Terrorist Attack at Glasgow Airport

[JustMe]

After the London "attacks" I wondered if they were not simply launched by the government or some of our spooks in order to justify a higher state of alert. Then came the "attack" at Glasgow Airport and I thought "no!.........our people would not have done that". This morning I added "would they?" to my initial reaction.

 

What is really sad is that I, along with others, could even ask the question "would they?". What has happened to our trust in government and how can they get it back?.

[Scoobysue]

^^ What's even worse is that our 'democratically elected representatives' are probably inept enough to have c*cked up both incidents if they were indeed ill-conceived PR exercises.

[junior]

After the London "attacks" I wondered if they were not simply launched by the government or some of our spooks in order to justify a higher state of alert. Then came the "attack" at Glasgow Airport and I thought "no!.........our people would not have done that". This morning I added "would they?" to my initial reaction.

 

What is really sad is that I, along with others, could even ask the question "would they?". What has happened to our trust in government and how can they get it back?.

 

I'm ashamed to say that after the strange events in London I had similar thoughts. Then the reports from Glasgow (including those of a flaming maniac attacking a policeman while shouting "Allah"!) brought me firmly back to my usual racist stance

 

I would read the recent attacks, though inept and sloppy, as a message to the British people you have a new Prime Minister who was complicit in attacking our countries in the middle east, you are not off the hook, vote him in again and this will continue, IMHO.

 

Because of the reach and source of this type of terrorism locking down our country will make it more difficult for them but it won't remove the threat, that will only come trough a severe change in our foreign policy. until that happens we won't feel safe, not even from our own government.

 

I don't think that blaming foreign policy is a good idea, I think the major reason behind any (attempted) murderous, terrorist attacks is some kind mental disorder in the perpetrator. I certainly don't think we should let their actions affect the way we vote.

 

I agree that it is a particularly difficult type of threat to address, but I think it can only be done through firstly appreciating the true nature of it (these attacks might be amateurish, but they are co-ordinated, symbolic in timing and similar to a lot of attacks in the middle-east, suggesting some sort of controlling "intelligence") and then seriously looking at immigration and religious freedoms...

[humptygrumpty]

They'll probably wear awa wi MRSA in hospital onywye.

[BigMouth]

They should have been moving the security alert down. With clowns like these we have very little to fear.

[DeMascus]

I don't think that blaming foreign policy is a good idea, I think the major reason behind any (attempted) murderous, terrorist attacks is some kind mental disorder in the perpetrator. I certainly don't think we should let their actions affect the way we vote.

So shall we vote for whomever will focus on the security of the country by eroding the civil liberties and freedoms, that we are supposed to be defending, because of the threat of international terrorism.

 

Terrorism is a morally questionable but somewhat effective tool in the arsenal of most countries, just look up the list of countries to be charged with terrorism by the UN. It is a tool or warfare, and generally has very little to do with the mental stability of the person or persons involved.

 

I agree that it is a particularly difficult type of threat to address, but I think it can only be done through firstly appreciating the true nature of it (these attacks might be amateurish, but they are co-ordinated, symbolic in timing and similar to a lot of attacks in the middle-east, suggesting some sort of controlling "intelligence") and then seriously looking at immigration and religious freedoms...

If the threat is coming from abroad changes in immigration and religious freedoms, which we can only democratically apply to out own country / region, will have very little or no impact on the sources of the threat.

 

It is a very difficult issue to resolve, the best we can do is start looking in the right place.

[ArabiaTerra]

I think the major reason behind any (attempted) murderous, terrorist attacks is some kind mental disorder in the perpetrator.

 

As I said on the religion thread, Religion is a mental disorder.

[scrutineer]

^^^ I know what you mean

[junior]

I don't think that blaming foreign policy is a good idea, I think the major reason behind any (attempted) murderous, terrorist attacks is some kind mental disorder in the perpetrator. I certainly don't think we should let their actions affect the way we vote.

 

So shall we vote for whomever will focus on the security of the country by eroding the civil liberties and freedoms, that we are supposed to be defending, because of the threat of international terrorism.

 

I haven't yet seen a manifesto that intends to "focus on the security of the country by eroding civil liberties and freedoms" but I'll assume for a second it exists while I respond. Is it not a civil liberty that you should be able to walk through an airport, or a shopping centre, or a nightclub, without the threat of being blown up? Is it not a civil liberty that we should be able to vote for MPs based on our own opinion of their policy and not someone else's?

 

By giving in to terrorists you encourage more terrorism and so you are actually removing more (and more important) freedoms by not standing up to them.

 

Exercise your freedom and vote for whoever you want, don't let the actions of maniacs affect your decision.

 

Terrorism is a morally questionable but somewhat effective tool in the arsenal of most countries, just look up the list of countries to be charged with terrorism by the UN. It is a tool or warfare, and generally has very little to do with the mental stability of the person or persons involved.

 

The UN is a spineless joke. Just because it is possible to call the leaders of nations "terrorists" due to their responsibility for activities during war, that doesn't mean it is accurate, or helpful, to compare them with (attempted) suicide bombers. Ask the people of London whether they feel more threatened by Gordon Brown or Omar Bakri.

 

You seem to have a sympathy for these nutters, why?

 

I agree that it is a particularly difficult type of threat to address, but I think it can only be done through firstly appreciating the true nature of it (these attacks might be amateurish, but they are co-ordinated, symbolic in timing and similar to a lot of attacks in the middle-east, suggesting some sort of controlling "intelligence") and then seriously looking at immigration and religious freedoms...

If the threat is coming from abroad changes in immigration and religious freedoms, which we can only democratically apply to out own country / region, will have very little or no impact on the sources of the threat.

 

It is a very difficult issue to resolve, the best we can do is start looking in the right place.

 

Immigration changes may not impact much on the source of the problem, but if they can save a single life by making it less effective, or less likely, then surely it must be worth doing. Tackling the source (see below) may be more possible by restricting religious freedoms, I'm not pretending for a second it will be easy.

 

I agree, we need to look in the right place: the core cause, why do some people want to kill innocent Brits so much?. Hassan Butt from the Guardian gives an alternative to the "foreign policy" argument here:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2115891,00.html

 

Quote: "By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology."

 

Islamic theology debate anyone?

[david]

A true hero.

 

http://johnsmeaton.com/

[Para Handy]

I think the major reason behind any (attempted) murderous, terrorist attacks is some kind mental disorder in the perpetrator.

 

As I said on the religion thread, Religion is a mental disorder.

 

Religion is the biggest joke on the go. What a pity that when I die. I wont be around to have the last on my face

[Medziotojas]

Better hope you're right. Don't want to run into Mr.

 

Some interesting points have been raised here, and I'm certain that no-one is condoning the actions of the individuals involved. However it is important to look at the bigger picture.

 

We've seen what happens, at a local level, when the government gets on its high horse regarding immigration. We don't want to end up living in a fortress, surely?

 

This is going to happen again, and perhaps people need to be a little more vigilant. You should also be vigilant when crossing the road.

 

I wish I could offer a more concrete answer, but I still feel that the Blair/Bush coalition has seriously jeopardised the interests of our country.

 

Here's hoping for better administration, or at least less maladministration. Wishful thinking I know, but what to do?

[moorit]

A true hero.

 

http://johnsmeaton.com/

 

Only in Glasgow can some guy who sets out on a “holy jihad†and destiny with 84 virgins in paradise end up on fire from head to toe, having a square go with a bystander and getting maced by the police. Get it right up you, mate!

[DeMascus]

I haven't yet seen a manifesto that intends to "focus on the security of the country by eroding civil liberties and freedoms" but I'll assume for a second it exists while I respond. Is it not a civil liberty that you should be able to walk through an airport, or a shopping centre, or a nightclub, without the threat of being blown up? Is it not a civil liberty that we should be able to vote for MPs based on our own opinion of their policy and not someone else's?

Civil liberties refer to freedoms that protect the individual from government, in the security community of any country this can be viewed as a problem, see MI5 head warns on civil liberties.

 

By giving in to terrorists you encourage more terrorism and so you are actually removing more (and more important) freedoms by not standing up to them.

Can you explain this.

 

Immigration changes may not impact much on the source of the problem, but if they can save a single life by making it less effective, or less likely, then surely it must be worth doing. Tackling the source (see below) may be more possible by restricting religious freedoms, I'm not pretending for a second it will be easy.

None of this is easy, but debate is always necessary before decision making. Any group that feel persecuted by a ruling power would probably try to find answers to the problem in whatever binds it's community together. Restricting their religious freedoms persecutes certain groups and erodes everyones liberty, ironic as religion must have some degree of issue with liberty. This policy may exacerbate the problems.

 

I never expressed sympathy I just don't like the idea of my civil liberties, which I believe are a step in the right direction towards a world I would be happy to live in, being removed because our country's administration acted in a way that posed a direct threat to my fellow countrymen.

 

Hassan Butt"

"By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology."

 

I don't think looking closely at our countries foreign policy is bowing down to terrorist in the slightest. It could be described as playing into the terrorists hands, divide and conquer, but any type of social upheaval would be do the same job. He also said "many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world", but remember he is a 'maniac' 'nutter' with a 'mental disorder'.

 

Islamic theology debate anyone?

Well, we should probably move some of these issues into the Religion thread.

[junior]

OK, I have woefully misused the term "civil liberties". I mean the kind of freedoms that we have in this country to do pretty much whatever we want as long as it doesn't affect other people. The kind of freedoms terrorists try to take away by targeting innocent civilians, examples as before, going to shopping centres, nightclubs, airports (and going on buses, trains etc. all of which have at least had attacks planned against them in this country).

 

By giving in to terrorists you encourage more terrorism and so you are actually removing more (and more important) freedoms by not standing up to them.

Can you explain this.

 

The idea that giving in to terrorists encourages more of them is that, if people think they can achieve their goals through violence and terror then they are more likely to use those means. The freedoms I think I have described above. The most important freedom is to be able to walk down the street without the threat of being blown up

 

Any group that feel persecuted by a ruling power would probably try to find answers to the problem in whatever binds it's community together. Restricting their religious freedoms persecutes certain groups and erodes everyones liberty....

 

Firstly, if any "groups" are intent on killing and maiming innocent people in the cause of a barbaric, supremacist, religious ideology, then I have absolutely no problem with imposing all sorts of severe restrictions

 

That could be a good point about what binds a community, but I can't help thinking that "feel" is the relevant word. Some wise words from his lordlyness (Sir ) Tony:

 

"The idea that as a Muslim in this country you don't have the freedom to express your religion or your views ... you've got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries,"

 

"The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we're not fighting it properly. We're not standing up to these people and saying, 'It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified'."

 

I just don't like the idea of my civil liberties... ...being removed because our country's administration acted in a way that posed a direct threat to my fellow countrymen.

 

I don't see how anyone can be to blame other than the terrorists, and anyone that plays a part in organising the act (including those responsible for their radicalisation\corruption\enraging\teaching\idunno?). Blaming the government, is a bit too close to blaming the victim for my liking. There are peaceful ways to send a message to them (voting?). Assuming, off course, that foreign policy is actually their grievance, the latest attacks have a more "fundamentalist" appearance....

 

He [Hassan Butt] also said "many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world", but remember he is a 'maniac' 'nutter' with a 'mental disorder'.

 

I never said any of those things about either Mr. Butt or anyone (of any religion) who is angered by the tragic events of war. When that anger turns into attempts at murdering innocent people, then those words apply.

 

religion thread....

 

... we might get there yet...