I don’t recall him taking this line after 7/7.

And on Press TV too.
Classy.

“Ken Livingstone said that American foreign policy ‘fuels the anger’ that drove such young men (from Boston for example) into acts of terrorism.”

Is this the same Ken Livingstone that was so fueled with the anger of women’s liberation that he gave his partner a beating?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-124215/What-Ken-did-party-victim.html

As any fule kno, the rules of the Labour Party do not and have never applied to Ken Livingstone.

Tory MPs never lose an opportunity to make themselves look even stupider than they are, do they?

And here is the lady herself speaking the inconvenient truth in moving colour pictures, Tory MPs watch carefully now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVGgw-2LSC8

I seem to have missed the comedy

Jimmy, you’re right about ken not caring for labour rules, but what’s that got to do with Ed being told and then acting on getting Livingstone off the NEC, I’m not a ken fan but his comment seemed sound, of course if ken gets the gen election candidacy for Brent again he’ll not rest and for the NaeC in 2014′ not that he was automatically going t o win a place on t he NEC, his vote fell quite a lot between 2010 and 2012′

Arguably we gave Osama Bin Laden his Iraqi Jihad. So that he was able to move into Iraq in a way that he wasn’t before,” she added.

The difference is that Manningham-Buller was warning of the consequences of invading Iraq while Livingstone is attempting to use the invasion to excuse a terrorist attack: it’s the difference between warning your children to look both ways before crossing the road and telling someone who has been run over it’s their own fault.

You can bet if the attacks had been carried out by rightwing extremists he wouldn’t be blaming Obamacare, gun control, or whatever got their knickers in a twist.

I’m utterly amazed that you can twist an MI5 warning to New Labour into a stick for beating the ‘rightwing’ though.

And you didn’t mention the invasion of Afghanistan, which you supported.

I’m unconvinced that Obama’s foreign policy is wrong – on recalling that as a US Senator he had opposed the war with Iraq from the start long before he was first elected President in 2008. But with a series of similar news reports to this one from 2008, unfortunately there are many reasons for concerns over the execution of American foreign policy:

US air strike wiped out Afghan wedding party, inquiry finds
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/11/afghanistan.usa

What you’re missing out in your deeply researched article is that Ken was talking on Iranian TV. Context is always important. In this case Ken is telling Iranians and others that they can have an excuse to attack the US and that its not their fault that the US winds them up so much to be attacked. Eliza’s case is a totally different context. She was giving advice to a small number of people as to what could happen.

Really, SadButMadLad? No one can prevent Iranian TV from broadcasting Eliza BM’s comments. Either we can tell the truth or we can’t. You can’t, in today’s world, tell Parliament (in public session) but not foreign countries. Even if that were desirable and even if it’s justifiable – you just can’t do it any more. Besides, it is ludicrous to suggest that Ken was speaking with the intention of encouraging more attacks. He was simply making the basic observation: the West commits crimes, and there’s blowback.

@ Shatterface & sadbutmadlad

Don’t you think Ken’s comments were in the ‘I told you so’ vein? (Please note, the quote marks are not me quoting Ken. What I mean is it has been obvious public knowledge for a long time – centuries in fact (Ireland for example) that a powerful group abusing that power (in the case of Ireland, English colonial overlords) to impose their own tribalistic power junkie crap on others through killing or disenfranchising the ‘others’ only guarantees retaliation from said ‘others’ one way or another. Didn’t the troubles last for centuries, and have they ended? Btw religion was also a factor in the troubles…

“I’m not a ken fan but his comment seemed sound,”

How so? There has been no public comment either directly or indirectly from the surviving suspect as far as I’m aware. On what basis is he explaining his motives?

“if ken gets the gen election candidacy for Brent again”

Please tell me that’s a joke.

@ Shatterface

The difference is that Manningham-Buller was warning of the consequences of invading Iraq while Livingstone is attempting to use the invasion to excuse a terrorist attack: it’s the difference between warning your children to look both ways before crossing the road and telling someone who has been run over it’s their own fault.

But if they didn’t check for cars before crossing the road, the accident would have been their fault.

Are you arguing that the unprovoked invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan did not increase Islamic hostility towards the USA?

14. pagar

Lets not forget to heightened terrorist attacks in the UK.

Pagar
“Are you arguing that the unprovoked invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan did not increase Islamic hostility towards the USA?”

What has Islamic hostility to do with the Boston bombings ? This argument is always used to explain these acts but why do Muslims with no connections with the invaded lands feel that solidarity with their co religionists justifies the killing of innocent people ?
The problem with this line is that it is not only illogical but rather reinforces the idea that all Muslims are a potential threat. You can bet your life that if I was to suggest we have a problem with Islam a hoard of commenters would descend to call me Islamaphobic, yet apparently It’s fine to use the essentialist argument that all Muslims are one as a way of condemning the US.

““if ken gets the gen election candidacy for Brent again”

Please tell me that’s a joke.”

It was an April Fool joke at Left Futures. John Reid was made a fool of at the time but it seems the penny still hasn’t dropped. And Bitethehand can get stuffed with his or her disgusting lie.

Thornavis @ 16

What has Islamic hostility to do with the Boston bombings ?

The bombers were Muslims.

This argument is always used to explain these acts but why do Muslims with no connections with the invaded lands feel that solidarity with their co religionists justifies the killing of innocent people ?

Irrelevant. They feel that solidarity and act on it.

The problem with this line is that it is not only illogical but rather reinforces the idea that all Muslims are a potential threat.

I think they are.

By invading Muslim countries, the nations that do so surrender the moral high ground. As the Yemen is unlikely to invade the UK by way of retaliation, their people respond with individual acts of guerilla warfare.

It can then be argued that these are justified in the context.

I’ve never previously heard of Brooks Newmark but what he is alleged to have said is “Fair comment on a matter of public interest”. Salmon Pink Ken (well, the Evening Standard’s restaurant critic is never going to eat Cod with his chips) is telling Iranians that attacks on the west are justified by the Russian invasion of Chechnya so they have a moral imperative to attack the UK, a co-conspirator in the repulse of Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, as in the 7/7 bombings and the recent failed plots (I was amused that the planned attack on the EDL rally failed because they ran out of speakers!).
Does the Labour Party want to claim that terrorist bombings by so-called Muslims who have failed to read the Koran are justified, or not?
NB Sunny: Surah IV 89 – any Muslim who placers a bomb where it can kill another Muslim is condemned to Hell for ever.

@Pagar

Well if you think there’s a problem with all Muslims then you shouldn’t be too squeamish about taking the fight back to them. I don’t think there’s a problem with all Muslims, although there is a problem with Islam and some of its adherents interpretation of it. Since it is obvious that not all Muslims or even a substantial number, feel they are obliged to fight on behalf of their brethren then I don’t see why anyone should make excuses for those who do. Just as I didn’t feel it necessary to make excuses for the IRA when they justified their actions by reference to British injustices towards Irish catholics.

Ken is to the Tories on here, what Thatcher was to some Lefties – a hate figure in part for being radical and in part for being successful at it.

They will never miss a chance to attack him and smear him and blame him for anything and everything and they delight in raising every possible criticism of him possible just as many a Lefty has done for a long time about Thatcher.

In the end that means his comments on this subject are an utter irrelevance to their opinion on those comments. He isn’t a very nice chap just as Thatcher wasn’t a very nice woman. He’s done and said some bad things, as did she. But that’s all meaningless. What matters is that it is Ken, and those who would dance on his grave are pretending they have cause to be indignant – when what they really are is just indignant because it’s him.