Jump to content

Terrorist Attack at Glasgow Airport


Recommended Posts

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?).

 

Once the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the CIA taught Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) the art of running low-intensity proxy-wars with small cells of terrorists, and graced this ungodly operation with $3.5 billion in cash and arms. The Pakistanis used these resources to shape its Islamic students (talib) into a fanatical army (Taliban), trained them, and set them loose in Afghanistan and Kashmir.

 

When the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan ten years later, America could have disarmed the Taliban by buying back their arms for a few million dollars and helping them setup small-scale industries. Instead, the CIA simply walked away from a hell hole of their own creation and let Islamic terrorism ferment to the point where it struck back at its own creator, the United States of America. Afghanistan's explosive mixture of religious fundamentalism and well-trained militias finally culminated in the World Trade Centre attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 think its perfectly reasonable to blame foreign policy , were it not for that we wouldnt be a terrorist target , look at our Scandanavian brothers , you dont see the same hostilities towards them , Why ? Because for the simple reason the mind their own feckin buisness thats why. :evil:

 

For too long now this guttery peerie country have been interfering in other countries policies , be they right or wrong , why does it always have to be us and the usa that has to stick noses in , Maybe its the "American Dream , So called because you'd have to be asleep to believe it !!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Glasgow attack certainly refutes the claim some people make that the terrorists are brain washed youths lured into action by the promises of evil men. And if well educated Muslims are prepared to launch suicide attacks then we have a big problem. Then again I always admitted that the 9/11 hijackers were clever people.

 

Only one answer in my opinion. We (the non Muslim world) have to start "the war on the causes of terror". Our governments and peoples have to accept that some of the things we do are offensive to Muslims.......Rushdie's honour being an example.......and either not do those things or find a way to do them that causes less offence. Our "leaders", both political and religious, have to sit down with their leaders to find a way to increase respect for each other and our teachers have to teach peace and understanding.

 

Of course there is another way.......fortress Britain almost cut off from the rest of the world and with a police state that would make Hitler's SS look like a bunch of cuddly teddy bears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Although I may not agree with the Islamic religion, or for that matter Christianity, I would not say that one is "a damn lot more offensive" than the other.

 

The religions themselves aren't offensive, only the extremists on both sides who misuse them - from those who carry out suicide attacks right through to the oppressors at the top.

 

I think you'll find the average muslim or christian to be a law-abiding, peace loving citizen.

 

To create a divide between the communites and incite racial hatred will solve nothing; indeed it will only help to aggravate the situation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ Medziotojas, going back to your previous post, you say Islamic fundamentalism was significant in the 9/11 attacks. If there is something fundamental to Islam that encourages the murdering of innocent civilians by the thousand, and Christianity is just as bad, then how come no such attack has ever been carried out in the name of Christianity?

 

If murderous ideas are "fundamental" to a religion then how are "extremists" misusing them?

 

The equality of religions argument is used often, there is a book coming out soon (by one of my preferred academics :wink:) which I expect to address that argument better than I ever could.

 

Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is, and Islam Isn't.

 

I don't know enough about Islamic literature to judge myself whether the "real Islam" is peaceful or not (and anyway that is down to those in authority in the religion to decide, not me) but I would leave open the possibility that it might not be.

 

I fully agree that the majority of Muslims are law-abiding, peace-loving people, but how much do the 1.x billion of them actually know about Islam? Perhaps that's why those preaching the violent, supremacist ideology are so successful. Could it be that the intelligent people carrying out these attacks actually have a correct understanding of Islam, one which they can back up with examples from the Qu'ran, hadith and works of academia?

 

The people that should be proving them wrong (if they can) are those in authority in the religion. Why is there never an ayatollah around when you need one? :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

junior wrote

 

^^^ Medziotojas, going back to your previous post, you say Islamic fundamentalism was significant in the 9/11 attacks. If there is something fundamental to Islam that encourages the murdering of innocent civilians by the thousand, and Christianity is just as bad, then how come no such attack has ever been carried out in the name of Christianity?

 

medziotojas wrote

 

Afghanistan's explosive mixture of religious fundamentalism and well-trained militias finally culminated in the World Trade Centre attacks.

 

With hindsight "extremism" would have been more appropriate here, but I'm not going to argue over semantics. I think the word fundamentalist/ism is quite often misconstrued in these times. Hands up :oops:

 

Regarding your question, far right Christian extremists may disagree about attacks carried out in the name of Christianity although admittedly, different tactics are applied. Indeed, during the Iraq war, did George Bush himself not have to retract the term "Crusade?" Furthermore, regarding the murder of thousands of innocent civilians, I think you'll find the figure here is actually up into the hundreds of thousands. Of course you could argue that that is the price of war, but you could also argue that it was a one-sided and unjust war.

 

 

I also think that, whether it be the Koran or the Bible, the messages within are deliberately being taken out of context by a powerful minority.

 

It seems to be innocent civilians, on all sides, who end up paying the ultimate price and that is the real tragedy of this all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :shock:

 

You have already stated that the UN is a Joke. It's position, lack of effectiveness, and the general lack of equality over the world is what I believe is catalyst for the current terrorism issue, unless those are addressed there will be more issues like this. I agree that there may be certain mandate in the Islamic teaching that can justify these acts, but it doesn't change the fact that it is our effect on the rest of the world that had caused this. In reference to achieving goals trough violence, Saddam was an 'evil' man, moderate in comparison to his neighbors, so lets bomb the hell out of his country with no plan for reconstruction, but you, you can't use violence because your ideas are absurd! (see below)

 

- 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'."

 

Are both those attributable? If we remove people's liberty we can no longer be proud of that fact that fee live in a free country. In reference to the second quote, bigoted? Is he advocating terrorism saying the methods aren't wrong, and which ideas is he talking about, is this really the guy that is going to be a middle east peace envoy??!?!?,

 

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.... :roll:

 

Dear oh dear, that was a terrorable pun. Does that go for all acts of terrorism even the ones committed by our state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With hindsight "extremism" would have been more appropriate here, but I'm not going to argue over semantics. I think the word fundamentalist/ism is quite often misconstrued in these times. Hands up :oops:

 

Sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic, I was just using your post to make a point of my own, partly because I don't currently know of better words to use myself :?

 

Regarding your question, far right Christian extremists may disagree about attacks carried out in the name of Christianity although admittedly, different tactics are applied. Indeed, during the Iraq war, did George Bush himself not have to retract the term "Crusade?"

 

It wouldn't surprise me, I seem to remember something about him getting a "message from God" or similar. Thats an obvious link to Christianity, but I think its safe to say he was alone with that particular motive. You won't find British soldiers cheering "God is great!" whilst firing their rifles, as seems to happen in the most "problematic" parts of the world.

 

Furthermore, regarding the murder of thousands of innocent civilians, I think you'll find the figure here is actually up into the hundreds of thousands. Of course you could argue that that is the price of war, but you could also argue that it was a one-sided and unjust war.

 

I'm not defending the war, but I'm afraid that I will have to defend the government again. Murder involves intent (pedantic again, sorry) I don't think we have ever deliberately targeted innocent civilians, more that we have just targeted poorly. Unlike abroad where terrorists bombing markets, mosques, schools and public transport is the norm :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Although I may not agree with the Islamic religion, or for that matter Christianity, I would not say that one is "a damn lot more offensive" than the other.

 

The religions themselves aren't offensive, only the extremists on both sides who misuse them - from those who carry out suicide attacks right through to the oppressors at the top.

 

 

 

David Koresh The Waco Massacre. comes to mind

 

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/6921/terroristschoolmo5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have already stated that the UN is a Joke. It's position, lack of effectiveness, and the general lack of equality over the world is what I believe is catalyst for the current terrorism issue, unless those are addressed there will be more issues like this.

 

Saying that the status of the UN, or the lack of equality in the world, are a "catalyst" for terrorism is entirely different from saying that these things are to blame. What did these things catalyse? What is the underlying issue (which existed long before 9/11) that has been sped up by these circumstances? I think it is a supremacist, violent, religious ideology.

 

Regarding the Blair quotes if you are looking for proof, will the guardian do?

 

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2115929,00.html

 

Dear oh dear, that was a terrorable pun. Does that go for all acts of terrorism even the ones committed by our state?

 

There was no pun. And, call me and old-fashioned nazi but I don't consider our state, our PM (past or present), or our government (past or present) to be terrorists. I think that also starts to answer your point about how we are oppressing people abroad. The vast majority of people oppressing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, are themselves Muslims. That is why their grievance isn't justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets be honest with ourselves; the dislike by many of us liberals on this forum of tribal, patriarchical, theocracies is outweighed by our liberal tolerance of other cultures. Its only a short jump from tolerating these societies to justifying the terrorism that is arising from them.

 

Just look at the comments in this thread about "the West offending Muslims".

 

Let me justify the Crusades. The Muslims offended the West.

 

Its just that in this case the West wasn't liberal, democratic and tolerant. It was a tribal, patriarchical theocracy...they are the elements that anyone subscribing to a liberal view should be offended by in the first instance.

 

After that you can turn your attention to Rushdie or Danish cartoons or racial profiling or Israel or foreign policy or whatever else getting into a flap about gives you a sense of high minded liberal moral indignation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the impression most Muslims support these attacks behind closed doors and only play lip service to the media that they dont etc.

 

According to Wikipedia, there are an estimated 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. How many did you speak to before coming to your conclusion ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...