Terrorist Attack at Glasgow Airport

[DeMascus]

We live in the 1st world, we are liberal, democratic and tolerant, a society I would like to live in. The problem is, the other world isn't, i'm sure most people understand this, and quite a few are working actively to address this. From the crusades to now we have developed our society into this with little or no outside interference, because of our powerful status in the world, and the exploitation that we have engaged in all over the world.

 

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.

Would you rather I use blame, I avoided it because it placed sole responsibility and there is no black and white, but I think these problems are a result of our actions or lack of action in the middle east and not because we live in too liberal a democracy.

 

The vast majority of people oppressing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, are themselves Muslims. That is why their grievance isn't justified.

Well in Iraq and Afghanistan it is our alliance (atheists) who is oppressing, and in palestine it is Israel (Jews). In that last democratic elections in Palestine we didn't like their choice, so we changed their minds trough economic sanctions.

 

If we are a peace loving nation we should focus on helping these oppressed people. If we change our society to restrict freedoms and liberty, we are essentially moving our societies structure more in line with oppressive forms of government, to restrict our civil liberties is voting for the oppressors, oh yea we are the oppressors.

 

Have a look at -> WP - History of the Middle East # A zone of conflict

 

Its only a short jump from tolerating these societies to justifying the terrorism that is arising from them.

I don't think there can be any basis for comparison.

 

If we don't want to be influenced by these acts of terrorism, what we need to do of look towards the type of society we would like to live in, and aim for that. If we don't no matter which direction we move in we loose, I don't see how wanting our country to act with fairness and in a manner which would allow liberty to the other cultures it comes into contact with, is bowing down to terrorism. If anything it is the very antithesis, whereas persecution and threats are terrorism.

 

To be offended at the threat of violence in our liberal county while our country uses violence to impose it's will abroad is hypocrisy, but is take a result of this and use it to justify an erosion of our liberties is just stupid.

[tlady]

I think the terrorists may think twice about taking on Glasgow again!!

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=hero-cabbie%2D-police-took-my-good-nike-trainers%26method=full%26objectid=19401912%26siteid=66633-name_page.html

 

Good old traffic wardens the place is burning down around them, and they're still issuing tickets!!

[Gibber]

DeMascus

 

We live in the 1st world, we are liberal, democratic and tolerant, a society I would like to live in. The problem is, the other world isn't, i'm sure most people understand this, and quite a few are working actively to address this. From the crusades to now we have developed our society into this with little or no outside interference, because of our powerful status in the world, and the exploitation that we have engaged in all over the world.

 

I don't see how we live in a liberal, democratic and tolerant society because of our powerful status, and our colonial past. There are a number of super wealthy and powerful oil rich states in the Middle East which are the absolute opposite of liberal, democratic and tolerant.

 

Well in Iraq and Afghanistan it is our alliance (atheists) who is oppressing, and in palestine it is Israel (Jews). In that last democratic elections in Palestine we didn't like their choice, so we changed their minds trough economic sanctions.

 

Although nobody here is going to defend the mess this war has created you can't really say its aim was to oppress people. Oil greed for sure was a factor, as was the mad rush to fight the war on terror but by the same token there was a desire to rid these places of 2 very oppressive regimes. I hope you don't think that Joe Bloggs from Kabul was reading a William Burroughs novel and listening to pop music on his ipod while his girlfriend sunbathed in a bikini talking to her openly gay brother on a mobile phone 10 minutes before the coalition arrived.

 

Perhaps if the National Front get elected into government in Britain you will post on the Shetlink forums defending their right to rule because they were democratically elected. 51% of the population can be just a wrong as 49% of the population. This is especially true if you elect an armed militia made up of religious fanatics.

 

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." -- Winston Churchill

 

Namely, it works, but sometimes it doesn't. In Gaza and the West Bank, it didn't.

 

And thanks for reminding us that there are (Jews) in Israel. There are (Jews) in Britain too. Even Shetland. Are they part of the oppression you mention too? or just the (Jews) in Israel. Its a worldwide (Jewish) conspiracy isn't it? Not just the Israeli (Jews)

 

If we are a peace loving nation we should focus on helping these oppressed people.

 

You mean the large proportion (about half) of people in Islamic states who are born sub-male? Sorry I of course mean female.

 

If we don't want to be influenced by these acts of terrorism, what we need to do of look towards the type of society we would like to live in, and aim for that.

 

OK, out of all the Middle East societies which one would you like to live in if you had to, and why?

[DeMascus]

I don't see how we live in a liberal, democratic and tolerant society because of our powerful status, and our colonial past. There are a number of super wealthy and powerful oil rich states in the Middle East which are the absolute opposite of liberal, democratic and tolerant.

So you think we would still live in the country we do if we had been in constant threat to our lives, or has another states will imposed on us? We managed to give ourselves free reign over how we wanted to develop our society, due in part to the fact that our position in the world meant that there was no one else to challenge us. the super rich states you mention in the middle east are generally there on a mandate from us, the developed world, and if they choose any other path or offend us, well, just take Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran as an example.

 

Although nobody here is going to defend the mess this war has created you can't really say its aim was to oppress people. Oil greed for sure was a factor, as was the mad rush to fight the war on terror but by the same token there was a desire to rid these places of 2 very oppressive regimes.

In Afghanistan the reason was the hunt for Osama and his friends in the Taliban, there was no mention of the oppressive regime before these events, but there was also the gas pipeline, handy. In Iraq, oil, but in terms of oppressive regimes, Iraq was liberal for the region.

 

To quote Noam chomsky "to protect our oil reserves from the indigenous population". If the will of the people is to have control over their natural resources, then I don't know how this can be viewed as anything other than oppression.

 

Perhaps if the National Front get elected into government in Britain you will post on the Shetlink forums defending their right to rule because they were democratically elected. 51% of the population can be just a wrong as 49% of the population. This is especially true if you elect an armed militia made up of religious fanatics.

Who decides it's wrong, you?

 

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." -- Winston Churchill

 

Namely, it works, but sometimes it doesn't. In Gaza and the West Bank, it didn't.

So we should give up trying to improve it and not criticize our leaders when they act is a way that we don't agree with. or maybe the Palestinians should have realized the type of government we wanted and voted accordingly the fist time.

 

And thanks for reminding us that there are (Jews) in Israel. There are (Jews) in Britain too. Even Shetland. Are they part of the oppression you mention too? or just the (Jews) in Israel. Its a worldwide (Jewish) conspiracy isn't it? Not just the Israeli (Jews)

I apologize for pointing out Jews control Israel, and I don't think i alluded to any of this in my post.

 

OK, out of all the Middle East societies which one would you like to live in if you had to, and why?

What a choice. Are you trying to to say, if I'm not happy here I should leave, or are you saying I have no reason to criticize the actions of the current government. I wouldn't like to live in any of them, and I wouldn't like to be forced to live in them, I would also dislike having economic sanctions imposed on my country because of the way I voted, but what I dislike more is my government imposing it's will on other countries.

[Gibber]

We managed to give ourselves free reign over how we wanted to develop our society

 

All the rich oil also states have free reign to develop into civilised liberal democracies but it doesn't happen. Israel developed into a civilised liberal democracy while under the very real threat of its destruction on the day of its creation. I don't see how it follows that freedom from threat necessarily leads to a liberal democratic society.

 

In Afghanistan the reason was the hunt for Osama and his friends in the Taliban

The Taliban is one of the regimes I was talking about.

 

Iraq was liberal for the region.

 

...in the same way that Ian Huntly was moderate compared to Peter Sutcliff? Please don't use relativism to justify dictatorships.

 

Who decides it's wrong, you?

 

Why not?! I have the capacity to make moral judgements along with everybody else!

 

You set a great store in Hamas being democratically elected. Democracy dosen't decide what’s right and wrong. Democracy decides who governs; and indeed democracy has a certain moral validity in itself in that it gives everyone the chance to have their say, but it doesn't decide what’s right and wrong.

 

If you must have a system or formal method to tell you what’s right and wrong then have a look at Utilitarianism. A philosophy that tries to give a numerical value to moral outcomes through the employment of a 'hapiness calculus'. Simply put, what decision makes the most people the most happy is the morally correct one. Needless to say using sums to decide morality isn't an especially good idea.

 

I apologize for pointing out Jews control Israel, and I don't think i alluded to any of this in my post.

 

Ok...I take it you mean Israeli Jews then, and not the Jews spread throughout the world. Could you put in brackets after every country you mention, who controls it eg Britain (whites?), (men?), (Christians?), (athiests?), (plumbers?).

 

Like Britain, Israel is controlled by the government that is elected by its citizens (subjects in Britain). About 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab Israelis, they are not Jewish. Israeli Arabs have the right to vote and 20% is not a small minority.

 

There are certain policies and institutions and whatnot that are geared towards retaining the Jewish national identity and indeed Jews do make up the majority of the population, but I would appreciate it in future if you are going to mention who controls Israel based on ethnicity could you do it like this; Israel(Jews 80%, Arabs 20%).

 

Or just don't do it at all?

 

What a choice. Are you trying to to say, if I'm not happy here I should leave, or are you saying I have no reason to criticize the actions of the current government.

 

None of these! absolutely no offence intended and you should question authority if you are not happy with it.

 

This does bring us back to the point in this thread about liberal tolerance of other cultures/governments because they are ‘other’ taking priority over questioning the morality of these cultures.

 

The point of asking this question being what country/government/culture in the ME are you morally comfortable enough with to live in and be a part of and integrate into if you had to. (say there is a special mineral in the air of the ME that without which you would die or something so you have to relocate there).

 

I’m pretty sure you are avoiding this question because you can’t really (truthfully) justify nearly all of the governments in the ME but your tolerance for other cultures just for being 'other' is so strong it stops you from criticising them.

 

And you would never answer Israel because it is not 'other' enough !

 

Yes?

[junior]

Would you rather I use blame, I avoided it because it placed sole responsibility and there is no black and white....

 

Fair enough, but you then say:

 

...I think these problems are a result of our actions or lack of action in the middle east...

 

And you previously said:

 

...that [removing the threat of terrorism] will only come trough [sic] a severe change in foreign policy.

 

Again, I don't wish to be pedantic, or hold you to a literal meaning of anything you say, however, to misinterpret the true cause of the threat leads to a dangerous misdirection when it comes to trying to eliminate it...

 

Well in Iraq and Afghanistan it is our alliance (atheists) who is oppressing, and in palestine it is Israel (Jews). In that last democratic elections in Palestine we didn't like their choice, so we changed their minds trough economic sanctions....

 

Have a look at -> WP - History of the Middle East # A zone of conflict

 

"This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality" and also: ""This article does not cite any references or sources".

 

It's not surprising, violence is not the only tactic of those who chose to try and destroy our way of life. Some more media manipulation:

 

Spreading the message online

More muck spreading

"Jihadi Hosting Solutions"?

Cyber-democracy?

Youtube hate/religion censor

BBC employee member of Hamas

Hate/Truth ban?

 

Try this site for some Israeli/Palestine history (WARNING: some graphic images):

 

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/

 

If this isn't enough just think back a few weeks to the civil war between the genocidal main parties, none have Jewish members (AFAIK ). It wasn't Jews throwing people off the tops of buildings, and (again, AFAIK) no Israeli parties have genocidal charters.

 

Here is an interesting link about Palestinian aid, there's more in the link above:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/whamas11.xml

 

In Iraq the majority of violence is Sunnies killing Shiites and vice-versa (in the name of the "real" Islam?) this article is interesting

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0621/p03s01-woiq.html?s=hns

 

Whatever our current role there is, it isn't bombing mosques.

 

Afghanistan is a case of international and Afghan forces fighting together to try and stop the return of the taliban. I can't speak for the people but I'd be willing to bet opposing limbs (sorry ) that they don't want the taliban back either.

 

To try and get back to the point, foreign policy grievances are stupid, people are being brainwashed with nonsense.

 

Sure I can't tempt you with a common ideology?

 

I don't think there can be any basis for comparison.

Pots and kettles spring to ming. You have compared the "violence" of the actions of our troops abroad, with those of (suicide?) bombers that threaten to attack us. You also seem to think that the Israel trying to protect the lives of their citizens constitutes "oppression", and you have also accused the British state of "terrorism".

 

At the risk of repeating myself, in each of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, the real violence, oppression, and terrorism are being carried out (against people of all faiths and none) by Muslims.

 

Some perseived persecution in this country.

 

To anyone still reading, my apologies for such a long post, I hope you found it of some interest.

[junior]

This is very interesting, click "Listen to latest edition":

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml

 

Go Melanie!

 

[DeMascus]

Iraq was liberal for the region.

...in the same way that Ian Huntly was moderate compared to Peter Sutcliff? Please don't use relativism to justify dictatorships.

I wasn't using it to justify dictatorship, but I don't think you can use it justify invasion, considering other dictatorial regimes in the region.

 

You set a great store in Hamas being democratically elected. Democracy dosn't decide what’s right and wrong. Democracy decides who governs; ...

I'm not looking to quantify morality, in the case of Hamas in Palestine, democracy didn't decide who governed, Israel and the west did, be that right or wrong, us making calls about bring democracy and liberty to the ME then acting like this is, I believe, morally wrong.

 

The point of asking this question being what country/government/culture in the ME are you morally comfortable enough with to live in and be a part of and integrate into if you had to. (say there is a special mineral in the air of the ME that without which you would die or something so you have to relocate there).

To answer the question I would have to have experience of the culture of these countries and be able to compare and contrast one from another which I can't do, because I haven't lived or been immersed in any of these cultures.

 

..snip.. < DeMascus contradicting himself > ..snip..

Again, I don't wish to be pedantic, or hold you to a literal meaning of anything you say, however, to misinterpret the true cause of the threat leads to a dangerous misdirection when it comes to trying to eliminate it...

Ack, erm, well. Of course you're right. we need to look at all the aspects of these problems, but I think that also includes the effect of our foreign policy on the countries of the middle east. I liked the Moral Maze link, it was very good, I don't know why you were cheering on Melanie though.

 

If this isn't enough just think back a few weeks to the civil war between the genocidal main parties, none have Jewish members (AFAIK ). It wasn't Jews throwing people off the tops of buildings, and (again, AFAIK) no Israeli parties have genocidal charters.

In relation to the current situation in the occupied territories

HRW - Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)

Amnesty International

 

To try and get back to the point, foreign policy grievances are stupid, people are being brainwashed with nonsense.

Sure I can't tempt you with a common ideology?

You can tempt me, but I still don't think that looking at our foreign policy as a possible reason for the trouble that we are having now is stupid or being brainwashed by anyone, I think it is perfectly rational, it is just not as direct or media friendly as their religious background.

 

I don't think there can be any basis for comparison.

Pots and kettles spring to mind. ...

In reference to:

Its only a short jump from tolerating these societies to justifying the terrorism that is arising from them.

If you tolerate a society you accept it's existence and allow it to continue as a society. To justify terrorism arising from any society you must first believe that terrorism is justifiable, i don't think it is a short jump from toleration of a society to justification of terrorism.

 

I'm not sure how much I trust this resource, but in regard to British terrorism:

Global Research - British Terrorism in Iraq

 

To anyone still reading, my apologies for such a long post, I hope you found it of some interest.

I did find it interesting, thanks. though I still disagree with you on who is oppressing in the Middle East.

 

This does bring us back to the point in this thread about liberal tolerance of other cultures/governments because they are ‘other’ taking priority over questioning the morality of these cultures.

To morally question these cultures i believe we need to act in a way that allows us to have some moral justification for our assessment. Though I do think this would warrant further discussion. Do you think we have a moral justification impose our will on people of different beliefs? is that intolerance, oppression?

[Bitter Truth]

The idea that current "Western" foreign policy is at the heart of the actions of the likes of Al Qaeda and other Islamic/Jihadi groups is rather misleading and is an acceptance of Islamist propaganda as much as anything else.

 

The only impact that it is having is that Islamists and their friends can use it as "soup-of-the-day" justification for the unjustifiable. If it wasn't our foreign policy it would be something else, anything that feeds into their chip-on-the-shoulder persecution complex.

 

Fact is, the kind of anti-western, fundamentalist, jihadi rhetoric that we seem to assume is something new is not. Its the sort of thing that was being preached in the religious schools (Madrassas) in Pakistan etc way back in the early sixties, they just happen to be a bit better organised now.

[sassermaet]

^^^^^

so what if a lot we do is offensive to muslims, there is a damn lot more I find offensive about their religion.

 

I normally try to be tolerant of someone else's religious beliefs but I have to say I agree with that statement.

 

Thought I'd post this up for a laugh. (PS To the moderators: if you feel as if you need to edit this then feel free, I'm not here to intentionally cause trouble.)

 

American Account of Glasgow Airport

 

If this had happened in a US airport, compared to Glasgow..

 

Eyewitness accounts.

 

America: "Oh my God! There was a man on fire, he was running about, I just ran for my life. I thought I was gonna die, he got so close to me."

Glasgow: "C*nt wis running aboot on fire, so a ran up n' gave him a good boot, then decked him."

 

America: "I just want to get home, away from here. I just wanna get home, I thought I was going to die."

Glasgow: "Here shug, am no leaving here till am oan a f***in' plane!"

 

America: "There was pandemonium, people were running in all directions, we didn't know what was happening."

Glasgow: "F*ck this fir a kerry oan, moan we'll get a pint in."

 

America: "We thought he was gonna blow us all up. He had a gas canister, and was trying to get into his trunk, I thought we were gonna die, I just ran for my life."

Glasgow: "A swaggered by the motor that wis on fire, and the dafty

couldnae even open his boot, he wis in fire annaw so a ran up n gave him a good boot to the baws."

 

America: "There was this huge explosion, it sounded like war, I thought I was going to die."

Glasgow: " There wis a bang, yi know when yi throw BO basher intae a fire it wis like that."

 

America: "I'm too traumatized even to speak."

Glasgow: "Here mate, gies 2 minutes till a phone ma auld man, if am gonna be oan the telly a want him tae tape it."

 

...and finally, two quotes from an eye-witness- john smeaton (these

are real)

 

John just surpassed himself on the National ITV new. The interviewer

asked-

"What message do you have for the bombers?"

He replied-

"This is Glasgow we'll just set about you."

 

John done an interview on cnn and they asked how he restrained the guy

and he said-

"Me and other folk were just tryin 2 get the boot in and some other guy banjoed him!"

[Fifi]

[sassermaet]

Just what I thought!

[Gibber]

I wasn't using it to justify dictatorship, but I don't think you can use it justify invasion, considering other dictatorial regimes in the region.

 

You don’t think we can use relativism(?) to justify invasion? What does that mean?

 

I'm not looking to quantify morality, in the case of Hamas in Palestine, democracy didn't decide who governed, Israel and the west did, be that right or wrong, us making calls about bring democracy and liberty to the ME then acting like this is, I believe, morally wrong.

 

I really don’t know why you are fixated on the morality of sanctions against Hamas and totally unwilling to comment on the morality of Hamas itself. Are we to just assume you think a fundamentalist militia running a government is wrong and you think time is better spent discussing the issue of sanctions? Which of these issues is more morally wrong in your eyes?

 

To answer the question I would have to have experience of the culture of these countries and be able to compare and contrast one from another which I can't do, because I haven't lived or been immersed in any of these cultures.

 

But you seem happy enough to post your opinions on Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan and whatever other countries we’ve been talking about. When did you live in these countries and what did you experience of their cultures?

 

You don’t need to immerse yourself in a culture to have an informed opinion about it. I think you a avoiding the question again D, c’mon out with it!!!

 

Lebanon surely if your not happy with Israel, no?

 

To morally question these cultures I believe we need to act in a way that allows us to have some moral justification for our assessment.

 

You don’t think we can make moral judgements on the dictatorships of the Middle East? We can’t justify an assessment of a government that denies the vote to women along with their right to drive a car?

 

You can only stretch cultural differences so far. At some point morality trumps accepting cultural differences. The problem with your argument is you will go very far when talking about Islamic cultures yet will make moral pronouncements at the drop of a hat regarding democracies like Israel the US and Europe. How far do you need to go when talking about Islamic dictatorships? Boiling babies alive?

[DeMascus]

You don’t think we can use relativism(?) to justify invasion? What does that mean?

The thread had lost context. you, and many people, use the argument that Saddam was a very oppressive dictator to justify the invasion of Iraq, In referring to Iraq as being liberal for the region, I wasn't justifying a dictatorship. I was pointing out that this isn't a particularly valid reason for invading.

... there was a desire to rid these places of 2 very oppressive regimes.

In the above quote you are using relativism to justify invasion.

 

I really don’t know why you are fixated on the morality of sanctions against Hamas and totally unwilling to comment on the morality of Hamas itself...

I focus on the morality of sanctions against Hamas because these sanctions were put in place with the agreement of the UK government, who represent me.

 

But you seem happy enough to post your opinions on Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan and whatever other countries we’ve been talking about. When did you live in these countries and what did you experience of their cultures?

You don’t need to immerse yourself in a culture to have an informed opinion about it. I think you a avoiding the question again D, c’mon out with it!!!

Lebanon surely if your not happy with Israel, no?

I don't think I am avoiding the question, I thought I'd made it clear that I wasn't going to answer it, and I have only posted opinions on other countries in reference or relation to our foreign policy, and that was only to highlight hypocrisy.

 

You don’t think we can make moral judgements on the dictatorships of the Middle East? We can’t justify an assessment of a government that denies the vote to women along with their right to drive a car?

Anyone can make moral judgments on the dictatorships of the middle east, many people in this tread have, the reason I don't is because I don't have any experience of them.

 

You can only stretch cultural differences so far. At some point morality trumps accepting cultural differences. The problem with your argument is you will go very far when talking about Islamic cultures yet will make moral pronouncements at the drop of a hat regarding democracies like Israel the US and Europe. How far do you need to go when talking about Islamic dictatorships? Boiling babies alive?

The only reference I made to Islamic culture was that I didn't have much experience of it, And I make moral pronouncements that have some relation to the foreign policy of the UK, because I have the democratic right to vote here. I don't know how far I need to go when talking about Islamic dictatorships, but I am talking about UK foreign policy.

[Gibber]

Its right there in the phrase UK Foreign Policy.

 

Its meaningless to make comments about UK Foreign Policy without addressing what is foreign.