| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Here is an interesting profile of London's dhimmi mayor "Red" Ken Livingstone, whom Hugh Fitzgerald has pilloried before in these pages. From Haaretz, with thanks to Sr. Soph.
Ken Livingstone was born in Stratham, in south London, in June 1945, one month after the end of World War II. "I grew up in a world in which all the horror of what the Nazis did unfolded over the years," he said in a newspaper interview six months ago. "For all my generation, we defined evil by that: that this is the absolute worst in human history."His world of images is anchored in that war and its horrors, from which he also occasionally draws some of his controversy-sparking expressions. In 1984, as a member of Camden borough council of London, he attacked the Board of Deputies - the umbrella organization of the Jewish communities in Britain - describing it as being "dominated by reactionaries and neo-fascists." Three years later, he compared Camden's housing policy to the persecution of homosexuals by Hitler's regime of terror. In 2000, he commented, "Capitalism has killed more people than Hitler."
But his sharp tongue reached the height of vulgarity of historic memory one evening last February. Livingstone was in an especially ebullient mood that night, and some say he was a trifle too ebullient due to having had a few too many drinks (he denies this) at a political get-together. Waiting outside the party was Oliver Finegold, a Jewish reporter for the Evening Standard, who peppered Livingstone with questions. The mayor responded by comparing the reporter to a kapo, a guard at a concentration camp.
This caused a huge storm. Holocaust survivors demonstrated outside his office. Synagogues called for a boycott of the mayor. Some observers feared the incident could hurt London's efforts to win the right to host the Olympic Games. Prime Minister Tony Blair phoned and asked Livingstone to apologize, but the mayor refused, with characteristic stubbornness. "Why should I say words I don't believe in?" he railed. But at the same time, in an effort to fend off the criticism, he also attested that "The Holocaust infuses all my politics."
After high school, Livingstone completed a teacher's certificate, but never used it. From a relatively young age he had worked as a technician in the cancer research laboratory of a hospital, was active in the Labour Party, and was drawn to its more radical circles. His political consciousness was etched by the protest movement of the 1960s. The two mainstays of his worldview emerged from that era. One was reflected in his opinions on foreign policy, in which it was always clear who were the bad guys (European colonialism and American imperialism) and who were the good guys (the repressed Third World). It comes as no surprise that in 2002 and 2003 he described Ariel Sharon as a "war criminal."
When George W. Bush was due to arrive in London on a visit, Livingstone called him "the most dangerous man in the world." Sharon and Bush are in good company in Livingstone's vocabulary. They are there together with the Saudi royal family, about which he said that he hoped to see its sons "swinging from lampposts."...
Posted by Rebecca at August 22, 2005 6:50 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
well ken livingstones certainly getting a lot of coverage in here these days, anyone would think someone had it in for him. he may well be erratic and not particularly careful when he opens his mouth, shpeshully if pished. but as far as i can see he is still pretty well thought of in london going by what people tell me.
he is right to say ariel sharon is a war criminal. sharon was found to be responsible for the massacre at sabra camps by israels supreme court, in fact part of the judgement of the court is i think still classified - i wonder why.
menachem begin was so sickened by his conduct he sacked him, and that is saying something ( wasnt it begin who gave the world the letter bomb? or was it another of the gangs operating before the establishment of the state of israel.)
livingstone was bang out of order though in bringing that old muslim fanatic to london, the one in favour of terror and suicide bombers, especially in view of whats happened. that might go against him if he stands for mayor again
he is right though in his sentiments re the saudis, an evil, basket case of a regime which however apparently can do no wrong in the eyes of western governments.
btw are those pakistani christians that got arrested in riyadh for meeting in a flat to worship the lord out of jail yet. 40 of them i think it was, men women and children. nobody lifted a finger to help them. nobody cared. well i mean its saudi arabia isnt it? we cant very well do anything about saudi arabia. youve just got to take your chances over there blah blah
as for saying president bush is the most dangerous man in the world, well thats just ridiculous, i mean that really is the limit - everyone knows bush wouldnt hurt a fly. ken must have been drunk again
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 22, 2005 8:43 PM
I remember reading extensivly about the Air war of britain during WWII..
and that was in a PUBLIC school (well before they all went down the toilet of political correctness)..
Doesnt mr Galloway know any of the history ...
I know i know he does but its kinda been revised..
at August 22, 2005 9:14 PM
Ken L shows how all politicians will become – “friends” with their Muslim voters.
Dumb Muslims blow up buses and hope for a traditional Jihad - by the sword.
The smart Muslims say "peace peace peace" and will overtake us from within, whereupon the Ken Livingston’s of the world and his generation(that Flower power 'peace at all costs' generation, who spat on our returning Viet Vet soldiers, the ultimate act of hate, and selfishness) will be long gone, while the X's Y's and Z's will be living in an Islamic hellhole, that was once our own country. Thanks to the Flower Power generation and their trendy, lefty ideas, the indiscriminate Multiculturalism they introduced, will be the curse of their children, and their grandchildren. What a legacy to leave your kids – an Islamic “paradise” just like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.
Oh and freddiefreeloader - if Sharon is a War Criminal, then so to is Winston Churchill. Both men were/are desparate to defend their own country from an agressor enemy. When you have Jihadi Muslims living on all sides of you, wanting to kill you, rape your women, cut their breasts off if they are with child, (as the PLO made a practice of doing, as they did with tying the victims limbs up to 4 cars and driving off in different directions - as what happened to many Lebanese infidels at the hands of the PLO) and the world has left you - well I'd like to see how you would fight for your survival.
at August 22, 2005 11:18 PM
But-- but-- but Livingstone gets rave reviews from David Duke!
http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com
/2005/08/ken-livingstone-and-david-duke.html
The gist of the story is that the ex-leader of the Ku Klux Klan says Livingstone is right in hating the Jews because they are oppressing the Palestinians. Birds of a feather.
Posted by: sonofwalker at August 22, 2005 11:46 PM
No, Ken Livingstone is not well thought of in London. He got voted in as Mayor partly because the other candidates were totally un-inspiring (a notoriously womanising tory and a ghastly Georgie Galloway groupie from Respect are the only ones I can remember off hand) and partly because he was perceived as a sincere man, a Londoner by birth (still means something in the most diverse city in the world) who was getting up the nose of the Blairites and Nu Labour. Even if his views were not genuine (and I believe he is really sincere in his misguided beliefs) he would have to court Islam as every other London is incensed at the congestion charge. Which has just gone up and he wants to extend.
Look back through the JW/DW archives for more comments from me and other UK posters. I pray that come the next election in 2008 we have a candidate worthy of my home, and worthy of my vote.
at August 23, 2005 3:09 AM
3rd time - i dont know how you can say churchill was a war criminal, unless you are refering to the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in dresden, which was utterly pointless in my view. in any event he was never hauled before any court like sharon and condemned by his own country.
maybe youve just got it in for churchill because he stuck up for the rights of muslims as india was approaching independence, refering to the congress party as "that hindu priesthood". maybe you think he was a dhimmi as well
well granny im not going to argue with you re livingstones present standing in london as you are there and im not. but i say good on him for the congestion charge. cars should be banned!
Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 23, 2005 6:10 AM
freddiefreeloader:
Just be aware of who "hauled" Sharon into court and who the framers were of the question(s) upon which he was judged: the Palestinians and their equally murderous claque of supporters. Israel has been the target of 25% of the UN General Assembly's condemning resolutions, yet it ranks in the mid-30s on the human rights violation chart, far behind those who bring and support these resolutions.
As for being criticized by his own countrymen, as David Ben Gurion put it to John Kennedy, "You think it's hard being president to 200 million people? Try being president to 2 million presidents." And I have no idea how many political parties are represented in the Knesset.
I'm not a fan of Sharon, but he was democratically elected, with a big helping hand from Arafat & Co., and the continuing orchestrated violence known as Intifada II.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 23, 2005 10:55 AM
freddie:
I see your reference was to the Sabra massacres and not the recent UN High Court ruling on the security barrier. Sharon's part in the piece was standing back and letting the Christian Phalangists take care of things. See Brigitte Gabriel's point of view on the Israeli participation in Lebanon's Civil War on her website. (She's a Lebanese Christian living in the US.)
IDF troops went into Lebanon because of persistent attacks on Israel from over the border. The Lebanese government, which was very much a divided house between Christians, Druse and various Muslim factions, were helpless in the face of Arafat's factions and his Syrian supporters. Condemn Sharon if you like, but what would you have done in his place? Tell the Phalangists to handle the inhabitants of these rats' nests with kid gloves?
Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 23, 2005 11:07 AM
water - i well appreciate your comments about the targeting of israel re human rights. thick stupid, ultra rich tyrants are always going to target somone else to divert world attention away from their own evil.
i am also aware of the guilt of christian phalangists in the lebanon re the slaughter which took place, but sharon was found to be responsible by the state of israel, and the leading article above indicates that ken livingstone was wrong to label him a war criminal.
incidentally theres far more talk in here about israel than there is about dhimmis. i mean i pass comments about israel simply because everyone else does, which i suppose is wrong.
when i first came across this site i thought - brilliant - a site dedicated to the problems facing non muslims suffering under the yoke of satan in muslim countries
how wrong i was - it s all about western politicians etc and how they are trying to deal with the islam problem and if anyone doesnt agree with the general tone of this site, then they get called "dhimmis"
so we have "dhimmi" as a term of insult applied to people who are not dhimmis, and as for the real dhimmis, well who gives a shite?
Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 23, 2005 1:02 PM
waterdragon52
What is truly amazing is that nobody but the Lebanese Christians said anything about the massacre in the town of Damour in 1976 by Arafat and his Syrian sidekicks.
Brigitte Gabriel mentions that and others
http://www.falangist.com/damour.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1060712/posts
"In the siege that had been established on 9 January the Palestinians cut off food and water supplies and refused to allow the Red Cross to take out the wounded. Infants and children died of dehydration. Only three more townspeople were killed as a result of PLO fire between the first night and the last day, 23 January. But on that day, when the final onslaught came, hundreds of the Christians were killed. Father Labaky goes on: ... "
http://www.lebaneseforces.com/blastfromthepast002.asp
" The horror did not end there, the old Christian cemetery was also destroyed, coffins were dug up, the dead robbed, vaults opened, and bodies and skeletons thrown across the grave yard. Damour was then transformed into a stronghold of Fatah and the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine). The ruined town became one of the main PLO centers for the promotion of international terrorism."
No wonder the Phalangists went wild when given entry to look for PLO, what should we call them, insurgents, operatives, guerrilas?
But the world while courting Arafat sidestepped the issue by blaming Sharon.
at August 23, 2005 3:56 PM
freddiefreeloader,
I have a lot of respect for the work of Barnabas Fund http://www.barnabasfund.org/ which exists to assist persecuted Christian minorities by prayer and practical support. Are you familiar with the organisation?
at August 23, 2005 4:00 PM
yes i am granny i have the website on my favourites column and it was reading patrick sookhdeos book "a people betrayed" re christians in pakistan that really made me aware of the true status of non muslims in muslim majority countries
Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 23, 2005 4:44 PM
cynic you are very right indeed to point out the reason for the phalangists revenge in lebanon. i clicked on one of the websites you posted and the details it contained were absolutely horrendous
but this is now what some muslim leaders are saying in this country - that they are not justifying or supporting the actions of palestinian suicide bombers etc, merely explaining why it happens. while some of them may be speaking honestly in this, others, given what they have said on other occasions are clearly not.
i mean, were you justifying/supporting the actions of the phalangists, or just explaining why it happened
also the world may "have sidestepped the issue by blaming sharon" but israel also pointed the finger clearly at him
Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 23, 2005 5:07 PM
freddiefreeloader - Winston Churchill actually said a lot of negative things about Islam - read them sometime.
As for Sharon and others like him hauled before the "courts" - isn't it interesting how in a Western style democracy (which I might add Israel is - the only one in the ME) that we can actually put on trial those who we suspect of crimes.
If we were to do that with the Muslim leadership political/military the courts would be clogged up for a million years.
The Muslims only look clean, because nobody ever points the finger. Lets just all keep the oil flowing hey??
Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at August 23, 2005 11:33 PM
freddie - don't forget - often the infidels rage is at the end of a long line of persecution.
And as Waterdragon says - Sharon was democractically elected. Criminals in most democracies cannot stand for parliment. So if he is guilty, why is he leader?
As I said freddie - the Allies in WW2 commited many crimes - on BOTH sides. Total war demands it. I have seen the hate for the Nazi's my English grandmother had after surviving the Blitz, and losing a lover. She couldn't fathom that we Allies did horrible things to the Nazi's in that total war - like Dresden or the Dam Busters bombing. But like I said, how can you condem someone (Sharon), who is literally fighting for their survival? (be it Chruchill or Sharon).
Israel is barely 15km in width in some places, she had been attacked on three fronts, by an agressor enemy (Islam), more than three times since 1948 (not even the might of Nazi Germany could sustain a war on two fronts, with lessor odds and greater land to defend). The Jews since 1948 have been fighting Islam for their very survival in a total, ongoing war.
Nobody likes war (except Mohammed), but it is a fact of life. And yes horrible things happen in war. Can it be justified? How can we, all comfortable in our Western homes judge?
Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at August 23, 2005 11:41 PM
"3rd time - i dont know how you can say churchill was a war criminal, unless you are refering to the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in dresden, which was utterly pointless in my view. in any event he was never hauled before any court like sharon and condemned by his own country"
Of course he wasn't but what does that say/prove? That in Winstons day the all pervading Left hadn't infiltrated our education, our courts, our politics. IT had started to, but it wasn't dominant.
If WW2 happened today, with the current attitudes, well it wouldn't happen at all. We would allow Nazi's - in en masse into our countries, as they are 'persecuted' back in germany. And if war did break out, Chruchill WOULD TODAY be hauled before the courts for 1) Defeating a Muslim ally (the Nazi's) and
2) For bombing civilian populations.
In other words, if WW2 happened today, we would all be saying "Hiel Hitler!!!"
Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at August 23, 2005 11:50 PM
3rd time - i wouldnt really argue with anything in your last entries, but i do think that "civilised" countries are right to have a line in place which ought not to be crossed, even in time of war. look at the usa and how they are dealing with the criminals of abu ghraib
Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 24, 2005 1:40 AM
actually 3rd time, there are so many things i could say re your last posts but im too knackered (had a hard day) but thinking about dresden again, the british were well past the survival stage and by that time we were clearly winning, by the time the dresden bombings took place.
as for noone like war except mohammed, well who are you trying to kid 3rd time? i mean to say there are large numbers of people in every country who would not say no to war, indeed, who would enthusiasticaly endorse it
as for the "all pervading left" please dont start on about the good old left wing - just where would you be without it?
"if he is guilty, why is he leader" well i did not find him to be responsible - the state of israel did - so ask them
any way ;im going to my kip - too tired
at August 24, 2005 2:59 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)