Glaswegian's Suffer Terrorist Attack!

[amicus]

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1025942007

Britain's security alert raised to 'critical' following terror attack at Glasgow airport
SCOTT MCCULLOCH

BRITAIN'S security level has been raised to "critical" after the arrest of two men following a daring attempt to drive their vehicle through the main terminal entrance of Glasgow International Airport, one day after police foiled a possible al Qaeda plot to detonate two car bombs in central London.

Police in Glasgow said they have questioned the passenger of the crashed vehicle. The driver is under police guard in hospital.

The blazing vehicle at the entrance to Glasgow International Airport's Terminal One.

Picture: Complimentary

Downing Street said that Prime Minister Gordon Brown is being kept fully informed on developments in the Glasgow inquiry and he has called Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond to discuss the incident.

The government has now raised Britain's security alert to "critical" - the highest level possible - from "severe", which had been in place since last August.

The "critical" security alert is defined as "an attack is expected imminently".

The decision to increase Britain's level of security was made following the second meeting of the government's emergency crisis committee on Saturday.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said more local and federal security officers are being stationed at US airports in response to the incident at Glasgow airport and the car bombs found in London, but stressed there are no plans to increase the security level in the US.

The incident at Glasgow Airport occurred at 3:11pm on Saturday.

Witnesses said the attack involved two Asian-looking men driving a 4x4 vehicle at a dangerous speed. The vehicle reportedly crashed into the main doors of the terminal, though witnesses said the 4x4 was stopped by bollards just outside the terminal doors.

Taxi driver Ian Crosby was waiting outside the airport's Terminal One when the incident happened. He said the car "raced across the central reservation and went straight into the building."

A fire ensued in the vehicle. One of the two men was said to have run from the blaze with his clothing on fire. He was restrained by people outside the airport until police arrived. The man was sent to an area hospital for treatment of his burns.

Witnesses told how the second occupant of the vehicle struggled with police at the scene and was wrestled to the ground by officers.

Strathclyde police confirmed the two men were arrested. They are treating the matter as a terrorist attack, and Gordon Brown has this evening conducted an emergency security meeting.

The airport was immediately evacuated and all flights were cancelled.

Airports elsewhere in the U.K. stepped up security following the attack.

Police said one bystander was hurt in the incident. An unidentified man suffered a leg injury and required hospital treatment.

A police spokesperson said: "Strathclyde Police would like to reassure the public that it is unknown at present if this is connected with the incidents in London as inquiries are at an early stage.

"However, we would ask the public to remain vigilant and report any suspicious activity to the police."

Passengers and airport staff leave Glasgow airport after a jeep on fire drove Saturday into a terminal building at Glasgow Airport.

Eyewitness Lynsey McBean, 26, from Erskine, Renfrewshire, said she saw the vehicle close to the main entrance of the airport. She said: "They were obviously trying to get it further inside the airport as the wheels were spinning and smoke was coming from them.
"One of the men, I think it was the driver, brought out a plastic canister and poured it under the car," McBean said. "He then set light to it. At that point, a policeman came over, the passenger got out of the car and and punched him.

"At that point I began to run away, but when I looked back, several people had run over to try and stop the men, who were Asian. I could see that one of the men was on fire."

Another eyewitness, Margaret Hughes, said people were screaming and running towards the terminal exit shortly after the incident.

She said: "As soon as I left the building there was black smoke gushing out where the car had obviously been driven into the airport."

She told how one of the men suspected of being behind the attack, who had himself been on fire, "seemed very composed" as he was led away by police.

Scott Leeson was at the airport awaiting the arrival of a colleague when the vehicle rammed into the terminal building.

Damage to Glasgow Airport after a 4x4 vehicle on fire drove into a terminal building.

He said: "The driver swerved the car around so he could ram straight into the door. He must have been trying to smash straight through.

"I spoke to an airport official who seemed to think that it was not an accident. He was very angry. He said the men in the car got out and started throwing petrol about - that must be how it caught fire."

Another witness described how he saw one of the men from the vehicle appear to throw a can of petrol over himself and the vehicle.

A spokesman for BAA, the operators of Glasgow Airport, said: "The vehicle caught fire on impact with the building and is currently outside the terminal building. A police investigation is under way and emergency crews are at the scene."

He said the airport had been closed as a result of the incident and a motorway cordon had been set up by the police.

Flights to and from the airport have been suspended until further notice, and passengers are advised not to attempt to travel to the airport. All incoming flights will be diverted to other airports.

Edinburgh International Airport remains open and flights are departing, but no vehicles are being allowed into the airport forecourt or near the terminal.

For more information, go to Glasgow Airport..."


~~~

Was talking with a friend in Edinburgh, Scotland when the event unfolded:





amicus (6/30/2007 1:10:45 PM): I wonder how you sound....have a hard enough time understanding Brit lingo and this morning they interviewed someone at Glasgow airport and the 'brogue' was so thick I could barely catch a word...grins....is yours that thick?
Jani (6/30/2007 1:10:57 PM): no
amicus (6/30/2007 1:11:10 PM): good...
Jani (6/30/2007 1:11:33 PM): I am not sure how to define my accent
amicus (6/30/2007 1:12:00 PM): hmmm....
Jani (6/30/2007 1:12:14 PM): scottish/english
Jani (6/30/2007 1:12:45 PM): but glasgow is rough

Jani (6/30/2007 1:45:43 PM): just watching news conference re Glasgow incident
Jani (6/30/2007 1:45:59 PM): they are linking to foiled bomb plots in London earlier this week
amicus (6/30/2007 1:46:04 PM): Had the thought a few minutes ago as I wandered out to gaze at the garden and surrounding area here, 5,000 miles away from you, watching a NAscar race taking place in New Hampshire, talking to you in Scotland and listening to a police report from Glasgow on another channel....how much has changed in my lifetime alone...and youngun' nowadays, will take it all for granted...and it will one day be old fashioned....you are watching the same thing I am.....yes...

amicus (6/30/2007 1:52:17 PM): what is "Sky News"...over there...it is often mentioned as a 'sister' network to Fox news here?
Jani (6/30/2007 1:52:31 PM): yes it's a News Channel
Jani (6/30/2007 1:52:47 PM): Sky News is like your Fox news

Jani (6/30/2007 1:54:55 PM): yes lol
amicus (6/30/2007 1:55:31 PM): is Glasgow pronounced with an 'oww' at the end or an 'O' sound?
amicus (6/30/2007 1:55:48 PM): I have heard both...
Jani (6/30/2007 1:55:57 PM): Glas - go
amicus (6/30/2007 1:56:04 PM): kay....
Jani (6/30/2007 1:56:18 PM): but Glaswegians say glasgae - glasgay
amicus (6/30/2007 1:56:46 PM): ah, Glaswegians.. thas a new one for me...grins...
Jani (6/30/2007 1:56:59 PM): hehe

~~~

Thas where, “Glaswegians” came from.

Oggbasham, are you listening and watching? Four different news channels, dozens of authorities referred to the London and Glasgow incidents as examples of ‘Global Terrorism.’


Amicus

 

[kendo1]

I just started a thread as there seemed to be no mention of the incident.

I'm flying out of Edinburgh airport next week. Looks like I'm not taking the car.

 

[amicus]

Good luck on your journey...



amicus

 

[Lee Chambers]

At least no one was killed and it seems they failed in whatever they were attempting to do.

 

[amicus]

I agree and it seems they were not professionals or not well trained. An interesting mix of commentary and speculation from the UK and the US about these events.

Latest news is they arrested two more associated with the London attempt but no details as yet.


amicus...

 

[Lee Chambers]

I'm kind of wondering about the description of them being Asian. And yeah, I can't see anyone who was well trained, or even half-way intelligent, screwing up so much as "drive car into terminal, watch car catch fire, get caught on fire and jump out screaming". That'll learn 'em.

 

[amicus]

I heard, from a Sky News anchor, I think, that a 'broader definition' of 'Asian', applies in Europe including India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and even eastern Russian indigenous people.

I think the defining factor is...they are all Muslims.


amicus...

 

[Lee Chambers]

Ah, alright. That was the point I was confused on, since I tend to think of Asians as being Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc.

 

[kendo1]

Good luck on your journey...



amicus

Thank you.

 

[ishtat]

?

I heard, from a Sky News anchor, I think, that a 'broader definition' of 'Asian', applies in Europe including India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and even eastern Russian indigenous people.

I think the defining factor is...they are all Muslims.


amicus...

Correct except for the Indians, a particularly large group who are usually Hindu or Sikh but are sometimes Moslems.

 

[amicus]

Good point ishtat...I should have thought of that but mainly just quoted a newscast I heard.

amicus...

 

[neonlyte]

I heard, from a Sky News anchor, I think, that a 'broader definition' of 'Asian', applies in Europe including India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and even eastern Russian indigenous people.

I think the defining factor is...they are all Muslims.


amicus...

Of course they were Muslim... all Muslims are terrorists. Or is it all terrorists are Muslim? I forget which one we're supposed to say.

Terrible incidents both in Glagow and London, they small crumb of relief being no one was injured other than prehaps a terrorist, though even that isn't certain.

The London attempts throw doubt upon the seriousness of the would-be attackers. No doubt more will be revealed through forensic examination, for the moment it appears a good deal of amateurism was involved in the making of the devices which failed to explode or ignite. It is not as if terrorists don't know how to do this stuff... car bombs explode daily in Iraq where the plan is to drive them into a crowded place and hit a trigger. The driver dies... along with tens of the innocent. The London bomns appear to have been left on the streets in the early hours of the morning with few people about and in one of the most 'watched' places on the planet. The auhtorities even had sufficient time to give one 'bomb' a parking ticket before towing it to a car pound where it was discovered some hours later after the first 'bomb' in Haymarket.

I'm prepared to speculate these 'terrorists' either panicked and dumped their weapons, or were more interested in self preservation that inflicting the maximum damage making them 'home grown amateurs' rather than trained terrorists from any of the disaffected factions who perpetrate terrorism. The Glasgow incident was slightly different though from reading the various news reports of the episode it appears the attackers didn't have the skill to 'make the vehicle explode', only to start a fire.

These events will do little to deter people from going about their daily business and in that regard can be seen as a failure in terrorism terms, they do serve to remind each of us of the deep divisions between cultures, even home grown cultures, and on an optimistic note, one political commentator yesterday said, (I'm paraphrasing) 'it will take 20 years of combined effort to understand and relate to cultural division and heal the wounds that drive members of our own society to attempt these attrocities.' It is a good place to start.

 

[amicus]

Interesting post, Neon...interesting.

My opinion nor yours, will hold much weight in world opinion, mine not even much on this little forum.

Perhaps I am totally wrong to tie global Muslim/Islamic violence to other movements of the past, as I have, Fascism; Japanese Imperialism, Communism, as a threat to human freedom and individual rights, perhaps I am wrong...perhaps I am not.

But as far as my wide but sketchy knowledge of history takes me, the 'Religious' conflict goes about as far back into BCE times as one cares to pursue it and follows through the rise and fall of Persia and the Middle East, the rise of Rome, the infection of Christianity. The dark ages, the middle ages and modern times, all have on thing in common, the conflict between Muslim and Christian.

Kings and Queens, Popes and Empires came and went, yet the faiths lived on.

As far as I am concerned, Christianity and Islam are as two blind beasts, trapped in a cage of their own making, striking out in all ways to destroy the other.

The 'Ism's', be it Communism, Fascism or Capitalism, wax and wain, but the priests remain behind and rebuild the crumbled structure of faith, time and time again.

And so it will be again, put your money on the winning side, my friend, create a sinecure for your descendants.

I, personally, would like to demolish every cathedral, mosque and synagogue, (add your own), and go from there.


amicus...

 

[Eluard]

But as far as my wide but sketchy knowledge of history takes me, the 'Religious' conflict goes about as far back into BCE times as one cares to pursue it and follows through the rise and fall of Persia and the Middle East, the rise of Rome, the infection of Christianity. The dark ages, the middle ages and modern times, all have on thing in common, the conflict between Muslim and Christian.


amicus...

Ah no, Amicus, Islam wasn't around BCE, not in Persia, not anywhere else.

 

[neonlyte]

As far as I am concerned, Christianity and Islam are as two blind beasts, trapped in a cage of their own making, striking out in all ways to destroy the other.

The 'Ism's', be it Communism, Fascism or Capitalism, wax and wain, but the priests remain behind and rebuild the crumbled structure of faith, time and time again.

And so it will be again, put your money on the winning side, my friend, create a sinecure for your descendants.

I, personally, would like to demolish every cathedral, mosque and synagogue, (add your own), and go from there.


amicus...

Not sure I'd want to go that far, Ami. The religions muddled along fairly well in the 5 to 6 centuries post Christ. Perhaps 'politics' began to hold sway about that time, within Religion I mean. Religious leaders emerged who proclaimed particular hold to a brand of faith and began the great schism leading ultimately to the divisions within Christianity and the Religious wars against the Muslim faith, a battle that continues today under various guises.

US Presidents are not unlike the Emperors of old the minute they take office and attend church stamping leadership 'seal of approval' upon Christian faith, we are a little more circumspect in Europe (currently) about aligning politics with faith. That was not always the case, Europeans started their fair share of religious wars. Bringing down religious establishment would only lead, in my opinion, to a vacumn to be filled by some other divisive force, and God forbid that would be Politics

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Eluard]Ah no, Amicus, Islam wasn't around BCE, not in Persia, not anywhere else.[/QUOTE]


~~~

Ah, okay Eluard, so it wasn't, but that wasn't and isn't my point. My point is that 'faith' itself, as far back as we can trace humanity, has played a role, usually a detrimental one, to human social evolution.

Name it what you will, call it what you will, give it a birth date and a periodicy, it still remains faith/ignorance, which I hold to be evil.

amicus...

 

[Eluard]

Not sure I'd want to go that far, Ami. The religions muddled along fairly well in the 5 to 6 centuries post Christ. Perhaps 'politics' began to hold sway about that time, within Religion I mean. Religious leaders emerged who proclaimed particular hold to a brand of faith and began the great schism leading ultimately to the divisions within Christianity and the Religious wars against the Muslim faith, a battle that continues today under various guises.

US Presidents are not unlike the Emperors of old the minute they take office and attend church stamping leadership 'seal of approval' upon Christian faith, we are a little more circumspect in Europe (currently) about aligning politics with faith. That was not always the case, Europeans started their fair share of religious wars. Bringing down religious establishment would only lead, in my opinion, to a vacumn to be filled by some other divisive force, and God forbid that would be Politics

My God…I'm really astonished by the lack of knowledge of history in this thread. The religous wars with Islam were begun by Islam, with a long series of attacks and attempts to seize territory held by Christians in Europe, the Middle East and Africa — very successful attempts. Try reading something on the history of Islam.

 

[amicus]

Not sure I'd want to go that far, Ami. The religions muddled along fairly well in the 5 to 6 centuries post Christ. Perhaps 'politics' began to hold sway about that time, within Religion I mean. Religious leaders emerged who proclaimed particular hold to a brand of faith and began the great schism leading ultimately to the divisions within Christianity and the Religious wars against the Muslim faith, a battle that continues today under various guises.

US Presidents are not unlike the Emperors of old the minute they take office and attend church stamping leadership 'seal of approval' upon Christian faith, we are a little more circumspect in Europe (currently) about aligning politics with faith. That was not always the case, Europeans started their fair share of religious wars. Bringing down religious establishment would only lead, in my opinion, to a vacumn to be filled by some other divisive force, and God forbid that would be Politics

~~~

Point well taken Neon...sighs...well taken.

The loss of faith by the intellectual has already left an empty space in the overall scheme of things.

But as a Purist of sorts, truth is an imperative to me and I know that 'faith in a supernatural power', is a falsehood. A falsity than mankind cannot live and progress with and which, in my opinion, must one day fade away.

I am not the first to realize this, as my favorite writers early on, Heinlein, Simac, Asimov, several others, all placed their fiction a few thousand years into the future where religion had died a natural death.

Unfortunately for me, my fiction writings are by necessity tied to that which is, and not that which might be in a far off galaxy in a different time.

So, forgive my inaccuracies on the dates of Chinese faith, or Indian faith or Christian or Muslim, it is simply unimportant to me as I am not an historian nor do I claim to be.

Perhaps it will never come to pass that 'common man', can have an understanding of ethics and morals without faith or compulsion...perhaps...

amicus...

 

[amicus]

My God…I'm really astonished by the lack of knowledge of history in this thread. The religous wars with Islam were begun by Islam, with a long series of attacks and attempts to seize territory held by Christians in Europe, the Middle East and Africa — very successful attempts. Try reading something on the history of Islam.

~~~

Pretty much dealt with that in the reply to Neon, but accurate knowledge of religious history, with me, is on a par with knowledge of alchemy, witchcraft or astrology, a trio of silliness except that religion is more dangerous.

amicus...

 

[flavortang]

Is it a bad thing that I'd like to colonize a planet, far away from the fanatical religious nonsense here on Earth, where there's no religious nuts? Just people living, enjoying life, without waving books and pamphlets in my face.

 

[amicus]

Is it a bad thing that I'd like to colonize a planet, far away from the fanatical religious nonsense here on Earth, where there's no religious nuts? Just people living, enjoying life, without waving books and pamphlets in my face.

~~~

Not a bad thing at all flavortang. Anne McCaffrey was criticized for her "Pern" series of books wherein she created a colony on a new planet, far away from the religious silliness on earth, all with no God, no religion, no faith in anything supernatural.

However...they did run into a few problems....smiles...

amicus...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Not sure I'd want to go that far, Ami. The religions muddled along fairly well in the 5 to 6 centuries post Christ. Perhaps 'politics' began to hold sway about that time, within Religion I mean. Religious leaders emerged who proclaimed particular hold to a brand of faith and began the great schism leading ultimately to the divisions within Christianity and the Religious wars against the Muslim faith, a battle that continues today under various guises.

US Presidents are not unlike the Emperors of old the minute they take office and attend church stamping leadership 'seal of approval' upon Christian faith, we are a little more circumspect in Europe (currently) about aligning politics with faith. That was not always the case, Europeans started their fair share of religious wars. Bringing down religious establishment would only lead, in my opinion, to a vacumn to be filled by some other divisive force, and God forbid that would be Politics

Actually, the first warfare of Islam against Christianity would have involved the conquests by Mohammed and his successors of areas in the Middle East that had been Christian. That would have begun in the seventh century AD. The Crusades didn't start until hundreds of years later.

 

[flavortang]

~~~

Not a bad thing at all flavortang. Anne McCaffrey was criticized for her "Pern" series of books wherein she created a colony on a new planet, far away from the religious silliness on earth, all with no God, no religion, no faith in anything supernatural.

However...they did run into a few problems....smiles...

amicus...

Let me guess. Dragons. They ran into dragons. Or werewolves. It's always something.

If I wrote a story about colonizing a Godless world, I'd make the colonists encounter leprechauns... all with free boxes of breakfast cereal. There'd be no conflict and the book would end right there, happily, with everyone chowing on cereal.

 

[amicus]

Let me guess. Dragons. They ran into dragons. Or werewolves. It's always something.

If I wrote a story about colonizing a Godless world, I'd make the colonists encounter leprechauns... all with free boxes of breakfast cereal. There'd be no conflict and the book would end right there, happily, with everyone chowing on cereal.

~~~

Chuckles...good instincts, flavor, although they didn't 'run' into Dragons, they genetically created them...I think you would enjoy the series of stories, somewhere around a dozen volumes and quite entertaining.

A little distracted this evening as, "The Thomas Crown Affair" with Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo is playing and I love the sophistication and music and cleverness of the film and watch it about once a year.

But, 'lephrechauns' imply magic, thus supernatural events and, ya'know, we can't have that...


ami

 

[neonlyte]

My God…I'm really astonished by the lack of knowledge of history in this thread. The religous wars with Islam were begun by Islam, with a long series of attacks and attempts to seize territory held by Christians in Europe, the Middle East and Africa — very successful attempts. Try reading something on the history of Islam.

Actually, the first warfare of Islam against Christianity would have involved the conquests by Mohammed and his successors of areas in the Middle East that had been Christian. That would have begun in the seventh century AD. The Crusades didn't start until hundreds of years later.

Or something of the history of Christianity?

Christianity was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire in early 4th C. When Constantine converted to christianity in 381AD the Roman Empire set in train for 'Christian just war' which, by virtue of being fought by the Faithful, could be regarded as Holy.

The Prophet Mohammed died at Mecca in 632AD and Calif Umar (successor to the Prophet as Commander of the Faithful) entered Jerusalem in February 638, part of the long Arab war to conquer the Fertile Crescent that began in Syria and Palestine (635-41), Persia (637-42 and Egypt (640-42). In accordance with the terms of the surrender, the shrines, churches and synagogues of the Christians and the Jews were left untouched. Indeed the Monastery Church of St Catherine on Mount Sinai was started in 527 and construction continued extending the building well into the period of Arab domination. The Roman Empire was pretty much in disarray by that time, and over the following century Muslim leaders conquered much of the Middle East, the Byzantine provinces of North Africa in 698 and Visigothic Spain (711-13).

The question of the extent of Arabization and Islamicization of conquered lands is obscure. Religious tolerance was guaranteed by early Islamic texts. Sura 109 of the Koran declared: 'Unbelievers, I do not serve what you worship, nor do you serve what I worship. I shall never serve what you worship nor will you ever serve what I worship. You have your religion, and I have mine.'

Meanwhile, while all this was going on in land far removed from the Middle East, Christianity was making its slow haul to envelope Europe aided by St Jerome's Latin translation of the Scriptures (circa 405AD) - the Vulgate - which became the standard text of the Bible for the medieval West. By the 8th Century, the ruling aristocracies of Italy, Gaul, Spain and the eastern British Isles had all but adopted orthodox Roman Christianity, not without a deal of resistance, itself not confined to Christian v's Pagan but also Christian v's Christian. Charlemagne took the mantle of medieval Christian warrier renewing the Roman empire as a Christian imperium in 800AD when crowned Emporer by the Pope in Rome. This was about the time Viking marauders swept down upon Europe from the north, it was another two hundred and fifty years before they were subdued and converted to Christianity. Attentions turned to the Middle East, the first Crusade taking place in 1096 after thirty years of argument over who would lead the onslaught and how it would be financed.

Sources: 'Gods War' - Christopher Tyerman; 'Europe - a history' - Norman Davies.