Car Bomb In Scotland
Can We Be Disabused Of Some Particularly Misguided Notions Now?
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Featured Stories | Foreign Affairs — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I'd like to hear a little more talk about how the war on terror is supposedly a "bumper sticker slogan". Especially after this:
Two men rammed a flaming sport utility vehicle into the main terminal of Glasgow airport Saturday, crashing into the glass doors at the entrance and sparking a fire, witnesses said. Police said two suspects were arrested.
The airport - Scotland's largest - was evacuated and all flights suspended, a day after British police thwarted a plot to bomb central London, discovering two cars abandoned with loads of gasoline, gas canisters and nails.
"One has to conclude ... these are linked," Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, former head of Britain's joint intelligence committee, told Sky News. "This is a very young government, and we may yet see further attacks."
Britain's prime minister, Gordon Brown, who took office only Wednesday, was being briefed on developments by his officials, Downing Street said.
In Glasgow, the green SUV barreled toward the building at full speed shortly after 3 p.m., hitting security barriers before crashing into the glass doors and exploding, witnesses said. Two men jumped out of the burning vehicle, one of them engulfed in flames, they said.
"The car came speeding past at about 30 mph. It was approaching the building quickly," said Scott Leeson, who was nearby at the time. "Then the driver swerved the car around so he could ram straight in to the door. He must have been trying to smash straight through."
Read on
Two men were arrested, Strathclyde Police spokeswoman Lisa O'Neil said.
Passengers fled running and screaming from the busy terminal, Margaret Hughes told the British Broadcasting Corp. "There was black smoke gushing out where the car had obviously been driven into the airport," she said.
Flames and black smoke rose from the vehicle outside the main entrance. Police said it was unclear if anyone was injured. Other passengers were stranded, with at least one airplane grounded on the runway, the BBC said.
The incident also comes exactly one week before the second anniversary of the July 7 bombings that killed 52 people.
Leeson said bollards - security posts outside the entrance - stopped the driver from barreling into the bustling terminal at Glasgow's airport.
"He's trying to get through the main door frame but the bollards have stopped him from going through. If he'd got through, he'd have killed hundreds, obviously," he said.
More:
A four-wheel-drive vehicle raced across a central reservation and rammed into the front doors of Glasgow airport's main terminal on Saturday before exploding in flames, Glasgow police and witnesses said.
A Glasgow police spokeswoman said there were no immediate reports of any injuries and said the blaze was extinguished. She said two people had been arrested following the incident.
Witnesses told the BBC the vehicle, a Land Rover or a Jeep Cherokee, had exploded shortly after crashing into the glass front doors of the terminal, and said there was a heavy stench of petrol. Another said it already appeared to be on fire as it raced towards the building.
"It raced across the central reservation and went straight into the building," said taxi driver Ian Crosby, who was waiting outside Glasgow's Terminal One.
Crosby said a stocky Asian man had got out of the car and was quickly tackled to the ground by angry bystanders.
"It would appear to me to have been a deliberate attack. I think this was a terrorist attack," Crosby said.
It would appear so indeed. And one cannot blame the bystanders for having been angry. Thankfully, it appears that no one save the perpetrators have been injured in any way, though of course, this may change.
I really don't like making this into a partisan issue, but I am afraid that one cannot help but recall John Edwards's words, linked above:
"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set--that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."
(Emphasis mine.) After these bombings, who exactly has it been that has done the framing? And no one has claimed that we are involved in a "clash of civilizations" against Islam as a whole. I have no problem whatsoever accepting the belief that legions of Muslims are horrified and disgusted by the acts of terrorism that are performed in their names. Some of those Muslims, by the way, live in Iraq and rely on our help to reconstruct their country.
The war we are engaged in, of course, is with people who are cynically willing to use religion to dupe the credulous into believing that if they give up their lives and kill innocents, a better life awaits them in the hereafter. We didn't ask for this war. Alas, it has been thrust on us, with Glasgow having become but the latest battlefield.
Past terrorist attacks have not been enough to convince a certain Presidential candidate of that fact. Let's see if this one does anything to pierce his unique and unhelpful worldview. If not--and one expects not--then it is to be hoped that the only way said Presidential candidate sees the inside of the White House is as a tourist.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | When Oversight Becomes Overburdening — Comments (4) »
Car Bomb In Scotland 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Is there evidence presented to back up this statement?
"How do you think the current polices of this government in Iraq are preventing this sort of attack from this sort of home grown terrorists from coming to our shores? Short answer, they are not."
pagar
The mantra coming from the White House is that we are in Iraq to keep Aq and the other terrorists "over there", and not here. The terrorists in the UK in this latest outrage appear to be SE Asian men, not Iraqis, and unless you know better not supported by any of the states in middle east.
In terms of how as a strategry, the current mantra of taking the fight against terrorism to where the source is at best problematic when you are dealing with people who are part of a nations society. The terrorism of the last 6 years is motivated by an ideology, radical Islam in this case, which is very hard to suppress by means of regime change.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
I'm not finding a story that identifies the nationality of the suspects, but AP stories say, "Police subdued the driver and a passenger, both described by witnesses as South Asian--a term used to refer to people from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries in the region."
Of course, that doesn't really matter. We have plenty of people fitting this description right here in the US.
WTF is South Asian? I've never heard of that before. It's like calling America, North Mexican.(subject of another 1000 blogs)
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
It's UK PC speak for people from India, Pakistan and other parts of that region of the world.
I'd fill you in on the old slang terms, but there's really no need for that and frankly some of the slang is quite nasty.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
Ahh thanks. Of course OUR media would not translate that and leave it as is.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
What's wrong with "South Asian" as shorthand? You'd rather every time they say Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, etc.? If the media or politicians KNOW the specific national origin of someone -- let's say, Pakistani -- but are substituting "South Asian" to be PC, I see your point, but if that isn't known, or if the people of that region are being discussed, there's nothing wrong with it. Just like we say "Middle Eastern" or "Latin American" or whatever.
And I see in this case witnesses were the ones who apparently said "South Asian", which is understandable. Hard for many people (myself included) to know if someone is, say, Indian or Pakistani.
WTF is South Asian?
The AP quote said, "South Asian--a term used to refer to people from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries in the region."
It's meaning is pretty clear both from the AP's definition and geographically.
Here's the wikipedia page for South Asia, complete with a map.
outrage appear to SE Asia men, not Iraqis", translate into any
evidence of failure of our policy to fight them over there (Iraq) instead of over here (United States)? The proof that the fight them over there policy is working seems clear - there are no American Soldiers fighting door to door against Al-Qaeda in America today.
pagar
The premise that we are fighting AQ in Iraq and not at home ignores the simple fact that much of the terrorism seen to date has been ether native born or legal residents of a country. The President and Secretary Chertoff appear to be dealing with the threat well at home, how well is another question and only time will tell.
By the way, the terrorists who attacked this country were: Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. If our stated policy goal of suppressing AQ and territory "Over There", I await your call for military action to deal with these hot beds of Islamic fundamentalism.
If you care to believe the Presidents logic for staying in Iraq, knock yourself out. I don't. We are fighting an ideology, it's called Radical Islamism, mostly from the "Wahhabi" form of the Islamic faith.
I recently attended a conference where Colling Powell spoke. He called it the way I think it is when he stated that it's a Civil War going on in Iraq and military force alone will not end that war, no matter how mad the President gets at him when he goes off the Presidential reservation by saying so.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
are either home grown terrorists or terrorists from other countries seems to be an established fact. The fact that a great many of the Al-Qaeda members here are either home grown or here legally doesn't make them any less lethal. The real question at this point seems to be how many have came into this country illegally because we have no border security.
The facts concerning Saddam and his threat to America seemed to have had be-partisan support with many statements from the Democrats such as Pres Clinton and others during the Clinton administration. These statements did not extend to the Saudis,
Egypt etc, so I don't believe anyone was calling or is calling for any military intervention. Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be the places where Al-Qaeda wants to make their stand. Lets keep them there.
Every American message to leave Iraq emboldens Al-Qaeda and insures that they will destroy even more Iraqis lives to accomplish their aim to drive us out of Iraq.
I had tremendous respect for Gen Powell. I lost all respect for him over his Secretary of State tour. But the absolutely unforgiveable error was his allowing the total destruction of a decent American named I. Lewis Libby by not discussing that Richard Armitage was the leak that was being investigated in the Plame case. See Story
"Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage's role remained secret."
I do not believe anyone believes that Iraq is in a civil war.
The death toll if one starts will be in the 1000s daily not the comparitively low figures we are currently seeing. The bulk of current deaths are caused by explosions caused by car bombs set by Al-Qaeda.
Three weeks ago, Las Vegas Nevada, Collin Powell said that he thought Iraq was in a Civil war right now, I was in the audience I heard the man speak these very words. He and the President and the VP disagree.
"Every American message to leave Iraq emboldens Al-Qaeda and insures that they will destroy even more Iraqis lives to accomplish their aim to drive us out of Iraq."
So sit down, shut up is your message? The President is always right...hardly. Must have missed class when the flavor aid drinking lessons were given.
On Libby, that's easy, the President will pardon him...holding your breath are you? He's overboard and shark bait, just like General Peter Pace. Easy to blame Powell and others when the President at any time could have flexed his muscles with a Presidential pardon or communication of sentence.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
I hoped the bystanders that tackled the guy beat him to a pulp.
-- digitalhap
basis for their policy stances---terror exists against the USA in a highly malevolent form, but it's in the interest of trivial candidates and their supporters to trivialize the GWOT. It doesn't relate to their parochial single-issue perspective.
_______________________
THE DEMOCRATS' PERSPECTIVE ON MAJOR ISSUES:
1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by lack of Federal funding. 2. You have to believe that the school system that can't teach a fourth grader how to read is some how the best qualified to teach those same children all about sex. 3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese communists. 4. You have to believe there was no art before Federal funding. 5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by Americans driving SUVs. 6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural. 7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand. 8. You have to believe that business creates oppression and governments create prosperity. 9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists from Seattle do. 10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it. 11. You have to believe that the U.S. Military, not evil and tyrannical regimes, start wars. 12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
are overseas, including Britain. I can't help wondering if that has anything to do with our "illegal" wiretapping and general "assault" on civil liberties. A little irony with a passing thought.
Conversely what would our civil libertarians, who never support tax cuts, an exercise in liberty, be saying if those attacks were occurring in the USA? Your guess is as good as mine.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
are overseas, including Britain. I can't help wondering if that has anything to do with our "illegal" wiretapping and general "assault" on civil liberties. A little irony with a passing thought.
A great notion, except Britain is even more Big Brother than the US. "Secure Beneath The Watchful Eyes", right?
Wrong.
How do you stop a determined attacker with no criminal background from killing hundreds of people? You can't. The best you can hope for is to decrease the number of determined attackers.
If you're going give up your civil liberties and privacy, don't do it for nothing. And be damned sure you get a receipt.
Just remember, the Global War on Terror is about saving individual life and liberty, but Global Warming is about saving humanity.
Don't let the flaming vehicles and flying nuts and bolts confuse your thinking.
Don't be distracted by the warming on Mars or the cooked data here on Earth. (Cooked data? Global Warming? get it?)
Bob Lutz is more of a threat to our safety than ObL could ever be.
Is that too sarcastic?
Olberman's Monday story?
Finally there is this: Just (fill in random number less than 7) days after a major Democrat news event, the White House focused the media's attention on Glasgow and London even though nobody innocent was killed outright.
You did want to hear this, right?
Since we nail mobsters and drug dealers more for tax evasion rather than murder maybe the left can nail terrorists for not buying global warming offsets or something.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
If we can somehow tie terrorist attacks to global warming, the libs would face a dilemma. Which do they hate more: Bush or Global Warming?
Oh wait never mind - it doesn't really matter since it's Bush's fault they attack us, so if it increases global warming that's even more reason for them to hate Bush.
It's not necessarily that we're fighting them there because they will follow us here - it's that we're fighting them there to keep their attention focused there instead of here. I & many others who pay attention believe there are cells in the US that are waiting for the "right time" to strike. I'm sure the NSA & related groups have scuttled many more strikes than we've been made aware of. That's good, but if there was no kind of offense against the islamists they could focus their efforts on murdering innocents in the US. Freedom is the death-ray for tyrrany & despotism, therefore that is the reason that the islamists are opposing a free Iraq.
P.
Homegrown terrorists in the form of SE Asian men seem to be behind this attack, a problem that multi-cultural UK seems to be grappling with. I'd also note that as far as the UK goes, George Orwell was right when it comes to a level of "Big Brother" observing everywhere in public with every means of surveillance, and still this stuff happens.
How do you think the current polices of this government in Iraq are preventing this sort of attack from this sort of home grown terrorists from coming to our shores? Short answer, they are not.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!