Livingston under attack! Defend the Pro-Muslim Mayor NOW!

[MG]

Livingstone Under Attack! Defend The Pro-Muslim Mayor NOW! Rating:http://www.mpacuk.org/images/M_images/rating_star.pnghttp://www.mpacuk.org/images/M_images/rating_star.pnghttp://www.mpacuk.org/images/M_images/rating_star.pnghttp://www.mpacuk.org/images/M_images/rating_star.pnghttp://www.mpacuk.org/images/M_images/rating_star.png / 100% http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41322000/jpg/_41322461_ken203pa.jpg [/url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/videonews.gifMayor's comments (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4698963.stm#)


Mayor Blames Middle East Policy
Decades of British and American intervention in the oil-rich Middle East motivated the London bombers, Ken Livingstone has suggested.

The London mayor told BBC News he had no sympathy with the bombers and he opposed all violence. But he argued that the attacks would not have happened had Western powers left Arab nations free to decide their own affairs after World War I. But he argued that the attacks would not have happened had Western powers left Arab nations free to decide their own affairs after World War I. Instead, they had often supported unsavoury governments in the region.

Mr Livingstone was asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme what he thought had motivated the bombers. He replied: "I think you've just had 80 years of western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the western need for oil. We've propped up unsavoury governments, we've overthrown ones we didn't consider sympathetic. And I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s... the Americans recruited and trained Osama Bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians and drive them out of Afghanistan. They didn't give any thought to the fact that once he'd done that he might turn on his creators.''

Mr Livingstone said Western governments had been so terrified of losing their fuel supplies that they had kept intervening in the Middle East. He argued: "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."

He attacked double standards by Western nations, such as the initial welcome given when Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq.

There was also the "running sore" of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

"A lot of young people see the double standards, they see what happens in Guantanamo Bay, and they just think that there isn't a just foreign policy," said Mr Livingstone.

Suicide bombers

Mr Livingstone said he did not just denounce suicide bombers.

He also denounced "those governments which use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy, as we have occasionally seen with the Israeli government bombing areas from which a terrorist group will have come, irrespective of the casualties it inflicts, women, children and men".

He continued: "Under foreign occupation and denied the right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, often denied the right to work for three generations, I suspect that if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves."

Mr Livingstone also criticised parts of the media for giving too much publicity to certain figures who were "totally unrepresentative" of British Muslims.

Read full article here: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4698963.stm)

MPACUK Comment: Please support Ken for speaking the truth. As you are already aware, he has come under immense scrutinty and attack by the pro-Israeli lobby. Do your political Jihad NOW and do YOUR bit to ensure the honest and friendly voice of Muslims knows that we support and commend him speaking out.

Email: [u]mayor@london.gov.uk (mayor@london.gov.uk)

Or Phone Ken and ask for the Public Liason Unit to log your thank you message Main switchboard: 020 7983 4000

[Waheed]

Livingstone wants Muslims to Apostate themselves by voting with the Kuffirs. He is evil like the rest of them. Vote today, hellfire tomorrow.

[Sayf]

lol, yeah thats why he stuck up for Shaykh Al Qaradawi (Which I think is a kafir by the likes of The Lunatics), but khair, people are more than willing to live off the hands of the kufr.

[Salman Al-Farsi]

lol, yeah thats why he stuck up for Shaykh Al Qaradawi (Which I think is a kafir by the likes of The Lunatics), but khair, people are more than willing to live off the hands of the kufr.

that didnt make much sense?

[Sayf]

Yeah, I know :) Thanks for your input farsi, just knew you was going to reply to my post :)

[MG]

Livingstone wants Muslims to Apostate themselves by voting with the Kuffirs. He is evil like the rest of them. Vote today, hellfire tomorrow.

personally i havent seen him doing this, which doesnt mean i trust him 100%, all i know is, i have seen and heard him speaking for muslims which our own so-called muslim leaders havent done.


Wether he wants us to vote or apostate, that is at the end of the day the decision of the individual wether he does that or not.

[Sultan]

I have noticed lately on radio talk-ins that Livingstone is thrown in alongside the muslims as objects of hate.

Any one who has listened to that zionist jewish-American talk show host Charlie Wolf will know exactly what I am talking about.

Ever since Livingstone gave that jewish journalist stick for being harrased by him, Livingstone has been targetted in a hate campaign by zionists.

Livingstone does deserve some support for not being afraid to speak up and tell the truth.

[Brother_Daniel]

Don't the British neo-cons and Blairites now call him "Red Ken"? He gets to stand along side George Galloway as an object of contempt for stating the obvious.

[annieg]

I was under the impression that the Mayor of London supported Muslims? and yet....

There Has To Be A Shoot-To-Kill Policy, Concedes Ken Livingstone

MICHAEL HOWIE

POLICE have to have a shoot-to-kill policy to counter the mounting terrorist threat in London, Ken Livingstone conceded yesterday.

With the capital on high alert after two sets of terrorist attacks in as many weeks, the city's mayor indicated that decisive action would be necessary.

Muslim leaders, however, said sections of the community were living in fear of a shoot-to-kill policy after a man - not one of the four sought bombers - was shot by officers at Stockwell tube station yesterday.

Following the first wave of London bombings on 7 July, it emerged that armed officers could be given shoot-to-kill orders to fire at the heads of suicide bombers.

Under a plan known as Operation Kratos, police could in extreme circumstances shoot suspected suicide bombers in the head. Normal firearms rules allow officers to pursue a shoot-to-stop policy and fire at the chests of targets, with the intention of stopping and disabling, but not killing.

But the Met has been advised by Israeli security officials that this is not adequate, as even after several shots they can still trigger an explosive device.

Scotland Yard yesterday insisted the policy of armed police was to "shoot to stop" when there was an imminent threat to life.

But Mr Livingstone said: "If you are dealing with someone who might be a suicide bomber, if they remain conscious they could trigger plastic explosives or whatever device is on them, and therefore overwhelmingly in these circumstances it is going to be a shoot-to-kill policy."

Speaking of yesterday's operations, he said: "With each of these attacks, we have responded more rapidly and effectively and I'm glad it went as well as it did."

Police sources and security experts said it was clear that officers were operating under revised guidelines.

"Clarification has been issued in response to the threat from suicide bombers," said Charles Shoebridge, a security analyst and former counter terrorism officer. "In the past, shooting at the person's trunk was considered the most effective way of disabling a person. However, this approach could detonate a suicide bomb, so the only realistic alternative is a shot to the head."

Muslim community leaders said they were taking calls from fellow Muslims who are afraid they may be targeted simply because they are carrying the wrong bag or wearing the wrong clothes.

The Muslim Council of Britain urged Scotland Yard to explain why police shot dead the Asian man who has been described as a "suspected suicide bomber". According to an eyewitness report the man was shot with five bullets. Spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: "There may well be reasons why police felt it was necessary to unload multiple bullets into this man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear.

"It is vital that police give a statement about exactly what occurred and explain why this man was shot dead rather than arrested and brought to trial."

Mr Bunglawala said Muslims were nervous and feared reprisal attacks.

He said: "I have just had one phone call saying, 'What if I was carrying a rucksack?' We are getting phone calls from quite a lot of Muslims who are distressed about what may be a shoot-to-kill policy."

Meanwhile, Norman Brennan, director of the Victims of Crime Trust and a serving officer with the British Transport Police, defended officers' right to kill.

"To protect society and themselves, the police have the right in law to use the force that they believe to be appropriate with the threat posed by anyone whose intention is to destroy the lives of others through acts of terrorism or any other reason," he said.

JUDGMENT CALL

ANALYSIS

THERE are three criteria when deciding whether to use authorised firearms officers (AFOs), writes Ian Gordon. First, where a person is in possession of a firearm; second, if a person has immediate access to a firearm; and, third, where a person is otherwise so dangerous that an officer's use of a firearm may be necessary.

There's a requirement that firearms are only used when at least one of those criteria are met.

It has to be an incident where there is deemed to be a genuine risk of loss of life, be it to a member of the public, a police officer or even the person themselves.

You have sometimes to make a judgment call on information and intelligence that's available. On a normal day it would be a chief constable, or the strategic commander, who would authorise the use of firearms. He or she would base the decision on all the intelligence and information available. The key factor is the team work between the strategic commander, who we call "gold", and the officer in command of the situation on the ground ("silver").

Firearms officers don't go on missions on their own; it's controlled, it's imperative everyone is fully briefed.

But when you have a spontaneous incident you need to respond very quickly, again based on available intelligence. That's where armed response units are used.

We have a very thorough selection process for AFOs. Nobody is forced into it, they volunteer. Those selected undergo an intensive initial training programme, then continue to train on a regular basis, not only in using weapons, but also on the tactics to be used.

When AFOs are confronted with an incident, the training will then kick in. They can open fire only when it is absolutely necessary, when there is nothing else they can do to incapacitate the threat. They are there to save lives.

It's a question of weighing up risk in a split second. "If I do nothing, what happens?". "If I do this, will it prevent anything more serious happening?" It's a difficult judgment call. All we can do is make sure they are trained as best they can be.

We have a very rigorous training process, but on many occasions we are dealing with the unknown.

The bottom line is, if they believe that a significant and immediate threat to life is there, AFOs have to act; they have to incapacitate and try to remove the risk.

• Ian Gordon is deputy chief constable of Tayside and Scotland's senior adviser on police firearms policy.


http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1669962005

[dhakiyya]

Don't the British neo-cons and Blairites now call him "Red Ken"? He gets to stand along side George Galloway as an object of contempt for stating the obvious.


He's been called "Red Ken" since Thatcher's days. I think it was the thatcherites that coined the phrase in a failed attempt to discredit him...

As for Ken himself, no he's not perfect, however he has done a lot to support Muslims in this country and in Iraq and Palestine, he is not afraid to speak the truth and stand up to Blair et al, so whatever he's said that I don't agree with, I totally appreciate the support he is trying to give to us, and we should all do that too. People are not perfect, but at least Ken is trying to do some good, masha'Allah (and my Allah guide him and bring him to Islam! :up: )

[MG]

I was under the impression that the Mayor of London supported Muslims? and yet....

There Has To Be A Shoot-To-Kill Policy, Concedes Ken Livingstone

MICHAEL HOWIE

POLICE have to have a shoot-to-kill policy to counter the mounting terrorist threat in London, Ken Livingstone conceded yesterday.

With the capital on high alert after two sets of terrorist attacks in as many weeks, the city's mayor indicated that decisive action would be necessary.

Muslim leaders, however, said sections of the community were living in fear of a shoot-to-kill policy after a man - not one of the four sought bombers - was shot by officers at Stockwell tube station yesterday.

Following the first wave of London bombings on 7 July, it emerged that armed officers could be given shoot-to-kill orders to fire at the heads of suicide bombers.

Under a plan known as Operation Kratos, police could in extreme circumstances shoot suspected suicide bombers in the head. Normal firearms rules allow officers to pursue a shoot-to-stop policy and fire at the chests of targets, with the intention of stopping and disabling, but not killing.

But the Met has been advised by Israeli security officials that this is not adequate, as even after several shots they can still trigger an explosive device.

Scotland Yard yesterday insisted the policy of armed police was to "shoot to stop" when there was an imminent threat to life.

But Mr Livingstone said: "If you are dealing with someone who might be a suicide bomber, if they remain conscious they could trigger plastic explosives or whatever device is on them, and therefore overwhelmingly in these circumstances it is going to be a shoot-to-kill policy."

Speaking of yesterday's operations, he said: "With each of these attacks, we have responded more rapidly and effectively and I'm glad it went as well as it did."

Police sources and security experts said it was clear that officers were operating under revised guidelines.

"Clarification has been issued in response to the threat from suicide bombers," said Charles Shoebridge, a security analyst and former counter terrorism officer. "In the past, shooting at the person's trunk was considered the most effective way of disabling a person. However, this approach could detonate a suicide bomb, so the only realistic alternative is a shot to the head."

Muslim community leaders said they were taking calls from fellow Muslims who are afraid they may be targeted simply because they are carrying the wrong bag or wearing the wrong clothes.

The Muslim Council of Britain urged Scotland Yard to explain why police shot dead the Asian man who has been described as a "suspected suicide bomber". According to an eyewitness report the man was shot with five bullets. Spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: "There may well be reasons why police felt it was necessary to unload multiple bullets into this man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear.

"It is vital that police give a statement about exactly what occurred and explain why this man was shot dead rather than arrested and brought to trial."

Mr Bunglawala said Muslims were nervous and feared reprisal attacks.

He said: "I have just had one phone call saying, 'What if I was carrying a rucksack?' We are getting phone calls from quite a lot of Muslims who are distressed about what may be a shoot-to-kill policy."

Meanwhile, Norman Brennan, director of the Victims of Crime Trust and a serving officer with the British Transport Police, defended officers' right to kill.

"To protect society and themselves, the police have the right in law to use the force that they believe to be appropriate with the threat posed by anyone whose intention is to destroy the lives of others through acts of terrorism or any other reason," he said.

JUDGMENT CALL

ANALYSIS

THERE are three criteria when deciding whether to use authorised firearms officers (AFOs), writes Ian Gordon. First, where a person is in possession of a firearm; second, if a person has immediate access to a firearm; and, third, where a person is otherwise so dangerous that an officer's use of a firearm may be necessary.

There's a requirement that firearms are only used when at least one of those criteria are met.

It has to be an incident where there is deemed to be a genuine risk of loss of life, be it to a member of the public, a police officer or even the person themselves.

You have sometimes to make a judgment call on information and intelligence that's available. On a normal day it would be a chief constable, or the strategic commander, who would authorise the use of firearms. He or she would base the decision on all the intelligence and information available. The key factor is the team work between the strategic commander, who we call "gold", and the officer in command of the situation on the ground ("silver").

Firearms officers don't go on missions on their own; it's controlled, it's imperative everyone is fully briefed.

But when you have a spontaneous incident you need to respond very quickly, again based on available intelligence. That's where armed response units are used.

We have a very thorough selection process for AFOs. Nobody is forced into it, they volunteer. Those selected undergo an intensive initial training programme, then continue to train on a regular basis, not only in using weapons, but also on the tactics to be used.

When AFOs are confronted with an incident, the training will then kick in. They can open fire only when it is absolutely necessary, when there is nothing else they can do to incapacitate the threat. They are there to save lives.

It's a question of weighing up risk in a split second. "If I do nothing, what happens?". "If I do this, will it prevent anything more serious happening?" It's a difficult judgment call. All we can do is make sure they are trained as best they can be.

We have a very rigorous training process, but on many occasions we are dealing with the unknown.

The bottom line is, if they believe that a significant and immediate threat to life is there, AFOs have to act; they have to incapacitate and try to remove the risk.

• Ian Gordon is deputy chief constable of Tayside and Scotland's senior adviser on police firearms policy.


http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1669962005



the problem is not about having a shoot to kill policy, but these officers are unprofessional and cannot control their personal feelings, its more like a

"shoot whoever u THINK is a terrorist"

and majority of the ignorants, think terorrist = brown face, beard or hijab

giving a shoot to kill policy to ignoramous's like this, u might as well shoot yourself, or hand a loaded gun to a child.

Since 7/7, i didnt stop going out or wasnt afraid to, since the shooting of this inncoent by "profesional" police officers and their animosity towards people who they THINK are terrorists without getting facts and knowledge, is wat has got me frightened to go out, and think this could be my last day.

Its sick.


Allah swt knows best.

[BirdShot]

I'm pretty sure that guy wouldn't have been shot if he'd stopped when the police asked him to.

It's a shame but it didn't have to happen.

BS

[MG]

I'm pretty sure that guy wouldn't have been shot if he'd stopped when the police asked him to.

It's a shame but it didn't have to happen.

BS

i taking u havetn seen the latest findings.....he wasnt even running, he was sitting like a normal commuter on the tube, he had no puffy jacket, and the police had NO proof or evidence he was a bomber and if u suspect someone to be a suicide bomber, like the police claimed, why the hell would u run to them and put your arms round them to hold them in place?

like is said, ignorants dont wanna believe the truth even if it came and punched them in the face :rolleyes:

[BirdShot]

i taking u havetn seen the latest findings.....he wasnt even running, he was sitting like a normal commuter on the tube, he had no puffy jacket, and the police had NO proof or evidence he was a bomber and if u suspect someone to be a suicide bomber, like the police claimed, why the hell would u run to them and put your arms round them to hold them in place?

like is said, ignorants dont wanna believe the truth even if it came and punched them in the face :rolleyes:

No, I hadn't heard that.

I hope you were in no way referring to me in that ignorant remark, btw.

Take care.

BS

[MG]

No, I hadn't heard that.

I hope you were in no way referring to me in that ignorant remark, btw.

Take care.

BS

amongst others , i was referring to u as well but only cos i thought you had heard the news and were still in denial.:D

[BirdShot]

Fair enough. :)

BS