Quote:"Red Ken" the mayor of London blames the West again
posted on July 21st, 2005
'Red Ken' blames Western meddling: London mayor links
bombings to history of trying to 'control the flow of oil'
Thu 21 Jul 2005
Mike Blanchfield
Ottawa Citizen; CanWest News Service
Controversial London Mayor Ken *Livingstone* has blamed decades
of influence by western powers in oil-rich "Arab lands" as one of
the root causes of the July 7 bombings in the British capital.
"I think you've just had 80 years of western intervention into
predominantly Arab lands because of the western need for oil,"
*Livingstone* said Wednesday on BBC radio. "We've propped up unsavoury
governments; we've overthrown ones we didn't consider sympathetic.
"If, at the end of the First World War, we had done what we
promised the Arabs, which was to let them be free and have their own
governments, and kept out of Arab affairs, and just bought their
oil, rather than feeling we had to control the flow of oil, I
suspect this wouldn't have arisen."
*Livingstone*'s comments come after British Prime Minister Tony Blair
suggested that anyone who tries to justify the attacks based on
historical grievances or other justification is guilty of
"perverted" thinking.
*Livingstone*, dubbed "Red Ken," made clear that he condemns suicide
bombers and terrorist attacks. But he also singled out Israel, a
regular target of his, for what he said was a heavy-handed approach
to fighting terrorism, "irrespective of the casualties it inflicts
(on) women, children and men."
Four suicide bombers killed 56 people in the London subway system
and a bus. Twenty-seven people remained in hospital, several in
critical condition.
Toronto author Margaret MacMillan, one of the world's leading
authorities on the legacy of the First World War on the Middle East,
rejected *Livingstone*'s assessment as too simplistic.
"Western powers interfered with a lot of nations, but you don't get
countries like India or the countries of Asia or most of the
countries of Africa producing terrorists," MacMillan, author of the
international best seller, Paris 1919, said in an interview from her
University of Toronto office.
"You need to understand the historical roots because they're a part
of it. But to say that A leads to B, to say that what happened in
1919 leads inevitably to what happened in London in 2005 ignores
everything else that happened in between. And it ignores
contemporary issues."
MacMillan's 2002 book chronicles how the Allied powers carved up
the world after the First World War in drafting the Treaty of
Versailles in Paris.
MacMillan said there might be a nugget of truth in *Livingstone*'s
remarks, but she sees them more as the product of an outspoken
politician who has a history of speaking his mind.
"I'm not sure it's helpful. I don't think he's entirely wrong but
he's making it much too simple," MacMillan said.
Source
In the radio addres from which I picked this up, it was proported that "Red" Ken has been sympathetic to several extremist Islamic clerics in a sort of vote "buying" endeavor, to appease and entice the million odd Muslims in London to vote for him. This emerged in the radio program.
Aside from the regional political wrangling, what do we make of this assertion: that the west has
created these types of criminals and this venomous hatred for anything western.
Although extremely difficult to form such a hypothesis, is it reasonable to think that if the history between Arab states and the United States/the west
had not played out the way it did, attitudes toward the west would be less hostile and less violent?
I am reminded of a time in the recent past when local and native Hawaiians were lashing out violently against tourism and the tourists who came to their state and constatntly disrupted their way of life.
I see first hand the anger building up in native Canadians toward non-native Canadians for the rape of what they consider "their land", and can imagine what they would be capable of if it weren't for their deplorable status in society--if they were enabled and better organized financially, emotionally and intellectually, what sort of payback would they be seeking, violent or otherwise?
Are these terrorists merely (mis)interpreting the Qur'an, or are they using it as a sheild to mask the hatred they have toward foreigners who continually do to them only what is in the foreigners' best interest?
What other recourse do they have against an entity such as the US? How else do they tell them that they are no longer welcome in their land or entitled to their resources?
From the schoolyard bully, you have Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris.
From the US, you have Islamic suicide bombers.
Is there a shred of truth to the statements that "we created these monsters", if not wholly, partially? Or would these men have evolved irrespective of how the west has treated them?
Can the finger only point outward?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace