Jump to content

Terrorist Attack at Glasgow Airport


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A trans-Afghanistan pipeline was not simply a business matter, but a key component of a broader geo-strategic agenda: total military and economic control of Eurasia (the Middle East and former Soviet Central Asian republics). Zbigniew Brezezinski describes this region in his book "The Grand Chessboard-American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives" as "the center of world power." Capturing the region's oil wealth, and carving out territory in order to build a network of transit routes, was a primary objective of US military interventions throughout the 1990s in the Balkans, the Caucasus and Caspian Sea.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203A.html

 

Any proof that's why we didn't ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I repeat that I meant no offense, but I you have taken some, well, that's your problem. If you are still interested in what I meant, the first part of this article (ignore the potentially patronising headline) does a reasonable job of explaining it.
Really there was no offence taken, I just cant relate to the statement, I found the whole article to be interesting though quite a personal account that doesn't really relate to my situation.

 

So was Mohammed Sidique Khan concerned about his athiest/Christian/Buddist/Yazidi "brothers and sisters"?

 

To quote old Choudary again "I will stand by my Muslim brother whether he is oppressor, or he is opressed."

Mohammed Sidique Khan wasn't concerned with his Muslim brothers and sisters on the tube train. These quotes are from Muslims who could be described as being at the extreme militant end of the spectrum as far as Muslim belief goes. do you expect us to believe it represents Muslims as a whole. For a more universal view from Muslims have a look at civic organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain - Guardian article

 

If people started murdering people because they disagreed in a different government policy, would you still argue for a change in that policy as a solution?
Do you really think I would want to change a government policy irrespective of what that policy is, under any condition?

 

If have nothing against people who object to certain policies, my problem is with people who threaten my life (or way thereof). So, you tell me, what is the difference between someone like yourself, with seemingly very strong objection to foriegn policy, and a terrorist willing to blow themselves up for the cause?
The definition of terrorism itself is the difference, I don't advocate, condone or engage in violent or threatening activity for political gain. I believe I have said this before, and please don't hypothesize about my action in situations where you disregard aspect of the scenario which I have made clear in previous posts. It is quite infuriating.

 

 

There will always be people who object to government policy, there have not always been people willing to murder because of their objection. There are now though. If the government change that policy those people still exist, and so there is still a danger to myself. Without the concepts I list above those people wouldn't exist, they would not have that willingness to murder. So, as a solution to this particular problem, I look towards those concepts, and the ways in which they are spread.
There are people who are willing to murder to uphold government policy, and some government policy condones murder. I assume when you talk about there not always being people willing to murder, the murder you are talking about is the current Islamic Terrorism. This is a new phenomenon, and you accuse the Islamic faith of causing this but the Islamic faith is not a new it has been around since the 7th century, this new development is militant Islam which use aspects of the Islamic religion because the people involved are Muslim.

 

Take Al-Qaeda as the example, this organization can be traced back to Osama bin Laden and the soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, up to the soviet withdrawal he was given help and training from the CIA to fight the proxy war. I would propose that it is more likely that fighting the proxy war caused the militarization of this strain of Islam rather than Islam itself, again the only reason it is Islam is because any beliefs coming form this region will be interwoven with Islam.

 

We need to look at what has happened recently to cause the rise in militant Islam, rather then looking at core aspects of belief system that has been around for approximately 1300 years.

 

 

"You're fighting someone who is willing to die," Dr Sultan told The Australian in an Arabic and English interview. "So you have to understand this mentality and find ways to face it. (As a Muslim) your mission on this earth is to fight for Islam and to kill or to be killed. You're here for only a short life and once you kill a kafir, or a non-believer, soon you're going to be united with your God." "
How come there are so many Muslims living in multicultural societies, surely if the above is the case there would be bloodshed everywhere, currently Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe account for only 0.2% of terrorist attacks last year Europol TE-SAT report 2007 separatist and left-wing are 85% and 11% respectively, where estimates of Muslims in western Europe account for approx 4% of population BBC. Also if these attacks are directed at any non-Muslim why are the attacks mainly directed at countries that support for the invasion of Iraq and the 'War on Terror', they would be better directed at removing non-Muslims from countries with large Muslim populations.

 

Again the spread and frequency of attacks, announcements from Muslim groups and ability of Muslims as a group to live in multicultural societies for generations, fly against what you are saying you also say Islamic extremism is a modern phenomenon therefore we must look for a modern cause and address that. That cause, I believe, is our effect on the Muslim world through our foreign policy, so what do you think, what effect is our foreign policy having on the middle east?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203A.html

 

Any proof that's why we didn't ?

 

I don't see anything in there about UK government policy, or intent in Afghanistan. The dubious nature of any business dealings of (primarily) US oil companies does not make the UK government corrupt.

 

Proof thats why we didn't. Well we said we were going to remove the Taliban from power and look for Bin Laden, and that's what we have done. The proof is in the pudding.

 

Believe or not I actually trust Tony Blair. I have absolutely no doubts about his integrity, if not his faultlessness 8). Bring on the "liberal" abuse...

 

DeMascus, I will reply more fully once I've got my home PC through its latest hissy fit, but just briefly about the MCB, the bottom couple of posts from this blog are worth reading:

 

Quote:

"The MCB present themselves as the moderate face of British Islam, yet many of the ideas and doctrines they put forward are actually not that far removed from the radicals. For example, The Quest for Sanity, a book published by the MCB in the aftermath of 9/11, argues in several places for the restoration of the caliphate (= global Muslim state), a similar aim espoused by many radicals."

 

World-wide sharia, more of a "universal view"?

 

I'm undecided about the MCB, I don't know if they are naive, or deliberate, when they divert attention from the real cause of terrorism, but how naive can an umbrella organisation be? I'm certainly not comfortable about there apparent cosyiness with the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

My apologies for such a late response....

 

Mohammed Sidique Khan wasn't concerned with his Muslim brothers and sisters on the tube train.

 

If he isn't bothered about killing Muslims in this country how can he say he's doing it because of oppression of Muslims elsewhere?

 

These quotes are from Muslims who could be described as being at the extreme militant end of the spectrum as far as Muslim belief goes. do you expect us to believe it represents Muslims as a whole...

 

No, not at all, as I said before I believe the vast majority of Muslims world-wide as peace-loving people (and that's using my definition of peace). I then questioned how much they knew about Islam, but perhaps it's better to question how much of an argument the average Muslim can put up upon being told by someone like Choudary that their beliefs, and their way of life, is not Islamic, and that if they were *real* Muslims they would not have any Christian or Jewish friends, or even that they should be willing "martyrs"?

 

There may well be an argument, one of the most sensible sounding Muslims from that Dispatches programme (I can't remember his name) was confident that it existed, but refused to tell the presenter, guarding it like a national secret.

 

Regarding the people saying these things....

 

Dispatches saw all these people as authoritative/important/knowledgable enough to speak on the show on the subject. The worst of which (IMO) was Abu Mohammed (I think that was his name) who it was said had studied Islam extensively, quoted from the Qur'an "take not the Jews and Christians as friends" etc. Choudary himself has had promonent roles in Al-Mauhajiroun and Al Gurabaa, And other "islamist" groups are growing all the time e.g. Hizb-ut-tahrir and Tablighi Jamaat

 

The important thing about that poxy religion and this mess, is that the ideology is spread *in the name* of Islam, and through Islamic channels (mosques, bookshops, websites, associations etc.). Did you see that last Dispatches called "Undercover Mosques"?

 

Some would say that MI5 should be monitoring 4000 people at the extreme end of the Muslim scale (for want of a better description) in the UK. From that Tablighi Jamaat article: "The group (literally, the preaching party)belongs to the ultra-conservative Deobandi school of thought within Sunni Islam, whose adherents run more than 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques." It seems "extreme" views are neither uncommon, nor without authority.

 

TBH I don't know what to think anymore, the secretary general of the MCB vigorously defends prophetic paedophilia, scholars and sheikhs here's one) preach violent supremacy, genocidal Ayatollahs, combined with the fact that every single Sharia regime around the world is thoroughly barbaric, means I'm having a hard time believing that Islam itself, as opposed to the beliefs of the majority of its apparent followers, is a "religion of peace".

 

.. what is the difference between someone like yourself, with seemingly very strong objection to foriegn policy, and a terrorist willing to ...?
The definition of terrorism itself is the difference...

 

What I was trying to get at, was one of a difference in the value placed on, or respect for, a human life. That can never be blamed on a 3rd party, it is a personal belief. What would it take for that value you place on human life to disappear? More than a change in governement policy I suspect.

 

There are people who are willing to murder to uphold government policy, and some government policy condones murder. I assume when you talk about there not always being people willing to murder, the murder you are talking about is the current Islamic Terrorism. This is a new phenomenon, and you accuse the Islamic faith of causing this but the Islamic faith is not a new it has been around since the 7th century, this new development is militant Islam which use aspects of the Islamic religion because the people involved are Muslim.

 

...you also say Islamic extremism is a modern phenomenon therefore we must look for a modern cause and address that.

 

the spread and frequency of attacks, announcements from Muslim groups and ability of Muslims as a group to live in multicultural societies for generations, fly against what you are saying...

 

I think it might be worth repeating myself here (since I have now figured out which words to use). The important thing is that these beliefs are spread *in the name of* Islam, and through Islamic channels.

 

Militant Islam *in this country* is a new thing, but Muhammed himself (a role model to Muslims as Jesus is to Christians) was a dab hand with the sword killing hundreds of people at a time. Much more prophetic brutality here . In seven parts. It is not new globally, you will find a substantial account from around the globe for the past four years at JihadWatch.

 

Why is it new in this country? The headline from one of those times articles was from an ex Sharia judge in Pakistan: "[the Ummah] must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad". Some more possbilities: lack of integration, levels of immigration, "inspiration" from 9/11, lack of decent leadership in Muslim communities, an increased dislike of Western culture.....All more worthy of debate in this context, IMO, than our foreign policy.

 

Take Al-Qaeda ... I would propose that it is more likely that fighting the proxy war caused the militarization of this strain of Islam rather than Islam itself, again the only reason it is Islam is because any beliefs coming form this region will be interwoven with Islam. We need to look at what has happened recently to cause the rise in militant Islam, rather then looking at core aspects of belief system that has been around for approximately 1300 years.

 

See above for some 1300 year old violence.

 

Re Al-Qaeda, giving them weapons and training I can believe, but I don't believe that the CIA are responsible for their religious beliefs. Read the Qur'an for evidence to the contrary :P However, thankyou, as long as we are looking in roughly the right place I'm happy :D My objection to your approach in this matter is that talk of foreign policy is dangerously distractive. Appeasment doesn't work.

 

"" Dr Sultan "...(As a Muslim) your mission on this earth is to fight for Islam and to kill or to be killed..." "
How come there are so many Muslims living in multicultural societies, surely if the above is the case there would be bloodshed everywhere.....

 

Again I think the distinction between what those at the "top" of the religion, and those at the "bottom" actually believe is worth making. She goes on to say: "Muslims have been hostages of their own belief systems for 1400 years. There is no way we can keep the Koran."

 

.....currently Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe account for only 0.2% of terrorist attacks last year...

 

I can't think of a single instance of a terrorist attack, or plot, carried out in this country, in recent years, by a seperatist or left-wing group, which had the devastating effects of the ones on 7/7, or the potentially devastating effects of the fertaliser bomb plot, or the chapati flour bomb plots, never mind the hundreds more instances required to make up the remaining proportion. That is a European pole admittedly, but I think my point stands. Ask your average London commuter where the threat to their life comes from...

 

Also if these attacks are directed at any non-Muslim why are the attacks mainly directed at countries that support for the invasion of Iraq and the 'War on Terror', they would be better directed at removing non-Muslims from countries with large Muslim populations.

 

Maybe, I guess it depends what you want to achieve. I'm not going to think about how to help them achieve it.

 

....so what do you think, what effect is our foreign policy having on the middle east?

 

I've already said that I think the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are better off, less oppressed, now than under their previous regimes. Can you give a more specific question? It isn't just a case of "us" (all our foreign policy) and "them" (all of their greivances) as I'm sure you appreciate.

 

Soap box away, I'm going back to sleep :D

 

Oh yeah MCB blog. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pfshaw! The aim of extremist Islamics is the same as that of extremist Christians. It is not the segregation of people, it is the subjugation of people through (their interpretation of) religious doctrine. You could extend the argument logically to include extremist Communists, extremist Fascists, extremist tea-drinkers, et al (okay, I exaggerated the last, but, hey, you just neeeeever know! "PG Tips?! Die, you swill-drinking dog, for the glory that is Typhoo!!!" :twisted: )

 

 

As for extremist Muslims being a new phenomenon :shock: , tell that to Vlad Tsepes (hokay, all you pedants, I know there's not two S's, but I couldn't find the little swirly thingmyjig on my keyboard. Damn you, PC World, and all your inadequate machinery too! :evil: ) Without the ol' son of the dragon and his buddies, European scholars admit we may all have been speaking Arabic and worshipping Allah by now. I am sure they were just getting their own back for these naughty Normans and their ill-conceived Crusades, but hey, there is nothing new under the sun (Rupert Murdoch prefers it that way!!).

 

What's the answer? Dunno. But waffling here ain't gonna provide it. Which reminds me...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. I am sure they were just getting their own back for these naughty Normans and their ill-conceived Crusades,

I thought the normans invaded england not the holy land although they do like to think their god. But your right in one context as both invasions were sanctioned/ordered by rome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and just to lighten things up

 

Billy Connolly's take on the terrorists hitting Glasgow...

 

"Good old Glasgow. If I had to pick a city in the world where I could depend on one of the locals to kick a man who was on fire, it would always be Glasgow. That really had to hurt - 90% burns and sore baws...

 

I think we should get a photo of that guy KICKING A FLAMING MAN, blow it up and make it the welcome sign at Glasgow Airport. Underneath we should have the words 'Glasgow Welcomes Careful Drivers'...

 

I love the naivety of al-Qaeda. For trying to bring a religious war to Glasgow. You're 400 years too late guys!! You've not even got a Football Team for Christ's sake... I think that we should give Partick Thistle to al-Qaeda. If only for the joy of hearing them read out their team sheet on Saturday...

 

The Sun last week urged us all to respond to the attack by flying the Union Jack. Really, in Glasgow that's never been a great way of getting your insurance premiums down...

 

If we play this whole terrorism thing right, we could get al-Qaeda to blow up some of Scotland's eyesores. I think we should definitely Start putting signs up round Shettleston's high flats that say 'Financial Quarter'...

 

For a while, confusion reigned at Glasgow airport. Was it a terrorist attack or just Richard Hammond turning up late for check-in?

 

People say it was lucky they didn't crash into a fuel container. I say it's lucky they didn't hit the queue coming out of Duty Free – the whole place would have gone up like Hiroshima...

 

The best bit is being told that hundreds of people were saved from being hideously burnt...these were Scottish people flying to Spain! Who'll come back looking like they've been bungee jumping off the lip of a volcano anyway!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/index.html

 

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070720/69340886.html

 

WASHINGTON, July 20 (RIA Novosti) - A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year.

 

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.

 

Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: "When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there's no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule."

"The American people don't really understand the danger that they face," Roberts said, adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the fight against terrorism to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party.

 

Old-line Republicans like Roberts have become increasingly disenchanted with the neoconservative politics of the Bush administration, which they see as a betrayal of fundamental conservative values.

 

According to a July 9-11 survey by Ipsos, an international public opinion research company, President Bush and the Republicans can claim a mere 31 percent approval rating for their handling of the Iraq war and 38 percent for their foreign policy in general, including terrorism.

"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," he said. "You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated."

 

Roberts suggested that in the absence of a massive popular outcry, only the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military could put constraints on Bush's current drive for a fully-fledged dictatorship.

"They may have had enough. They may not go along with it," he said.

The radio interview was a follow-up to Robert's latest column, in which he warned that "unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the U.S. could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."

 

Roberts, who has been dubbed the "Father of Reaganomics" and has recently gained popularity for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War, regularly contributes articles to Creators Syndicate, an independent distributor of comic strips and syndicated columns for daily newspapers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ Wibble! :roll:

 

Find the man a straightjacket.

 

He wis Ronnie Reagan's deputy secretary o the feckn treasury. The man who joked on microphone at a public event during the Cold War that he had just pressed the big red button.

 

Qualifies him as a harbinger o peace an light and an international relations expert te boot, if ye ask me.

 

Personally I think it's all an Illuminati plot. He. Hehe. Hehehehehehehehe. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :twisted:

(kof) Hurts yer throat. Sorry. :oops:

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...