London’s New Mayor, Sadiq Khan, Hailed in U.K. and Pakistan

The challenge in debating a zealot is to not get drawn in to their black and white world. This is always difficult. It is however of great value to expose their monochromatic world to others – wide open to see for all.

All terrorists, of all ilks, of all nationalities, of all religions, share this black and white character. They call themselves different names, defend violence against innocence using different sacred texts, but their essence is the same — Rigid, authoritarian, with an entitled sense of supremacy.

It is sad but true that for most of these extremists there is no path to any form of civility and coexistence. They are the minions of the Grand Inquisitor who would believe and say that: “We have corrected your work by Miracle, Mystery, and authority.”

Gorsky amuses:

I don’t think Greenwald is in the same category as Harris

I’ll say! Sam Harris will never, ever agree to a formal debate with Glenn Greenwald. He’d be slaughtered.

Whatever else is true about Alan Dershowtiz, stupid is not true: He’s probably a clinical genius and has rhetorical combat skills that are notoriously excellent.

Guess who Dershowitz recently lost to in a formal debate?

Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who brought the Edward Snowden documents to the world, debated former CIA and NSA head Michael Hayden last night in Toronto. The debate was hosted by Munk Debates and also featured Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian and rightwing lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

Before the debate, the audience voted 33% in favor of the statement, “Be it resolved state surveillance is a legitimate defense of our freedoms,” while 46% voted against. After the debate, 59 percent of the audience agreed with Greenwald and Ohanian.

Glenn mopped the floor with both Dershowitz and Hayden. By the end of the thing, Dersh was red in the face and looked like he might be having an anxiety attack.

(Ohanian’s a nice guy and all, but he was awful. Glenn carried that debate essentially against two other people, including Alan fucking Dershowitz.)

So, yeah, Greenewald is not remotely in the same category as a snake like Sam Harris, who will only informally debate when and where he can control the event.

Here is how one can easily figure out sock puppets on the Intercept forums:

Regular users have absolutely no way to format text – the java script just does not allow that. You can post anything, but unless you are an insider, you can NOT to Bold, Italics, Strike or any other formatting. Even if you compose your text in a word processing software, when you post the same on the Intercept, you lose all formatting. So, with this in mind we find the following sock puppets:

-Mona-
LOL
Barabbas
Atheistinchief
Jazz

Accidentally, the above 5 monikers are violently engaged in talking/thanking/supporting each other, as well as attacking in concert everyone and everything they don’t like.

So, they (she/he) clearly are insiders with formatting privileges, responsible for at least 90% of most comment sections posts.

So, either, it s Mona herself posting under the above monikers, or perhaps one of the journalists him/herself? I think the former is true: a former law partner of Greenwald who is using using and abusing insider privileges…

Could you please stop spamming the board with these childish Hitler – Zionist/Hitler – Not Zionist nonsense? With this incessant bickering, you are turning the Intercept into a garbage collector. Looks like all these Monas/Lols/Gorskies/Hesses need a shrink. Electronic Intifada is a reliable source? Khan responsible for Pakistani burning a teenager? Gosh. I wish they had an Ignore button.

Re: Adolph Eichmann, who inspired the phrase “the banality of evil”

To understand why Eichmann could be both a Zionist and also have committed the atrocities he did, one must understand a very critical thing about the man: As Hannah Arendt showed and wrote of after attending his Jerusalem trial, Eichmann not only wasn’t a monster driven by a raging ideology*, he was simply a bureaucrat. (Initially a controversial thesis, Arendt’s scholarship and view have emerged as dominant.)

Eichmann thought of himself as a go along to get along guy, and had never evinced particular hatred for Jews. The NYT:

…describing a gentile Austrian in the 1920’s as an anti-Semite is like describing a white Mississippian in the 1920’s as a racist; it tells us nothing about an individual. In Austria, Eichmann had Jewish friends, was employed by Jews as an oil and kerosene salesman, had Jewish relatives by marriage. In 1932 he became a Nazi not out of anti-Jewish conviction but, Arendt says, because he was a joiner. [In his book David] Cesarani stresses issues and personal connections more: Eichmann liked the Nazis’ position on the Versailles Treaty.

…

Under the right circumstances, normal people will commit mass murder, [Cesarani] says, and the circumstances of our age — with its racism, ethnic cleansing, suicide bombers and genocidal killings — are ominous. “Eichmann appears more and more like a man of our time,” are his concluding words. “Everyman as génocidaire.”

Adolph Eichmann was a not especially bright man who served as a cog in a bureaucratic wheel, one that facilitated atrocities because that is what his job was. He considered himself a supremely practical man and as such, likely felt that Zionism was simply as “sensible” for Jews as National Socialism was for Germany.

*Altho Cesarani argues that after the Holocaust was well underway at some point Eichmann adopted eliminationist antisemitism as his own.
? Reply
craigsummers ? -Mona-
May 11 2016, 12:21 p.m.

Mona

“……But describing a gentile Austrian in the 1920’s as an anti-Semite is like describing a white Mississippian in the 1920’s as a racist……”

In other words, Eichmann far from being a Zionist was just a typical anti-Jewish bigot of the times (regardless of whether he worked around Jews). There is nothing in your response that remotely supports that Eichmann was a Zionist i.e., that he believed in Jewish self-determination (as Shalev pointed out – and you belittled). There is no documentation that supports that he even sympathized with the plight of the Jews at any point leading to the Holocaust. As he admitted under cross examination during his trial in Israel (Wikipedia):

“…….When Hausner produced evidence that Eichmann had stated in 1945 that “I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction”, Eichmann said he meant “enemies of the Reich” such as the Soviets.[173] During later examination by the judges, he admitted he meant the Jews, and said the remark was an accurate reflection of his opinion at the time…..”

Cesirani shows from his study of Nazi documents that Eichmann “subscribed to the Central tenets of Nazi ideology as early as 1937”. In a review of Cesirani’s life by Margelit Fox (NYT), she writes about Cesirani’s book, “Becoming Eichmann”:

“…….He argued that Eichmann, while indeed an efficient bureaucrat eager to rise through the ranks of Third Reich leadership, subscribed to the central tenets of Nazi ideology far more than she [Arendt] was willing to acknowledge…….Among the archival evidence he invoked were lectures and reports by Eichmann dating as far back as 1937 that show him, Professor Cesarani wrote, “in the grip of a fantasy that there was a world Jewish conspiracy against Germany.”……” my insert in brackets

I realize none of this means anything to your “ideas” that Zionism and Nazism are one in the same. To do that, you have to erase thousands of years of antisemitism which culminated in the Holocaust – the absolute confirmation of the Zionist movement. Indeed, you ignore the conditions for Jews in Nazi Germany when judging that Zionists collaborated with the Nazis. You called me “vile” for supporting torture after 911, but you are far worse. You are a lost cause – and I (more than anyone else on this site) realize I am wasting my time. Even the racists at Stormfront might cringe at some of your proclamations.

Re: Adolph Eichmann, who inspired the phrase “the banality of evil”

To understand why Eichmann could be both a Zionist and also have committed the atrocities he did, one must understand a very critical thing about the man: As Hannah Arendt showed and wrote of after attending his Jerusalem trial, Eichmann not only wasn’t a monster driven by a raging ideology*, he was simply a bureaucrat. (Initially a controversial thesis, Arendt’s scholarship and view have emerged as dominant.)

Eichmann thought of himself as a go along to get along guy, and had never evinced particular hatred for Jews. The NYT:

…describing a gentile Austrian in the 1920’s as an anti-Semite is like describing a white Mississippian in the 1920’s as a racist; it tells us nothing about an individual. In Austria, Eichmann had Jewish friends, was employed by Jews as an oil and kerosene salesman, had Jewish relatives by marriage. In 1932 he became a Nazi not out of anti-Jewish conviction but, Arendt says, because he was a joiner. [In his book David] Cesarani stresses issues and personal connections more: Eichmann liked the Nazis’ position on the Versailles Treaty.

…

Under the right circumstances, normal people will commit mass murder, [Cesarani] says, and the circumstances of our age — with its racism, ethnic cleansing, suicide bombers and genocidal killings — are ominous. “Eichmann appears more and more like a man of our time,” are his concluding words. “Everyman as génocidaire.”

Adolph Eichmann was a not especially bright man who served as a cog in a bureaucratic wheel, one that facilitated atrocities because that is what his job was. He considered himself a supremely practical man and as such, likely felt that Zionism was simply as “sensible” for Jews as National Socialism was for Germany.

*Altho Cesarani argues that after the Holocaust was well underway at some point Eichmann adopted eliminationist antisemitism as his own.

Mona

“……The only why I’m impacted is the pleasing evidence it provides that I’m effective. ….”

An “effective” bigot Mona

“……And altho Eichmann explicitly said, “I am a Zionist,” he didn’t mean it. Not according to the way Shalev defines “Zionism” and would prefer you to define it…….”

Corbyn refuses four times to say Hamas and Hezbollah are not his “friends”

Interesting duel in Parliament between a known “Zionist” David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn:

https://antisemitism.uk/corbyn-refuses-four-times-to-say-hamas-and-hezbollah-are-not-his-friends/

It appears Mr. Corbyn is a bit more than just diplomatic user of a word “friends.” He was also receiving funds from friends of Hamas. Interesting.

The Telegraph: Jeremy Corbyn, friend to Hamas, Iran and extremists

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11749043/Andrew-Gilligan-Jeremy-Corbyn-friend-to-Hamas-Iran-and-extremists.html

Mona

During cross examination of Eichmann at his trial in Israel:

“…….When Hausner produced evidence that Eichmann had stated in 1945 that “I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction”, Eichmann said he meant “enemies of the Reich” such as the Soviets.[173] During later examination by the judges, he admitted he meant the Jews, and said the remark was an accurate reflection of his opinion at the time…..”

So our most famous “Zionist” (at least according to Mona) reflected on the killing of 5,000,000 Jews calling it “extraordinary” satisfaction”. He like most of the Nazis hated Jews. He was convicted and hanged.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/reebok-cancels-sneaker-celebrating-israels-independence

Lest anyone think the nice things various Zionists had to say in the 1930s about German National Socialism, and their agreement that their version of Zionism was similar to German fascism, is all irrelevant now, let us consider the views of the (until very recently) Deputy Speaker of Israel’s parliament, Moshe Feiglin, as reported in the Israeli paper, Haaretz:

“Hitler was an unparalleled military genius. Nazism promoted Germany from a low to a fantastic physical and ideological status. The ragged, trashy youth body turned into a neat and orderly part of society and Germany received an exemplary regime, a proper justice system and public order. Hitler savored good music. He would paint. This was no bunch of thugs. They merely used thugs and homosexuals.”

Feiglin is commendably honest about his racism, and the racism inherent in political Zionism:

“There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense,” Feiglin went on to say in that interview. “And when they asserted at the United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between races – and this is a very primitive distinction – must argue that Zionism is racist.”

Later in the interview, Feiglin addressed the Palestinians. “There is no Palestinian nation. There is only an Arab-speaking public which has suddenly identified itself as a people, a negative of the Zionist movement, parasites. The fact that they hadn’t done so earlier only serves to prove how inferior they are. The Africans have no nations either. Only Zulus, Tutsis.”

And it’s not just prominent Israeli officials who say such rancid things. Social media is replete with average Israelis posting rancid, genocidal sentiments about Palestinians (as well as Africans), or even non-Jews per se.

The Undisputed facts that HITLER by way of signing pacts and deals with each respective country below, was or supported the:

1. Communism (Soviet Union)
2. Capitalism (UK)
3. French Revolution
(France)
4. Japan’s Imperialism (Japan)
5. Spanish Inquisition (Spain)
6. Italian brutal emperors (Ancient Rome)
7. Russian Revolution of 1917 (Soviet Union)
8. Soviet resistance and defeat of the Nazis in 1945 (Soviet Union)
9. Imperialist (collaboration with the US IBM)

Mona writes:

“……And altho Eichmann explicitly said, “I am a Zionist,” he didn’t mean it. Not according to the way Shalev defines “Zionism” and would prefer you to define it…….”

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that statement is? To actually believe that Eichmann was a Zionist and that Shalev (a liberal Jew) is “imposing” his own definition of Zionism on the rest of us just shows how twisted you are with your thinking.

“……. Shalev’s is another brain addled on Zionism……”

By ensuring that 6,000,000 Jews died, Eichmann showed his “support” for Zionism, Mona – but a liberal Jew suggesting Eichmann was not a Zionist is confused (addled) in your opinion? By suggesting that Eichmann didn’t really support “…..the Jewish people’s right to self-determination or safe refuge….”, Shalev was “addled” (confused), Mona? Would you define Auschwitz as a “safe refuge” for Jewish people? Remarkable – but telling comment.

Livingston is an anti-Jewish bigot and I think you are completely bonkers (but that is what hate does).

On the Lighter Note:

Here is evidence of collaboration between the Scottish and the Nazis. The whole internet is talking about it.

This live story proves the link indisputably. Note how the guy repeatedly states Gas the Jews, Gas the Jews…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus

The first order of business of a recently elected Muslim Mayor of London:

I will visit the US before Trump becomes president, complaining that under Trump he, his friends and relatives wouldn’t be able to visit the US, because of their faith.

“Donald Trump and those around him think that Western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam – London has proved him wrong.”

The only thing that London has proved is that its own values are no longer compatible with the Western Liberal values.

https://www.rt.com/uk/342472-khan-trump-muslim-ban/

London’s New Mayor Hailed in UK and Pakistan

Apparently, the celebration continued in Germany where this morning there was a knife attack by a Muslim extremist screaming Allahu Akhbar that killed 1 and injured 3 on a train station near Munich. So, I am holding by breath to see a very detailed article in the Intercept about this event…

https://www.rt.com/news/342448-attack-train-station-munich/

For those interested, there is one other comments thread in which I heavily document the extreme extent of Nazi/Zionist collaboration and mutual support. – Mona

Yes, to the point of nausea. I suspect that the only reason the Intercept’s various writers have not collaborated to have you permanently banned from their threads for incessantly spamming your off-topic nonsense is that you share a personal history with Glenn Greenwald. These contentious anti-zionist rants are every bit as tiresome as Stormfront’s anti-jew propaganda. Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens haven’t gone half as far in their negative portrayal of Islam as you have with your broad brush vilification of all Zionists. Yet, the opinions of Hitchens and Harris are reflexively and disingenuously mischaracterized as Islamaphobic in nature. For Christ sake Mona, your Punch and Judy productions are fooling no one – we all know the game. You have already repeatedly shit all over every author’s threads, not get of the f’n pot.

AtheistinChief

And I agree with you that Max is a one State guy, but from my reading of him, it’s because he can’t see Israel moving settlements out, and he doesn’t want an Apartheid state. So in his mind, Max does not see any possibility but a one state solution.

And I agree — I didn’t always. It was reading Max, as well as Ali Abunimah and several others, that convinced me that Zionism is inherently racist and will almost certainly tend toward fascism. The sick extent to which Zionist collaborated with Nazis was not only to save some German Jews; multiple documents show these fascistic Zionists approved of ethnic nationalism and could even envision supporting Germany against the Allies. Einstein and Arendt also called them fascists. But they carried the day.

>But about Chomsky: He is not a Zionist as that term has come to be understood. There were multiple pre-state versions of Zionism, and Chomsky’s peaceful, non-racist version lost. He saw the same vile racism and inherent fascism in the nationalistic, militaristic Zionism which prevailed that Einstein and Hannah Arend did. He said this in 2011:

CHOMSKY: I was connected to a considerable part of the Zionist movement which was opposed to a Jewish state. It’s not too well known, but until 1942 there was no official commitment of Zionist organizations to a Jewish state. And even that was in the middle of World War II. It was a decision made in the Hotel Biltmore in New York, where there was the first official call for a Jewish state. Before that in the whole Zionist movement, establishing a Jewish state was maybe implicit or in people’s minds or something, but it wasn’t an official call.

The group that I was interested in was bi-nationalist. And that was not so small. A substantial part of the Kibbutz movement, for example, Hashomer Hatzair, was at least officially anti-state, calling for bi-nationalism. And the groups I was connected with were hoping for a socialist Palestine based on Arab-Jewish, working-class cooperation in a bi-national community: no state, no Jewish state, just Palestine.

There were significant figures involved in that. Actually one of them in Philadelphia was Zellig Harris, the guy I ended up studying with at the University of Pennsylvania. He was one of the leaders of a group called Avukah. By the time I got there it had disbanded but through the 1930s and early 1940s it was quite an important organization of left-wing, Zionist, anti-state, young Jews. Plenty of people went through that — a lot of people who are pretty well-known now — from all over the place. It was not an insignificant part of the young, left Jewish community in the United States, and happened to be partially in Philadelphia.

I can remember when the UN partition resolution was announced in 1947. It was almost like mourning in these circles because we didn’t want a Jewish state.

The Anglo-American Commission claimed that about 25% of the Jewish population in Palestine was opposed to a state. There was kind of a different mentality at the time. To talk about socialism wasn’t considered a joke at that time. It was a real meaningful, live phenomenon. And a large part of the Yishuv — the Jewish community in Palestine — was, in fact, a co-operative community with collectives, co-operative industry, commerce, lots of socialist institutions. They were also racist Jews. But there was also a lot of opposition to that, too in our groups. We thought they should be Arab-Jewish.

From about then, from the late 1960s until the mid-1970s, I think bi-nationalism was actually a feasible objective. Even then it could have moved in that direction. By then it would have taken a different form than pre-1948, of course. But there could have been moves toward a kind of federalism, which might have evolved further into a more integrated, bi-national community. And, in fact, even elements of Israeli intelligence were pressing for something like this.

By 1975, the opportunity had been lost. By that time, Palestinian nationalism had entered the international agenda and mainly among Palestinians. And since about 1975, I don’t think there has been any way of realizing objectives like that except in stages with a two-state settlement being the first stage. If there was some other way of doing that, I’d be in favor of that, but I’ve never heard of it.

People now talk about one state — which would, of course, be a bi-national state — but without saying how you get there. At that time of my youth, there was, pre-1948. In the early 1970s, it was possible to think about how to get there directly. Now, as far as I can see, the only way to achieve goals like that is indirectly, through a two-state.

And incidentally, I’ve never been really in favor of a bi-national state because I don’t see any reason to worship the imperial borders. They’re perfectly arbitrary. Actually, when my wife and I lived on a kibbutz back in the early 1950s, we were backpacking around the place.

Sadiq Kahn is making it very difficult for us to invite him to USA. His disparaging statements about Donald Trump are not conducive to good neighborly relations. I expect he will soon learn to say and do appropriate stuffs, but right now he needs some coaching.

Not sure why everyone is referring to him as the ‘first Muslim” head of London.
Do people refer to Boris as the last “Christian’ head of London. Unless he ran on a religous program of bringing back Allah to London, I’d say that is irrelevant.

Zionist actively work to destroy Israel critics

Jayz, I just wasn’t sure how to take the entirety of your initial comment, so thanks for explaining. About this:

In my view, when these McCarthyites raise the temperature, they are not focused on destroying people, rather they are focused on assuring the preservation of a fabricated nexus between Zionism, Israel, and Jews.

The two are integrally related, no? Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party is very pro-Palestinian, and therefore the “wrong” Labour members must be destroyed. Preserving the preferred Zionist narrative is essential to their agenda, and Corbyn et al. are a new and direct threat to that.

Hence, they must be politically destroyed.

This isn’t my mere conjecture. A few months ago the largest newspaper in Israel held a conference on how to combat BDS:

Intelligence Minister Yisrael Katz said (Heb) that Israel should engage in “targeted civil eliminations” of BDS leaders with the help of Israeli intelligence, intentionally using language that plays on the Hebrew term for “targeted assassinations.”

At least one of the more unhinged Zionists here has endorsed that in this space, a cretin who has followed me from another site. Moreover, such a program actually started over a year ago. If you haven’t heard of the odious site, Canary Mission, this is what it’s doing:

The Canary Mission features profiles of dozens of activists, students, college professors and journalists which the site’s authors accuse of anti-Semitism and even having ties to terrorism. Among the alphabetical listings on the site is a profile of this journalist, along with over 100 others.

The organization’s goals are clear: It seeks to ruin the careers or future job prospects of its targets, especially students associated with the growth of BDS on American college campuses. “By shining a light on hate group members and their activities, the public will become better informed about those involved in hate movements in their communities,” the Canary Mission explains on its About page. A video on the site warns: “It is your duty to ensure that today’s radicals are not tomorrow’s employees.”

The explicit goal is that college students and others supportive of BDS can be threatened that potential employers will search their names online and find them denounced as antisemites.

This is McCarthyism, and is utterly vile.

He didn’t win because he is a Muslim. He won because of his policies and Londoners undeniable stubbornness towards political scaremongering agenda of hate. Over here we are a melting pot who gets on and relies on one another regardless of credo or political affiliations. It will always be like this in London. London is a city of emigrants since Londinium ( ad 43), not a nationalistic head quarters. Brexitc or not .

Jazz writes:

I think you are well aware that the trigger for the response is not Livingstone. It is the implication of Livingstone’s comments – and your comments – that raises alarms for some.

It’s not clear who you mean to allude to with this “some.” In any event, you seem unaware of recent history: Zionists in the UK have been conducting a witch-hunt of Labour members who wrote anything they don’t like on social media that pertains to Zionism or Israel.

Ken Livingstone was defending the comments of one of the victims of this purge mentality, a victim whose statements were historically accurate about Zionists and the Nazis. Livingstone’s comments are also accurate. Indeed, the historical record is even worse than those comments indicate; primary documents from the 1930s-40s make this clear.

Had it not been for McCarthyite Zionists in the UK, this issue would not have become a hot topic. But, they have been behaving atrociously, and therefore, the historical facts are critically important.

Ironically, the witch-hunt has had the result of these facts being spread all over the Internet.

Finally, when Zionists seek to destroy people’s reputations based on lies, I will set the record straight. Quite regardless of what “some” find “alarming.”

Ok let’s be honest: this guy is only a Muslim in the most superficial way. As in, bearing the label “Muslim” is part of his identity and his background, but the intellectual tradition of Islam doesn’t really inform his beliefs, political or otherwise, in any meaningful way. He supports gay marriage for chrissakes. Of course this is basically what a Muslim, or a Christian, is to most liberals: an identity, a label which denotes affiliation with a group of people, and nothing more. And of course by that logic we can’t say anything about what a Muslim would think or do, any more than we could say what a Bolivian would think or do. That would be bigotry. Trouble is, for many, probably most Muslims, adherence to Islam actually is important, and we see the effects of that adherence wherever a pious Muslim majority is found. Most Muslims do not live in Western countries, and so do not engage in these kinds politically correct identity politics where everyone’s label deserves respect. Islam actually means something to them. And I dare say, if Khan’s was anything like that, if his thinking was actually informed by Islam (with its metaphysical as well as its political assertions), we would be seeing a lot of “bigotry” coming from Londoners.

Mona

You have so thoroughly discredited yourself by backing the antisemitic rantings of the former Mayor of London, Livingston that it’s remarkable that you cannot see it. Unfortunately, you are Livingston’s ideological soul-mate. Why do you think Livingston lost to Johnson? Because he alienated an entire community with his anti-Jewish bigotry. According to a Times of London poll before the election of 2012:

“………40% of those who intended to vote for Johnson said that Livingstone’s poor relationship with the Jewish Community was either a very or a quite important influence on their voting decision…….”

Of course, it’s not like you haven’t discredited yourself already numerous times. You have a history of putting your foot in your mouth.

Mona

“……To see extensive documentation of Nazi support for Zionists, and vice versa, see myriad of my comments, beginning with the last posted, in this thread……”

To see extensive documentation why Zionists (Jews) might have attempted to make a pact with the Nazis, see the same thread as Mona mentions. Other comments provide context to Lenni Brenner’s “documents”. If, however, you have a modicum of common sense or are interested in the truth, then there is extensive documentation of Nazi hatred and persecution of Jews after the Nazis were elected to power. That seems to be a big surprise to Mona. As the author of this article (Mackey) writes:

“……Needless to say, it would take a remarkably selective reading of history to argue that the Nazis were “supporting Zionism” by allowing 20,000 Jews to emigrate to Palestine, in the decade before they murdered 6 million more…….”

Former London Mayor Livingston is an anti-Jewish bigot. Simple.

Craig “Whataboutery” Summers” tells a knowing falsehood:

than the Nazis supported Zionism as the antisemite Livingston said last week.

To see extensive documentation of Nazi support for Zionists, and vice versa, see myriad of my comments, beginning with the last posted, in this thread.

Ken Livingstone told the truth. As Max Blumenthal puts it (with copious documentation):

Livingstone might have been guilty of going off script, but he was not necessarily incorrect. The history of Nazi Germany’s robust economic and political collaboration with the Zionist movement throughout the 1930s is widely known and well-documented—even Elie Wiesel has openly reeled at the record of Zionist cooperation with Hitler’s minions.

Wiesel’s commentary is in my first comment at the above link. Much, much more is there as one scrolls down through my documented comments. Craig participated in that thread and has seen all of this; he simply doesn’t like it.

You would think that David Cameron and his ilk woukd have though better of this campaign. So, he says Trumps ideas are “stupid” and then turn around and uses them. Good job, Prime Minister.

London’s main purpose nowadays is as a financial center for wealthy individuals from countries such as Pakistan, to stash away their offshore investments. In fact, much of the US foreign aid to Pakistan ends up in London. So electing Mr. Khan was a good business decision if he can promote that effectively. In addition, the threat to ban Muslims from the US means that London will be increasingly important for brokering international arms deals, especially with countries in the Middle East. This election result should bolster London’s reputation as a vibrant international, cosmopolitan city, friendly to money laundering and arms dealing interests.

It some ways it reminds me on a smaller scale, of the worldwide PR coup scored by the United States in electing Mr. Obama several years ago. Hopefully, London will reap similar dividends.

The usual Far Reich wing trolls are out n force today – they are such a sad bunch of racist losers. This landslide victory has been a huge, crushing blow for the failed divisive conservative policies of oppression. TheTories dog whistling and fear mongering were completely and overwhelmingly rejected, and Dodgy Dave’ should be apologising for his dishonest attempt to smear Sadiq Khan.

It does beg one to compare Sadiq’s story to that of another nation’s brutally toxic Main Stream Media smear of Bernie Sanders, and the efforts to totally block his voice from the minds who vote in the USA. It does beg one to consider how a nation, claiming to be “exceptional” no matter how many undercuts to the working class, seniors, students and horribly wrong war decisions made, can allow its Main Stream Media and its own Congress to all but deny the life work of a Senator whose main goals as a leader have been to support real people, to improve lives of the working class, seniors, students. How does a nation scheme into a role like that of President, a woman who’s made so many bad decisions throughout her own career? Is it a nation whose exceptionalism is not even as open minded and strong as that of London’s? Is it a nation that won’t understand in the near future how to correct some of the worst decisions in its history through the hands of a currently very right wing Supreme Court? Compare the election of Sadiq and that of the run for the presidency in the USA, and you see an almost dark set of values at play in the nation with the “exceptional” values. Frankly, almost no values at all. Wonder where the idea of real democracy even gets discussed any more in the USA? I hear nothing on it in our Main Stream Media. I hear plenty of it from real news organizations, real journalists, such as these here at The Intercept. What a shameful state of being in the USA. We could be so much more advanced than we are, but we cling to past attitudes, to old, trashy at best, values that add nothing to creating a better life, a better nation, a better world. Bernie Sanders, if by a miracle is the nominee, will be a light in the darkness. Some ray of hope.

More Russian-backed Syrian regime atrocities in Syria:

“……….Syria’s military command has denied it carried out airstrikes on a refugee camp near the Turkish border that killed at least 28 people, but a senior UN official said initial reports suggested a government plane was responsible for the “murderous attacks”……..Outrage over the Sarmada killings erupted shortly after a Russian orchestra held a celebratory concert in Palmyra…….The performance prompted angry comments about Russian support for Bashar al-Assad’s forces in Aleppo and elsewhere. Philip Hammond, Britain’s foreign secretary, called it “a tasteless attempt to distract attention from the suffering of millions”………The White House said the Sarmada attack was “indefensible”. The opposition Syrian National Coalition described it as an “appalling massacre by regime forces against civilians” and said it showed Assad was not a serious partner for peace…….”

While the Russian orchestra plays, Syrians die from Syrian war planes. Ho Hum, another non story in the human rights oriented Intercept. It doesn’t matter if the Russians or Syrians bomb hospitals or just refugee camps, the Intercept will absolutely ignore the atrocities.

Mr. Mackey

The election of the first Muslim mayor of London only reinforces exactly how tolerant the west is for Muslim immigrants who work hard and learn English. Far from how westerners are depicted in the Intercept and other left wing publications, Muslims do quite well where integrated into the mainstream (Canada is another great example). Of course, there is racism in the west, but tolerance by the majority far out shadows the bigotry of the minority. Here is Greenwald depicting people in America (the west):

“….I’m most certainly not suggesting that anyone who supports Awlaki’s killing is driven by racism or anti-Muslim bigotry. I am suggesting that the belief that Muslims are somehow less American, or even less human, is widespread….”

Yea, most people in the America (the west) view Muslims as “subhuman”.

Sadiq Khan will be under pressure to ensure the safety of all people in London from the target of Islamic terrorism.

Who cares which iron age superstition a politician was born into and/or chooses? I’m glad that the Johnson era is over.

A great victory, which represented a rejection of the right wing’s politics of fear, and indeed, a repudiation of their Islamophobic campaign.

It is great to know there is at least one leading city in the world where the people cannot be frightened and intimidated by the powerful with their deceptive use of a sycophant media spewing fear and warmongering propaganda.

The city of London’s citizens have demonstrated that they cannot be turned into fools that look for a Muslim as they approach each corner, in the back seat of their cars, or under their covers at night.

The people of London have spoken out and what they are saying is that they will not be fooled in to focusing on the lesser enemy without and be blinded to the real most oppressive enemy within.

Khan’s landslide win is fantastic news. The actual bigotry going on in British politics was soundly repudiated, while the manufactured controversy over “antisemitism” in the Labour party went almost nowhere. Labour lost badly in Scotland but not due to that issue; otherwise:

Corbyn congratulated Khan at the end of a day of results across the UK that were not bad enough to trigger a coup against the Labour leader. He said he had defied the critics to hang on across England, where the party retained councils such as Crawley and Plymouth and had suffered a lower net loss than expected, of two dozen councillors.

“All across England last night we were getting predictions that Labour was going to lose councils. We didn’t, we hung on and we grew support in a lot of places,” Corbyn said in a defiant speech to activists in Sheffield.

Not that the Israel Lobby is done. It has shown it can be utterly vicious, and one should expect even more disgusting crap from it — both as BDS surges, and as the Western left increasingly refuses to be manipulated by the Lobby’s absurd notions of what constitutes antisemitism.

But for today we should take satisfaction in good things happening.

Paki people are really good folks when they want to be good. The problem is that kind of desire comes along very seldom.

This is a great victory for Anonomous here and other CAGE type folks who have often subjected themselves to suicide-bombing due to lack of proper and decent directions from their Mullas.

Welcome to Mr Khan. I am sure President Trump is going to make a grand exception in his particular case and welcome him here early next year after he has thrown all the millions of the Mexican nuisance across the wall.