Coffee House

Ed Miliband faces calls to remove Ken Livingstone from Labour NEC after ‘disgusting’ remarks

30 April 2013

4:15 PM

30 April 2013

4:15 PM

Ken Livingstone’s remarks about the motives of the Boston bombing suspects have been widely condemned for suggesting that American foreign policy ‘fuels the anger’ that drove such young men into acts of terrorism. Tory chairman Grant Shapps has demanded the former Mayor of London apologise for causing offence:

‘These are irresponsible, insensitive and thoughtless comments which show why Ken Livingstone is not fit to hold public office. He should unreservedly apologise for the distress he has caused’

Brooks Newmark MP has gone one step further and written to Ed Miliband this afternoon, asking the Labour leader to also condemn the remarks and remove Livingstone from Labour’s National Executive Committee. Coffee House has seen a copy of the letter, which you can read in full below:

‘I find it wholly reprehensible for Mr Livingstone to link the Boston bombings to Western intervention in the Middle East. In doing so, he suggests that the actions of the two Boston bombers were justified and excusable. I am sure that both you and the Labour Party agree that terrorism, which in this case killed three innocent people and injured many others, is never justified and never excusable.

‘As a member of Labour’s NEC, Mr Livingstone has been placed in a position of responsibility and influence within your Party. As leader of the Labour Party, I call on you to condemn these disgusting remarks and remove Mr. Livingstone from your NEC. I know you will want to do so as soon as possible to make clear that neither you nor the Labour Party condones such beliefs.’


During his reign as Mayor of London, Livingstone was widely praised for his speech in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings, which demonstrated a sensitivity missing in these remarks. But he has been critical of American’s foreign policy in the past, so his views will come as little surprise to those well acquainted with Red Ken.

UPDATE: Livingstone spoken out to defend his comments, stating they were not a ‘specific’ commentary on the Boston bombings. According to the BBC website, Livingstone said ‘they were a broader explanation of what has motivated terrorists over several decades to carry out attacks on the West and have a particular dislike for America’.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Renie Anjeh

    Ken should have been kicked out of the Labour Party for what he did to the party in Tower Hamlets which directly contradicts the rules of the party as set out by the NEC. He was a liability then, and remains a liability now. Ed cannot keep on kowtowing to Ken or his people.

  • Cumberland

    Why be smart looking for reasons why, put blame where it should be, islam has books of instruction,even direction on how to deal with the unbeliever, regrettably the people of Boston have experienced one of them.

  • Arturaski

    He’s still on the NEC…?!

  • Fergus Pickering

    Freedom of speech, which all Americans endorse (it’s in their constitution somewhere) means that Ken Livingstone should be able to say what he likes. It is not as if he is a lone voice in saying it serves Bostonians right.

    After all, the Minutemen were terrorists, were they not?.

    • Arturaski

      Who are the others saying it serves the Bostonians right? Are they extremists or apologists for extremists? Are they people who use bland-sounding relativism to cloak their viciousness?

      • Fergus Pickering

        They are lefties who don’t like the US for the most part. And there are plenty of them. Just as there are plenty of Americans, usually of Irish extraction and many of them living in Boston, who hate the English and want to kill them, were in fact instrumental in killing large numbers of them.

  • persiancat

    As Galloway said, Miliband has the back bone of an amoeba. Miliband seemed pretty sanguin about the fact that Livingstone once worked for Press TV (and back on there by all accounts) run by the thug-ocracy in Tehran and still backed him as Labour candidate for London Mayor. Of course Livingstone is free to have opinions, but his choice of platform (Iranian regime propaganda channel) is questionable. Go on Ed, be a man for once !

  • judyk113

    So let’s get this clear.

    According to Livingstone, the statements he uttered:

    I think this fuels the anger of the young men, who, as we saw in Boston, went out, and, out of anger and demand for revenge, claimed lives in the West.

    were not actually statements about the Boston bombings.

    Once again, further proof of Andrew Gilligan’s characterisation of Livingstone as the most prolific liar in public life in a generation.

  • Dogsnob

    This ‘it’s the foreign policy, stupid’ meme is surely past its sell-by date?

    Is there an alternative US or UK foreign policy which would dissuade such people from their anger? No.

    Regardless of what the West does, it is on the menu of an insatiable diner.

  • Augustus

    “young men, who — as we saw in Boston — went out, and, out of anger and demand for revenge, claimed lives in the West.”

    Murder is murder and it has nothing to do with what the poor criminal was thinking at the time. We don’t punish thought; we punish actions. But leave it up to the Gestapo Left and all that’s bound to change.

  • CharlietheChump

    Just what we have come to expect from the odious creep.

  • monkey for sale

    Ken Livingstone , and people like him, are the reason that I would never vote Labour again.

    This loathsome slag will take the coin of the Iranian government to take at pop at democratic governments .

    Poetic justice dictates that he should be mugged by Pakistani
    immigrants and pushed to the ground. His injuries would prove fatal .


    • Matthew Blott

      Pull the other one, you’ve never voted Labour in your life.

      • Andy

        With Fascist scum like Livingstone as members no one should vote Labour.

      • monkey for sale

        I’m working class, don’t own any stocks or shares. Rent from a housing association – who would I vote for ?

        Anyway, there are no elections in London this week .

        • Russell

          Move to the UK, as an immigrant you will be provided for in unimaginable ways. Nice house rent free, and as long as you have a few kids, no council tax, tax free benefits free interpreters should you get in trouble with the law (but don’t worry, as long as you have a family your rights will be protected and you can’t be sent home, no matter what crimes you commit). Thank Labour and Brown for creating this unreal world of Great Britain.

    • Russell

      Livingstone & Galloway, the real labour party. Nasty vicious, anti British (almost racist against white British males). Much worse than any UKIP member, or even a majority of EDL or BNP party members.

  • Tom Burroughes

    So if the young men who perpetrated this attack hated the US so much, why did they choose to live there, Mr Livingstone? More broadly, his arguments are scarcely much better than the “blowback” arguments of former senator Ron Paul, who has blamed the US interventions in the Middle East on various attacks in recent years (although to be fair, that is not the same as excusing or justifying them). But the Chechen dispute has precious little to do with US foreign policy. Arguably, many of the attacks on the US were not really all that connected. And perhaps Mr Livingstone should consider how US forces, and other nations, protected Muslims in the Balkans against Serbs.

    The world is a complex place, but Livingstone prefers to see everything through the prism of evil America. The sad fact is, however, that a lot of supposedly educated people agree with him.

    This is a man who, in the past, has shared public platforms with the likes of Sinn Fein IRA and other such groups. He has been playing this game for decades.

    • David Lindsay

      But the Chechen dispute has precious little to do with US foreign policy.

      Why did they attack America, then?

      • biggestaspidistra

        their faith seems to have been a contributing factor

        • David Lindsay


          This is about policy. It always is.

          • PAUL WESTON

            Islamic terrorism is about politics and religion. Islam is about
            politics and religion. If you cannot seperate church and state, which Islam cannot, then you cannot logically deny faith was a contributing factor in the Boston bombing.

            One would need an encylopedic knowledge of global policy to understand why Islamic terror attacks number more than 20,000 since 9/11. Just think of all the countries: Sudan – genocide of 200,000 plus non-Muslims, Nigeria, Thailand, China etc etc and of course the ongoing Sunni/Shia conflicts in Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood versus the more moderate strands of Islam in Tunisia,Egypt, etc etc.

            Are you quite sure faith is not involved here somewhere?

            • David Lindsay

              I never said that.

              It is not only on one side.

              And I don’t believe in the ridiculous concept, meaningless in principle and horrific in practice, of the separation of Church and State.

              • PAUL WESTON

                If you re-read your comment Mr Lindsay you will find that you did indeed imply faith had nothing to do with Boston.

                I am greatly heartened that you could find nothing new in what I said. Many congratulations, you are clearly a well educated man.

                Your final paragraph confuses me though. Are you saying you disagree with the concept of secularism?

                Affectionately, the bore from the wrong bar.

                • David Lindsay

                  If you re-read your comment Mr Lindsay you will find that you did indeed imply faith had nothing to do with Boston.


                  You are out of your depth. But then, no one who wasn’t would hold your policy positions. Mercifully, such a person is no longer President of the United States. Possibly still Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, though. But not for much longer.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Yes, you’d much rather presidents who ask for God’s blessings on abortionists. That would go along with your love of terrorist murderers.

                • Wessex Man

                  By golly David, you are turning into quite the revolutionary in your declining years.

                • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                  And you are an arrogant little bore who believes yours is the definitive opinion on everything and that nobody else is entitled to a different view.

                • JamesdelaMare

                  NC – Surely this is really not about whether you think Mr Lindsay is an “arrogant little bore” (and of course there’s no room for silly trite insults in a sensible debate on a serious subject), but whether the Boston bombings relate to the actions worldwide that result from US foreign policy, in particular those where widespread killing of Moslems have taken place in invasions of foreign countries by American troops?

                  It would seem unwise to the point of absurdity to rule out the probability that any hits taken by Americans have no connection with American actions against Moslems. Personally I’d go much further and suggest that the hits are retaliation. If that’s what Livingstone thinks, then the sooner Spectator readers and other Conservatives wake up to that reality, the sooner we could find a way of preventing more trouble. Otherwise in fifty years people will wonder how we were so blinkered over the stupidity of ratcheting up the hatred of Muslims to our western standards and Christianity.

            • dalai guevara

              Paul, I know this has nothing to do with this particular scenario you describe, but would not anyone looking into Britain from the outside assume that the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England was also a position where the conflation of state and church was at least noted.

              If you wish to separate church and state, then separate church and state, for God’s sake – at home.

            • Daniel Maris

              Don’t worry. He knows the real answer to the question. He just can’t face it ideologically.

          • chan chan

            Rubbish. A straightfoward Islamic jihad attack, as per the doctrine. End of story.

        • Eddie

          In the 1930s there were plenty of apologists arguing that whenever a German tortured and oppressed people, it was actually our fault for not allowing them to win WWI and treating them unfairly.
          False argument from start to finish, because no matter what The West does or doesn’t do, many Muslims will want to destroy our way of life; and a non-sequitor: our foreign policy should not be decided by bullies and backwards fanatics in any way at all. Muslim radicals will always do what they do and we should never ever pander to such fascists (which the Left support because they are brown-skinned minorities)
          You don’t stop a crocodile eating you by feeding him your friends – one day he will want you for lunch. We need to be more Churchillian here and condemn the terrorists, not the victims.
          These men killed because of Islam – their version (supported by Saudi oil money); there are others – these liberal forms struggle to be heard because of the support of the former radical sort by our politically correct councils, schools, universities, government etc.
          Livingstone is as muddled as the social worker who thinks all crime is because we don’t understand criminals – because we have more possessions than some of them. Therefore, it is our fault when we are mugged…
          Lots of apologists for Islamofascists on the left – and all pc diversity-worshipping parts of the bureaucratic elites that rule us all.
          I don’t notice Ken Al-Livingstone saying it was mass immigration that is to blame for Brievik and similar attacks. Yet, it is certainly true that it is what inspired that anger and violence.
          Fact is:

      • Tom Burroughes

        It appears their religion – or ideology – was probably the motivating reason, Richard, although there is always room for doubt. Of course, you may recall that when the horror originally was perpetrated, some of the more excitable members of the commentariat thought it might have been carried out by far-right gun rights types, the Tea Partiers, etc. All the more reason to be careful about motives when the bodies are still being buried.

        Even if a conflict has nothing to do with US foreign policy, if there is a country with Islamist fundamentalists in it – such as parts of the former Soviet empire – said Islamists can try and convince themselves that the evil America is to blame for their woes and hence do such things. The late, great Christopher Hitchens liked to point out that such people, with their passive-aggressive posture of injured pride and petulance, were remarkably creative in coming up with imagined slights to their self-esteem.

        • David Lindsay

          It appears their religion – or ideology – was probably the motivating reason

          “Appears” to whom?

          The 9/11 lot said that it was about American troops in Saudi Arabia (who were duly withdrawn by Bush, the one good thing that he ever did), and the 7/7 lot said that it was about Afghanistan and Iraq.

          • Tom Burroughes

            Oh of course Islamists terrorists like to cite Saudi Arabia, or some other specific issue, as the reason for blowing up kids and the like. But this is disengenous in the extreme. Ask yourself why a couple of young Chechen immigrants – who chose to live in a place they affected to despise, attacked runners at a marathon, when that marathon was going to be full of people from around the world? How does Iraq or some other specific national issue even begin to justify that?

            We tend to forget that Islamists have been attacking the west for over 30 years, long before anyone had heard of George W Bush, “neocons”, or so on.

            • David Lindsay

              But this is disengenous in the extreme.

              No, it isn’t. Bush withdrew the troops from Saudi Arabi, and there has been no further “al-Qaeda” (whatever that is) attack on the United States.

              If Britain had not participated in the Iraq War, especially, though also that in Afghanistan, then there would have been no 7/7.

              Why do you think that most Western countries never have these problems? I do not mean that question rhetorically. Why do you think that it is?

              • Dicky14

                ‘there would have been no 7/7’? Germaine Lindsay (no relation I guess – hee hee?) was a fruitcake of the highest order, history of abuse, neglect, drugs, alcohol and then got in with those guys. I think in your search for rationalism and political motive you may be missing out that they were sad, little men with a history of lonliness, alienation, under achievement and, frankly, stark raving crackers.

                • David Lindsay

                  sad, little men with a history of lonliness, alienation, under achievement and, frankly, stark raving crackers.

                  Further comment on that would be quite, quite superfluous…

                • Dicky14

                  I know his mum – it’s not a happy story.

                • victor67

                  perhaps but there is no doubt that what pushed them to blow up the underground was watching ME news channels every night for 18 months churning out images of the bloody US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

                  Simple now No UK involvement in Iraq No 7/7

                • Daniel Maris

                  “history of loneliness, alienation, under achievement and, frankly, stark raving crackers.” – so why didn’t they start attending Dr Who conventions or beer festivals…That’s not what made them prepare shrapnel to blow off the limbs of children, women and old folk.

                • Dicky14

                  In the case of Germaine he was groomed as was Richard Reeves. I’m certainly not saying all of them but a controlling mind does often prey on vulnerable chaps who are very easily influenced and like the attention. It’s rather depressing. It appears that the younger Boston lad may too have been used but that may come out in the wash.

                • Arturaski

                  A ‘vulnerable mind’ that’s temporarily forgotten that murdering people is wrong.

                  We make choices. Sometimes we make the wrong choices. Let’s be bold and say so, or else we’ll intellectualise the meaning out of everything.

              • PAUL WESTON

                Islamic bomb attacks on Spanish trains, Madrid 2004? The attempted assassination of Lars Hedegaard in Denmark? The murder of Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands? Attempted bombing of German trains in 2006? The murder of soldiers in France? Suicide bombers in Sweden 2010? North African Islamist terror cells in Italy?

                I could go on, but I think you get the point Mr Lindsay. Islam does not need a reason, because Islam IS the reason. This is why they divide the world into two spheres – the House of War and the House of Islam. The West is in the house of war sphere because we are not Islamic.

                Muhammed: “I have been ordered to fight all men until there is no God but Allah.”

                • David Lindsay

                  A specific policy reason cited by the perpetrators for each and every one of them. Not their fault if you don’t listen. They never tire of telling you.

                • Daniel Maris

                  Yes but the terrorists are no different in that from other totalitarians like the Nazis who always had a good reason for invading somewhere – protecting oppressed Germans, stopping communism, restoring Reich territory unjustly stolen etc. , to stop a planned invasion etc. Followers of Sharia are always ready with excuses and complaints.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …much like you and your windmill fetish.

                • Tom Burroughes

                  Of course terrorists give a specific reason in each case, but that is not the opposite of saying that they also consider themselves to be part of a broad-based fight to destroy what they see as a decadent, secular West. The two are not mutually exclusive. And in any event, many of their “specific policy reasons” are just excuses used to bamboozle people. I very much doubt whether OBL and others actually gave a brass farthing for the fate of Palestinians, or whoever, but saw such groups as serving the purpose of “noble victims”. For instance, have these Islamists considered the efforts of Western forces to prevent the destruction of Muslims in the Balkans, or the attacks on the Marsh Arabs by Saddam, and the attacks on Muslims in other parts of Iraq? No. Because these maniacs don’t really give a damn about the fate of millions of ordinary Muslims who, like most sane people, want to get on with life.

                • chan chan

                  Yes, the Islamic policy of killing non-muslims because we are non-muslims. And yes, they do keep telling us this.

                • Arturaski

                  You seem to be doing a fine job for them. Thorough, in fact. Almost…lawyerly.

                • PAUL WESTON

                  Mr Lindsay, this will be my final response to you. You are unable to mount a coherent argument because you either do not know about the subject matter at hand, or you don’t want to know. Islam is a supremacist and warlike movement formed in the image of Muhammed, a warlord as well as a spiritual prophet. Between the 7th century and the 17th century Islam expanded violently across the world bringing down civilisations as well as individual countries.

                  This violent expansion is laid out in the Koran and the hadiths. Islam is simply doing to the letter what it says in the script. It was quiet for 300 years when the West outpaced them in terms of military ability (industrial revolution, guns and tanks V swords and camels) but Islam is now both oil rich and demographically booming within the Citadels of the West.

                  Islam presents the greatest threat to peace the West has ever faced. I suggest you study it in more detail Mr Lindsay.

                • chan chan

                  Don’t forget the 21 people murdered by Islamic Jihadists in China last week. It’s all China’s fault. If they hadn’t invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, it wouldn’t have happened, would it..?

              • Daniel Maris

                Are you actually off your head! No further attack on the USA? Rubbish. Al Queda formally declared war on the USA, and that declaration has never been withdrawn (although I think they offered a truce at one stage).

                • Smell the glove

                  Yes no further attacks on US since 2004. This might be that the leadership have been Droned out of existence ?

              • eric45

                The transatlantic “shoe bomber” Richard Reid attack occurred before the Irag invasion.

                The Glasgow airport jihadi’s were heard shouting “allah akbar” (as described in John Smeaton’s BBC ).

                The BBC is today reporting 17 islamic jihadi’s have been convicted from Birmingham area alone since February.

                The “religion of peace” is the problem.

              • Tom Burroughes

                Richard Lindsay claims there were no further attacks on the US after the withdrawal of troops from Saudi. I think it is more likely that some attacks – wasn’t there an attempted attack on Times’ Square a while ago – were foiled, or failed to go ahead.

                While motivations vary, some Islamists want nothing less than the return of the Caliphate. Quite how any power, the US or otherwise, can accomodate that desire is beyond me. Some demands cannot be conceded. Yes, we can withdraw from parts of the MidEast, make ourselves energy self-sufficient, and so on. But it is naive – if not downright evasive nonsense – to suppose that this will solve the problem of Islamic fundamentalism.

              • Arturaski

                If Britain had not participated in the Iraq War, especially, though also that in Afghanistan, then there would have been no 7/7

                How do you know?

            • HookesLaw

              And GW when he came into power was not particularly interested in interfering in the middle east.
              The 9/11 attack was planned under Clinton. If the idea was to frighten America off it was a bit pointless.

              • Simon Semere

                You’re either an intelligent republican or just very dim.

              • Tom Burroughes

                The WTC was attacked in the early 90s when Clinton was POTUS. That happens to be a fact.

            • Daniel Maris

              No – 1400 years, non-stop. Just a brief lull, but not total cessation, from about 1800 to 1950 during the colonial period.

          • Daniel Maris

            You’ve got a lot to learn if you think the demand to remove troops from Arabia had nothing to do with religion…

        • David Lindsay

          The late, great Christopher Hitchens liked to point out that such people, with their passive-aggressive posture of injured pride and petulance, were remarkably creative in coming up with imagined slights to their self-esteem.

          Further comment on that would be quite, quite superfluous.

      • HookesLaw

        They are hysterical nutjobs

        • David Lindsay

          No. They are bad. But they are not mad.

          • Dicky14

            I’m not sure what your psychiatric training entails, Mr Lindsay, but the indiscriminate maiming & murdering of innocent civilians for a cause that is so distant, so wholly unable to be affected by their actions, so nihilistic in its outcome would, to me, seem mad.

            • David Lindsay

              Yes, I expect that it does…

              • Arturaski

                But not to you…?

    • Tim

      Ron Paul was a congressman, dufus

      • Tom Burroughes

        Ugh, I know. My error. But the point about his “blowback” argument being a flawed argument still stands. His son Rand is a senator of course. My confusion. Not enough coffee.

  • Magnolia

    People in Boston who had just run a marathon had their legs blown off.
    A child was killed.
    This did not happen at a political event nor were these bombs directed against politicians or the armed forces in the course of their duty.
    This was terrorism and it was perpetrated (allegedly) by men who were living in the USA and who were taking advantage of all the freedoms that country has to offer.
    There is no excuse for terrorism, and the foreign policy of the country which acts as the leader of the free world is not an excuse for the actions (alleged) of these young men.
    There might be an ‘excuse’ when the mental health of the surviving bomber (allegedly) is examined but Mr Livingstone acts like a true political tart by jumping on that bandwagon rather than seeing an atrocity in plain black and white like reasonable people do.
    Will Ed M dither, prevaricate and dissemble or will he act?

    • Eddie

      What makes me giggle (and shake my head in despair at Ken Al-Livingstones immaturing with age) is the way his remarks and views on this would have been so different – in fact the polar opposite – if it turns out the bombers were, say, protecting against mass immigration or state taxes.

      They then would have been an enemy to be condemned because of being nasty and ‘right wing’; however, in the eyes of the misguided left, if a terrorist is seen to be leftwing – or a dictator (Chavez etc) – then they should be our friend. (And so does the left get into bed with Islamofascism and support anyone with a brown skin and a religion – which is why Muslims live lives and do things inthe UK that would not be tolerated if white athetist people did the same.)

      And yet,, it would have been the same bombs and same deaths – but then Ken Al-Livingstone would have been full of sympathy and talking about our great loss in the face of those who would destroy our way of life; whereas now he is prattling on about how ‘they had it coming’. Typical of the long tradition of lefties to support Arabs and hate Jews too – esp amongstb the British left.

      Still, Lingstone has form here. He was long a supporter of the IRA – which set off bombs in Ireland, the UK, and eslewhere which killed men, women and yes, 8 year old children: all innocents. Those bombs were paid for by Bostonian plastic paddies – so in a way, they did have it coming., Now they know the taste of the death they bankrolled maybe? What’s good for the goose…

  • David Lindsay

    It’s an elected position.

    He could be expelled (although only by the NEC) for having brought the Labour Party into disrepute. But it is also expulsionable to “adhere” to any non-Labour against any Labour candidate for public office. What about those who publicly endorsed Boris Johnson against Ken Livingstone? One of them is a Spectator blogger.

    Moreover, not only is he right, but this country currently harbours Akhmed Zakayev, to whom these bombers undoubtedly owe allegiance.

    The bombers of 9/11 and 7/7 made no bones about the fact that they were motivated by American and British foreign policy respectively. Of course they were. Ken Clarke warned of that in the Commons debate on the Iraq War, and he was proved right.

    And of course, so were these.

  • Stevie Dawson

    clearly these people don’t like it when others have opinions, right or wrong.

  • Tom M

    “American foreign policy ‘fuels the anger’ that drove such young men into acts of terrorism”
    Strangely enough some other countries froreign policies never seem to be cited as a “fuel of anger” for us to launch attacks on them.

    • David Lindsay

      Yes, they are. Ours, Australia’s, Canada’s, Spain’s…

      Of course, most Western countries do not have such policies. Hence, they are not subject to such attacks.

      • Wessex Man

        David, David, you were such a nice gentle soul and now you are all nasty hatred, who’s upset you. Are y zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    • Russell

      Exactly which countries have we launched attacks on?

      Germany….Most sane people would agree with that decision

      Falkland Islands…….They invaded a British dependency
      Iraq…….Blair should be in jail
      Libya…..Hardly an invasion, just assistance in preventing a massacre of Muslims and Christians and others.

      None of the above was in the name of Christianity and killing anyone who disagreed with that particular faith.

      • Arturaski

        Blair should be in jail for…?

        Don’t say ‘war crimes’. Going to war and calling it a crime is not a ‘war crime’.

        • Russell

          How about unnecessarily causing the deaths of hundreds of British Armed Forces and many thousands of Iraqis, by lying to parliament and the British people about the reasons to go to war?

      • Tom M

        Woa there Russell, perhaps a misunderstanding here. Red Ken uses American foreign policy to excuse acts of terrorism perpetrated in the US by other (usually arab) countries. What I’m saying is that there are a lot of those countries that have malevolent foreign policies directed at the west but strangely this shouldn’t cause us to feel aggreived.

        If red Ken is correct then I think that we in the west should be allowed to feel aggreived and have our anger fuelled in the same way should we not?

  • ♪ Kompani ♪

    Mr Livingstone makes a valid point. The world politics have been manipulated by America, via the CIA, for decades by creating instabilities in countries when the regime did not match Americas wants. Even democratically elected regimes have been changed via American dollars through back door means.

    • telemachus

      You are correct
      The terrorist acts in the US are as reprehensible as those by the IRA in the North of Ireland
      But no-one would gainsay the view that if the British Crown had abrogated its responsibility to the Protestant majority then the IRA would not have committed terrorist acts
      The whole Al Qaeda saga would not have started if radical Muslims had not thought the American Christian State was not exerting undue influence on the Saudi State
      That is not to state that any of the terrorist acts were justified and not to say that a draconian response to these evil men is not in order
      However we should not lambast those who simply state a truism
      That was the way in 1930’s Germany

      • Andy

        Bullshit. Complete twaddle. You obviously know nothing whatsoever about ‘radical Muslims’. These two brothers are just murdering scum and I hope the younger one get the needle – he deserves it.