own opinion
but i think its very clear who is responsible for all the sucide bomdings in terms of what made them do this
palistine and israel is a live expample
israel have f16 and tanks and all latest equipment given to them by america

what chance palistaine is left with they dont have anything to defend them self
and this injustice breeds to sucide boms and thinngs like this

Culchie

mike65 wrote:

ps I dont rate Red Ken but his speech on the day of the attacks was a good one.

I never thought much of him until he became Mayor of London either.

I think since he has just about disconnected himself from New labour, he has the courage and conviction to say and do what he feels is the right thing.
The right thing is not always the popular thing, it rarely is.

Whether you agree or not with his philosophies, if all the other politicians did the same, we might just get somewhere.

toiletduck

Culchie wrote:

I think since he has just about disconnected himself from New labour

i may be wrong but didnt he stand as a new labour candidate when running for mayor?

Culchie

digitally-yours wrote:

culchie you are absolutely right
toilet duck has his own opinion
but i think its very clear who is responsible for all the sucide bomdings in terms of what made them do this
palistine and israel is a live expample
israel have f16 and tanks and all latest equipment given to them by america

what chance palistaine is left with they dont have anything to defend them self
and this injustice breeds to sucide boms and thinngs like this

Whilst your point is correct, the Israeli people are only used as pawns by the USA as well.

Israel is only important because of it's geographical location on the map, no other reason, it's another US state artificially created so that they have a foothold in the region where they can base their army camps etc...
If there was no oil in the neighbourhood, the USA wouldn't give 2 ****es about Israel.

I under no circumstance condone suicide bombings of any nature, or targeting of civilians, however it is obvious that in their own repressed minds, this is their only way of fighting back. Their value on their own life has been reduced to zero as well.

Culchie

toiletduck wrote:

i may be wrong but didnt he stand as a new labour candidate when running for mayor?

Now you are just being pedantic and childish.

I said 'just about disconnected himself' ..... which I guess I should spell out. In fact I won't bother my ass.

You know Red Ken and Tony are hardly bosom buddies.

toiletduck

Culchie wrote:

I've no idea what this is supposed to mean, however it's the undertone of it suggests to me, that you feel the arabs are worthless......their oil carries worth.

thats not what i think but in the real world this is sadly true. if theres no oil there, then nobody would care about it just like nobody cared about the recent war in the congo that cost about 4 million lives. not a peep about it in the news.

If they had received proper compensation for their minerals, and the money was directed through proper government channels, then these countries and their citizens would be wealthy citizens indeed.

i agree, instead the ruling families/dictators of these countries beneifited. a sad situation indeed.

These people have been pissed and crapped on from a great height, for a great many years.

i agree but remember that the london bombers werent from the middle east, they haven't been "crapped on"

Sadly, I feel I am wasting my time talking about this to you.

no, i find your POV interesting but i dont think im explaining myself as well as i could.

toiletduck

Culchie wrote:

Now you are just being pedantic and childish.

clam down, i was just asking a question! i remember he left new labour but wasn't sure if he rejoined.

toiletduck

Culchie wrote:

Israel is only important because of it's geographical location on the map, no other reason, it's another US state artificially created so that they have a foothold in the region where they can base their army camps etc...
If there was no oil in the neighbourhood, the USA wouldn't give 2 ****es about Israel.

actually israel was supported by the US during the cold war because the USSR (which was, along with the US, one of the first countrys to recognise the state of israel) supported the arab states, after stalins belief that israel would become socialist were dashed.

Culchie

toiletduck wrote:

thats not what i think but in the real world this is sadly true. if theres no oil there, then nobody would care about it just like nobody cared about the recent war in the congo that cost about 4 million lives. not a peep about it in the news.



i agree, instead the ruling families/dictators of these countries beneifited. a sad situation indeed.


i agree but remember that the london bombers werent from the middle east, they haven't been "crapped on"


no, i find your POV interesting but i dont think im explaining myself as well as i could.

OK, reasonable debate, everything cool

The only point you have disagreed on here is the nationality of the bombers really.

These kids don't feel british, they live in their own communities, a country within a country.
In working class Britain, whites, Asians and Blacks do not mix. They do at a professional level, but in Leeds, Bradford, Leicester etc... they do not mix, and do not get on with each other.

When they look at TV, and see people of the same skin, same religion, same profile, same colour hair and eyes, they might as well be looking in the mirror. They see how 'their people' are being peed and crapped on by the Western world, which they may live in, but do not enjoy the benefits of, or can accociate themselves with.

It is no wonder this environment breeds trouble.

growler

toiletduck wrote:

i may be wrong but didnt he stand as a new labour candidate when running for mayor?

afaik, Labour decided to let him run as a labour candidate when they realised that their own candidate hadn't a hope of winning, Ken threatened to stand as an independent , Labour initially didn't want him to be a Labour candidate, but decided it was better to have Ken win as a Labour candidate than have an official labour candidate lose it (to Ken).

Culchie

toiletduck wrote:

actually israel was supported by the US during the cold war because the USSR (which was, along with the US, one of the first countrys to recognise the state of israel) supported the arab states, after stalins belief that israel would become socialist were dashed.

That is not the point.

The point is that the USA would have no interest in Israel, if it was located off the south coast of Kerry. (The same goes for the USSR)