So two car "bombs" were found yesterday and someone just rammed a flaming jeep full of gasoline into Glasgow Airport. I'd be shocked or scared but I can't stop laughing.

EDIT 2:15 PM

They're evacuating the hospital where one of the terrorists is being treated. It's a fairly large hospital too. I don't think they'd evacuate it without some sort of credible threat to the hospital or it's patients.

Considering how much these guys have screwed up so far I find it hard to find anything they say as credible.


EDIT 6:00 PM

Apparently the guy was wearing an explosive vest. Well I guess the police screwed up too.

Cue the Benny Hill Theme.

So its now thought that all the deatined suspects (or at least most of them) are linked with the NHS.

Cue the racists screaming 'they took our jobs and now they're blowing up our hospitals!'. Never mind the fact that we had a shortage of Doctors and Nurses and foreign workers have filled these skilled jobs. Also that its quite naive to expect all extremists to be in low end jobs. I even saw on the news today a reference to the Hippocratic oath that medical staff take. As if by swearing to do no harm it automatically means no-one will.

The media seem to be turning this into a bit of a barrell scraping fest.

Wll, we can blame Iraq, we can blame Afghanistan, we can blame Western Imperialism.

But at the end of the day - these people just hate us and our way of life. They don't believe in secularism - they believe in creating a global Islamic caliphate. At the end of the day it is a problem within Islam and it is time for British muslims to start routing out these people.

It is also time to reassess multiculturalism. First things first, no more religious schools, every, EVERY school should be secular. End of.

Thankfully, so far, they seem to be rather hapless in the bomb making department. I don't think we've seen the end of this :rolleyes:



The Quran is quite clear on violent jihad

"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you and do not transgress bounds [in this fighting]. God does not love the transgressors. Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out [of the place] from which they drove you out and [remember] persecution is worse than carnage. But do not initiate war with them near the Holy Kabah unless they attack you there. But if they attack you, put them to the sword [without any hesitation]. Thus shall such disbelievers be rewarded. However, if they desist [from this disbelief], Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Keep fighting against them, until persecution does not remain and Allah’s religion reigns supreme. But if they mend their ways, then [you should know that] an offensive is only allowed against the evil-doers. "

There is no misinterpretation by violent jihadists. The may be fundamentalists - but it is there, make no mistake. Attempts to portray jihad as solely personal are, alas, wishful thinking by more enlightened muslims.

I agree with your point about religious schools. Or at least they should receive no governemtn funding. How easy it would be to stop all that though i'm not too sure.

Your point about the quran. If you were to pick certain quotes about the bible you find some extreme ones and some damn right weird ones. They're there. We all know that and christians know that. Its just lucky that most christian don't take it to litereally even if they say they do.

Its the Same with the q'uran. The q'uran has some great verses too. And some Really good ideas and sometime can sit higher than the bible in my estimations. But then sometimes it can be the other way around. The q'uran does teach about peace and tolerance aswell.

No relgious text should be taken literally

Utter crap.

If people want to blindly convince themselves that this is all about "our way of life" then they should anticipate further terrorist attacks on Britain.

Why is Sweden not the target of "Islamist" terrorism?

The fact is that had Blair not followed Bush into the whole "War Against Terrorism" crap, Britain would never be targeted by these idiots.

The demands of al Qaeda are simple really. They want the West to get out and stay out of Islamic land.

What did Bush (and Blair) do?

Invade Afghanistan, and then Iraq.

Incidentally, the latest attempts to attack Britain, was not the shoddy work of homegrown Muslims.

Indeed, they are all from the Middle East and India.

I agree, but this will not end the present threat of terrorism in Britain.

The driver of the burning jeep (who is not a proper "Doctor", he is studying for a PhD in computational fluid dynamics) was actually an engineer.

How the hell could he not make a car bomb?

First of all I'd like to know where in the Qur'an it says that, just to double check it.

Secondly, that verse refers to fighting those who attack you, which is not the same as trying to kill innocent people in a Glasgow Airport with a burning jeep.

It does say in the Qur'an that killing one innocent human being is like killing every human being on this planet. In other words, it is wrong for a Muslim to kill an innocent person, never mind killing yourself in the process of doing so.

There lies the misinterpretation.

Indeed, the Prophet Muhammad said:

Beware of extremism in religion; for it was extremism in religion that destroyed those who went before you

Actually the real question is why is Britain a big target for terror attacks(especially homegrown) when America is hated far more?

The answer is shocking!

That is correct, however atleast one of the doctors didn't turn to extremism until he was already living in Britain. I'm not sure what the circumstances of the others are yet.

What purpose would this serve? Why would it matter if the school was religous or not?

I don't know quite what you are getting at.

Britain is a target due to the government's complicity in the invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yes.

The Iraqi.

I have read that he was angry at the killing of an Iraqi friend by a Shi'a death squad, and that he hated the West over the situation in Occupied Palestine.

Once again, it is naive at best to ignore the role played by the so-called "War Against Terrorism" in breeding such extremists.

They see the world stand by as their brothers and sisters are being killed left, right and centre.

It has nothing to do with the terrorist threat.

I just believe that schools should be secular.

It plays a role in it but not as much as you think. If Aghanistan and Iraq played a large role in homegrown terrorism you'd be seeing it in the US...ALOT. There was an interesting article I read a few days after the Glasgow attack that had some terror experts talking about why Britain gets these homegown terrorist actions. I'm trying to find it again right now.

I do remember it talking alot of how different America and Britain(and to an extent europe in general) treat foreignors.

It does play a role but not nearly as large as you believe.


EDIT:

Also the Iraqi was born in Britain.

EDIT2:

Jeez this was more about petty revenge for this guy more then anything. He did this because his family fell out of power with the fall of Hussein.

I'd still like to know what purpose it would serve.

I acknowledge that there are other factors, but it is undeniable that the killing of Muslims by the West is the major factor in the process of turning such Muslims (who may not even be all that religious anyway) into people who are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to gain some sort of revenge.

It is easy and comforting to believe that these people do not like "our way of life" (at which point I am curious to know what that way of life entails exactly).

When one studies the bombers themselves, however, it becomes clear that what radicalises these people is seeing what is being done to their brothers and sisters in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Occupied Palestine.

We know for a fact that the 7/7 bombers were motivated by long sessions of watching videos of atrocities against Muslims around the world.

Indeed, the video of Mohammad Sidique Khan explains that the killing of the 52 people was directly linked to Tony Blair's foreign policy, and that Britain would face more attacks if that policy did not change.

In fact, the recently convicted 21/7 bombers engaged in just the same type of video-watching sessions.

Hussain Osman, the guy who was arrested in Rome, revealed how his gang watched hours of TV footage showing grief-stricken Iraqi widows and children alongside images of civilians killed in the conflict.

He said:

"There was a feeling of hatred and a conviction that it was necessary to give a signal - to do something. Religion had nothing to do with this. We watched films. We were shown videos with images of the war in Iraq. We were told we must do something big. That's why we met."

The Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House) reported:

"The UK is at particular risk because it is the closest ally of the United States, [and] has deployed armed forces in the military campaigns to topple the Taleban regime in Afghanistan and in Iraq... Riding pillion with a powerful ally has proved costly in terms of British and US military lives, Iraqi lives, military expenditure, and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism campaign."

The Home and Foreign Offices have (secretly) concluded, as far back as 2004, that:

"It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment amongst Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived 'double standard' in the foreign policy of Western governments (and often those of Muslim governments), in particular Britain and the US." ["Young Muslims and Extremism" report]

In fact, before the Iraq invasion, the Joint Intelligence Committee warned Tony Blair on the 10th of February 2003 that:

"Al-Qaeda and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq."

Even the MI5 chief admitted that the Iraq war is driving British Muslims towards terrorism

Professor Robert Pape, the author of "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism", who has conducted the most in-depth research into the motivations of suicide bombers, has also concluded that suicide bombing is less about religious fundamentalism than secular or political grievances.

He concludes that there is:

"Little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism... Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland."

It's not rocket science really.

Invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan has increased the risk from terrorism.

Withdrawing from both countries will decrease the risk from terrorism.

Yes, but he moved to Iraq as a child and qualified as a Doctor in Baghdad, in 2004.

I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion.

His father was a Doctor too. He ran a clinic in Baghdad up until two years ago.

The death of Dr. Abdulla's close friend added to the bitterness he already felt. It was probably the tipping point.

To what, the "War Against Terror", or in general?

I believe religion should not be involved in public education.

If parents wish to teach religion to their children privately, I have no problem with that. School education, however, should be set against a secular background.

That's not to say that we should ban RE classes.

Yet, it doesn't explain why America doesn't suffer from homegrown terrorism like Britain does.

From here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7070501862.html

In general. Thanks for clarifying.

I do not think that such a statement is entirely true.

The fact is, there have been homegrown "Islamist" terrorists who have tried to attack the US.

For example, the recent plot to attack JFK airport included a US citizen.

This article details the threat of homegrown terrorism in the US quite well.

It tackles the question you have been asking, and makes some important points.

Why has homegrown Islamic terrorism been a bigger problem in Europe than it has been in the United States?

Generally speaking, Muslims integrate into American society more thoroughly than their counterparts in Europe, landing better jobs and achieving more educationally. They also account for a smaller percentage of the population than Muslims in most Western European countries. More importantly, writes Peter Skerry, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, the American Muslim community is “probably the most diverse [Islamic population] in the world, hailing from many parts of the globe, speaking numerous languages and practicing several different versions of Islam.” This lack of uniformity, he argues, makes it more likely that Muslims in the United States will adapt to their surroundings, rather than keeping to isolated pockets of cultural familiarity.

“You’re starting to see the very first inklings of an American Muslim discourse,” Ibish says, which “makes for a much better adjusted community.” Despite this, many experts are concerned that discrimination against American Muslims could help foster the radicalization of a few bad seeds. While this is a legitimate concern, Sperry points out, “Muslims never sound quite so American as when asserting their rights against government policies they consider unjust.”

Indeed homegrown terrorism in the UK is not as massive a problem (when compared with the USA) as you are suggesting.

Only one terror plot (7/7) was actually successful, and the rest (just like in the USA) have failed to materialise.

My point about foreign policy remains. It is undoubtedly the greatest factor in the terror threat that the West faces today.

It should be noted that in 1996 and 1998, Osama bin Laden issued fatwas which both complained of American interference and activities in numerous countries, and, more precisely, of American military presence in the Arabian Peninsula, and American support for Israel.

Those fatwas, to al Qaeda, provided justification for indiscriminate killing of Americans.

British involvement in recent attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan have made us a target too.

That article simply validates my point that the Iraq war has made the UK a target of "Islamist" terrorism.

It seems the killing of his close friend was, like I stated before, the tipping point in his resolve to "make a point".

Inifada....from what Im understanding from your posts....if the U.S. simply admits they were wrong, offers a peace offering and returned home and left the middle east to the middle east, we would no longer fear attack from terrorists?


What would you suggest to the next president to step towards a peaceful resolution in the Middle East???

Yes, pretty much.

It's not going to happen though.

Moreover, in the years since 9/11, the Bush administration has simply created a new generation of people who hate the US and there will be those who will seek to gain revenge for what has happened.

Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Stop the support for Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

Stop supporting dictators like Mubarak and Musharraf.

Apologise and offer compensation for the destruction caused by US foreign policy in that region.

Of course, the day that happens pigs will fly.

Heh. I had forgotton about those. I think a better example would have been the DC snipers.

1, 2, 3 and half of 4 is acceptable. Compensation's a sure fire way to re-open old wounds.

However even with all that it won't stop terrorists.

Interesting points brought up in this thread, by all contributors.

The first, biggest problem is going to be assumption. That has been as large a factor as most things in the motivations of why there are terrorist groups. Homegrown is misleading, in that the "citizens born" in that country are the ones revolting violently.

Terror could be considered an extension of discontent. Such members of any organization motivated to the spread of terroristic acts seek to precipitate change. They want to make a violent action to get people to consider everything involved... the background history, current conditions, so forth. Many never see anything but the bloody results or the monetary damage. They see it as destructive versus constructive. Groups might even hurt the agenda of others by hitting targets which were NOT the most effective or even relevant.

Usually the leaders of such groups are near-sighted. Though they might run their operations much like a legitimate business, recruiting with more effectiveness than Fortune 500 companies, fully benefiting with the potential of the Internet... they fail to see a large picture. They focus on their ends, not really able to gauge the results. The effects of 9-11 were NOT done to stymie the interference of Europe or the U.S. within the Middle East.

Not to say they do not have some just cause. While it is hard to sympathize with anyone of any race, religion, creed, nation, etc for murder of non-combatants (innocents, mainly children), it is very hypocritical to ignore the facts that the very same had occurred to them without prejudice rising against their enemies.

Al-Qaeda is considered a rogue organization funded by a very wealthy member of the Muslim community. Just like Christians (and even Jews) will disagree or interpret things quiet differently. While Irish-Catholic citizens in the U.S. could empathize with Ireland, the elements that go so rogue as to ignore certain tenants of religion or practice that they've alienated those very peoples they wish to satisfy. They hurt their own recruitment base. Which leaves basically the mentally unstable to their cause as an outlet for their unjust actions.

Another problem is the media. They provide additional motivation and giving voice to the very groups that are seeking to get out a message. The best way to insure it gets out is to censor the dedicated, to provide examples of martyrdom and to ignore all of the implications involved in why this is even occurring. Make a man poor, unable to seek out options, keep him uneducated or unable to expand their mental horizons... and take away hope or promise; you've created a terrorist. Because a man with no purpose will have no problem becoming a human bomb and walking into the midst of a crowded cafe anywhere in the world. Kill off his family and you've gained an enemy for the duration of their lives.

Sure, in some cases we might be helping those that would hurt us. Yet not helping at all, not listening or heeding why it is happening... then we might as well build our walls, install our security systems, build our weapons and man the towers. And we'll live in the prison of our own makings because we decided to abandon a part of the world that we felt didn't have something more to offer than some natural resource(s). And exploiting those resources at times only fuels the fire more.

Terrorism is nothing more than a political method.

The purpose of the method must be understood, not the method itself.

Why was the US attacked on 9/11?

Why was the UK attacked on 7/7?

The answer to both questions is political, and the demands are not unreasonable.

Instead of asking why they were attacked, the US (under the leadership of people who simply used the attacks to further their own imperial objectives) went and exacerbated the situation and made the world a more dangerous place.

That's not what I'm talking about. We can get to understand what caused this all we want but let's face it. Some of these people will never be satisfied and some won't want this to end. That doesn't mean we should continue the same half-assed policy we've persued for the past 60 years though. But we'd only lull ourselves into a false sense of security if we think that pursuing all your options would stop terrorism(of the islamic extremist type).


Some of these terrorist leaders aren't gonna be so inclined to give up the power they've gained. Considering the acts they've commited and manipulating other muslims by perverting their faith. Sure they'll have a harder time recruiting but they're still gonna be a problem.


Of course that's assuming your options work. Considering how long the Saudi's have been holding their grudge so far I'm not entirely convinced it could be so easily accomplished.

True. When they rose to the position of being able to control various cells in however many countries, running the training camps and enjoying the steady influx of income... it's pretty certain they won't step down. Yet in the so called "War on Terror", we don't win by capturing a Saddam Hussein or driving Osama Bin Laden into the caves. All that does is create a power vacuum. This is exactly that the U.S. lead coalition accomplished by taking down Hussein's regime. That led to the present day situation of possible civil war between the Shi'a and Sunni populace or the machinations of Iran in setting up their own "puppet" or overly friendly government while the United States seeks to set up a new, democratic government system somewhat based upon our own.

So just fighting a war against Terror will not accomplish a reduction in it. It means addressing some of those majour issues that led to such a proliferation of unrest. If we can't get Shi'a, Sunni and Kurdish populations to sit down and discuss matters, would not other countries (especially in the European Union) be motivated to seek out peaceful solutions via their mediation?

There are two countries that scare the bejesus out of me when it comes to addressing their self-serving interest before that of it's citizens or other neighbouring countries or allies. That is Saudi Arabia and China. The latter doesn't have any terroristic activities ongoing... but Chinese banks are having to crack down against international money laundering activities which are probably used for funneling funds. And having the money in their banks only provides a source of wealth. They aren't cooperative on trade issues and their banking infrastructure will probably be less prone to provide information for outside scruntiny. The Saudis are more inclined to do what is best for not only their survival but greater profit. Keeping the Royal family in power, keeping technological progress from overrunning their faith or customs and still keeping control of their citizenry will be near the top of their lists. Israel might be a thorn in it's side but a Saddam Hussein posed a much greater threat. Even with the United States rushing to their defense with Desert Shield, half of their recruits for terrorists in Iraq have been cited as being as high as half of them coming from this country. Either they want to keep unrest high to prevent a democracy or a regime loyal to Iran. Plus remember that their peoples often deal with many of the same hardships.

The Saudis and Chinese have learned to be much better capitalists than we had thought likely.

We don't want to alienate the Israelis, Egyptians, Jordanians or Turks. And we seem to tread especially careful when it comes to Saudi Arabia in the spirit of cooperation when it comes to their meeting our oil demands.

While it is easy to attack an enemy for their faults; it is far harder to fault one's business partners, friends or allies.

Well we've been going about this the wrong way. We've been keeping them in their factions and Democracy doesn't work with 'seperate but equal' and we're probably past the point where we could find someway to unite them short of pissing them off to the point where they just totally revolt against us and that's just not gonna help our war on terror.

I don't know though. I'm just running out of ideas to help.

Not that the Chinese will admit to it.