Attack On Glasgow Airport

Attack on Glasgow Airport
The Press Association Newsdesk

An apparent car bomb attack on Glasgow airport has ended in terrifying failure.
Witnesses said a blazing Cherokee jeep containing two Asian-looking men crashed through the doors of the main terminal building.

A man with his clothes on fire got out of the vehicle and was restrained by passengers and police while others put out the flames with a fire extinguisher. Two men were later arrested.

The airport was closed and passengers were cleared from the terminal building amid fears that it was a terrorist attack.

The incident came as police in London continued to search for terrorists who planted two car bombs which failed to detonate in the heart of the capital.

A spokesman for the airport's operators, the British Airports Authority, said emergency services were at the scene.

He said: "A car is on fire at the entrance to the terminal and there is considerable smoke damage to the terminal. The terminal has been evacuated as a result of this and all flights have now been suspended. This is the start of the busy summer holiday period, although Saturdays are less busy than week days.

"But this will cause disruption and our advice to passengers is to check with their airline to establish if their flight will be operating."

Another eyewitness, taxi driver Ian Crosby, said he was in no doubt that it was a terrorist attack.

"It looks to me like these people were intent on doing some serious damage," he told the BBC. "There was smoke coming from inside of the back seats," he said. "Immediately I realised this was a terrorist attack. Somebody had planned this. This was no accident."

----------------------------------------------

This has to be tied into the car bombs that were found in London.

I remember a few years back hearing about intelligence that was uncovered informing that terrorists were planning to pack limosines and cars with bombs and drive them into Airports, The Stock Exchange and other well known places and buildings.

Guess they've finally decided to put their plan in action now.

Go figure... Redneck terrorists.

This obviously proves that I was right in the debate we had on racial profiling.

Thanx for the heads-up.

CNN is reporting that two people have been arrested in connection with this.

They were thought to be two Asian men who the news is now saying could very well be middle eastern men.

It's not racial profiling, it's who wants to blow up your and my asses.

Any information on who they are, yet?

Relax...I was kidding.

I know that you were.

Yeah, two more scumbag terrorists.

Well, if they are indeed Asian, this is of no surprise to me.

[southern_accent]Them orientals can't drive for shit[/southern_accent]

When we catch ANYONE in the act of committing a terrorist attack, they should be EXECUTED on the spot. Two to the back of the head.

This world we live in is getting scarier and scarier to live in.

They may not be able to drive for shit, but they sure can build them there cars!

Isn't that giving them what they want?

Actually, the media is hinting they're from either India or Pakistan.

They can't tell Asian men apart from Middle Eastern men?

This could be said for alot of the crimes that are committed these days.

It could be said, but it'd be incorrect.

Wrong!!

That wouldn't solve the problem from happening again. You kill the terrorists' families, their friends, their neighbors and all of THOSE peoples' families.

Executing a terorrist who is CAUGHT IN THE ACT of commiting an act of terrorism would NOT be incorrect. It would be cause for a celebration!

Well then you would be just as bad as a terrorist. No, you kill the terrorist that is caught in the act.

Why is that? I bet the crime rate would go down

In the PC world in which we live today, Asian men include Chinese, Indian and Pakistani.

I'm from a different age... and I don't see whats wrong with calling someone from China, or Korea, or Japan as "oriental"... it means they're from the Orient. Whats the big deal?

Nope. We're at war. Make no mistake about that. You kill your enemies and sometimes there are casualties beyond them. Sooner or later they'll get the message.

Fuck "hard feelings". Its war!!!

They would be the ones celebrating.

Think about it. If most terrorists are of Muslim decent, and the Religious standard that backs these acts is that upon dying as a result of committing these acts, wouldn't being shot to DEATH seconds after committing the ACT be allowing them to achieve this goal? Wouldn't a more logical punishment be a life sentence behind bars? In fact, that'd be the exact opposite of achieving your goal. I think that'd be a much more suitable and coherent punishment.

Punishment isn't about what's going to feed your lust for vengeance, it's about what's going to make them regret their actions.

There are middle eastern people who can pass for Asian, Italian, Spanish, etc. just as there are Italians, Spanish and Aisian people who can pass for middle easterners.

Kill or be killed.

But in this PC world some dumbass judge would'nt put them in jail.

It may cause them to celebrate, but it would also mean that there is one less terrorist left to try and kill you and I. And over time, others who may even be thinking of joining a terorrist organization or act will begin to have second thoughts knowing that if caught they will be executed. But you and I can debate that kind of thought all day long if we want.

The bottom line is that when you find a cancer, the best way to stop it from spreading is to cut it and burn it out!

It's not a lust for vengance LLC, it's a lust for allowing my children to have a future life.

It wouldn't do anything to the crime-rate. There persons who commit the acts have already done it. If they're caught in the act, that's enough proof to incarcerate them, sentence them to the warped death penalty, or whatever the judge cooks up. Whether they are put behind bars or sentenced to death, they are off the streets, and cannot commit any more crimes. If you were to kill them after you catch them committing the crime, they are dead, and cannot commit anymore crimes.

But people are ALWAYS going to commit crime, as long as there is a structured society that presents rules that can be broken. And, I don't see anarchy catching on anytime soon, so we're not really altering the crime rate, we're just lowering the number of cases that make their way to court.

These terrorists don't give a shit about dying for their cause. Once everyone realizes that we'll be better off dealing with them.

You kill their families and neighbors and then THOSE people will realize that it'd be in their interests to give the terrorists up.

There's no such thing as playing "nicely" and "by rules" here. In a fight you fight to win... no matter what it takes.

Sonny Corleone understood that. Why don't you?

And if you were to put this terrorist behind bars, for ever and ever, that wouldn't prevent them from being able to drive trucks into airports, fly planes into buildings, plant bombs in basements, and so on?

And it's not going to stop others from joining terrorist cells. If death is what they consider the reward in committing acts of terror, then if we kill them on the spot, we're only giving them all the more reason to join up. They're guaranteed their reward, then.

Let's not try to compare a cancerous cell to a human being with a right to due process.

And, I hate to be the one to say it, but unfortunately, we can never complete save our children from terrorism. We're never going to dismantle terrorism, because there are always going to be someone who has a problem with someone else. There is always going to be unrest, there is always going to be war... We can try to decrease terrorism, and even that is going to be very, very complicated. More complicated then running amok in the streets with semi-automatic weapons, and blowing off the heads of anyone who comes off as a threat. Dismantling terrorism is even more complicated--in fact, it's an impossibility (I know, I just set myself up for a Godfather Pt. II quote)

You're right, he'd just sentence them to death.

You gotta get up close--bada BING, all over your nice military suit!

I hear you loud and clear. But think about it, if it turned out that a good friend of yours was part of a terrorist organization and was caught committing an act of terrorism, should you be killed because of what he did?

These threads give me a headache.

I wouldn't call a terrorist a human being.

I think these fellows would:

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be, but somewhere down the line, someone from my family would say "SC died unfairly and I know why. I'm gonna rat out the bastard who caused all this to happen before someone else I love gets killed"...

You wouldn't have a Chinamen's chance of getting away with that, SC.

Oops.

Fox News is now reporting that the security level in Britain has been raised to "Critical". They may be expecting another attack somewhere.

Does that the security level in NY will go higher to?

The Port Authority (which operates the airports in the NYC area) has increased its security measures but the government has NOT changed any levels (yet). I think they'd wait until they got a specific threat before they change that level.

Britain's Terror Level At Critical After Attack
Officials Say Glasgow Airport Attack Linked To Thwarted London Bombings

CBS News Interactive: Global Terror

(CBS) GLASGOW, Scotland Four arrests have been made in connection with terrorist attacks in London and Scotland, as Britain's security posture has moved to its highest possible level.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she had raised the security level to critical — indicating terrorist attacks are imminent — and ordered security to be tightened in response to events over last 48 hours.

A vehicle that crashed into Glasgow's airport Saturday was being treated as a potential terror attack linked to two car bombs found Friday in London, police said.

The two men who were in the car at the Glasgow airport were arrested on the scene shortly after the crash. Police searched Saturday for a man who witnesses saw running from one of the cars in London.

Police said two additional people were arrested in northern England early Sunday morning.

Glasgow police chief Willie Rae announced the incidents were connected and said a suspect device had been found on a man wrestled to the ground by officers and hospitalized in critical condition with severe burns.

"We believe the incident at Glasgow airport is linked to the events in London yesterday," Rae said. "There are clearly similarities and we can confirm that this is being treated as a terrorist incident."

The chaos over the past two days has raised fears that the type of car bomb attacks that have become commonplace in Iraq may now become a fixture of European life.

The new terror threat presents Prime Minister Gordon Brown with an enormous challenge just three days after taking office, and comes at a time of already heightened vigilance one week before the anniversary of the July 7 London transit attacks.

"I know that the British people will stand together, united, resolute and strong," Brown said Saturday in a televised statement. He defended raising the alert level, which has not been at critical since the August 2006 plot to blow up several trans-Atlantic flights.

One former top British security official said terrorists appeared to be trying to take advantage of the inexperience of the new government.

"This is a very young government, and we may yet see further attacks. ... We are seeing a pattern of attack in the early days of a new government," Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, former head of Britain's joint intelligence committee, told Sky News television.

The previous round of terrorist activity in Britain, in July 2005, was largely carried out by local Muslims, raising ethnic tensions in Britain.

President George W. Bush was being kept informed of the situation, the White House said. "We're in contact with British authorities on the matter," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, in Washington.

A Jeep Cherokee trailing a cascade of flames rammed into Scotland's largest airport on Saturday, shattering glass doors and stopping within yards of where holidaymakers were lined up at check-in counters. Two people were arrested — one of them on fire.

The green Jeep barreled toward Glasgow's main airport terminal at full speed shortly after 3 p.m., hitting security barriers before crashing into the glass doors and exploding, witnesses said.

Police wrestled the driver and a passenger, both described by witnesses as South Asian, to the ground, arresting them and taking one to the hospital. Witnesses said one of the men was engulfed in flames and spoke "gibberish" as an official used a fire extinguisher to douse the fire.

One of the men driving in the car was in critical condition at a hospital for severe burns while the other man was in police custody, said Rae.

He said a bystander was taken to the hospital with a leg injury.

Rae said a "suspect device" was found on the suspect at the hospital and it was taken to a safe location where it was being investigated.

Rae would not say whether the device was a suicide belt.

Police mounted increased patrols in a jittery London Saturday as detectives conducted an intense hunt for a man seen running from an explosives-packed car in the heart of the city's entertainment district.

Two Mercedes loaded with gasoline, gas canisters and nails were found abandoned Friday in what police believe was an attempt to kill scores or even hundreds of people. Detectives said they were keeping an open mind about the perpetrators, but terrorism experts said the signs pointed to an al Qaeda-linked or inspired cell.

CBS News has learned the police have been able to reconstruct the journey of the bomb vehicles through London using closed-circuit TV images.

And using license plate recognition technology, the police now know precisely where and when the bombers brought their cars into central London.

Those video cameras are sophisticated and sensitive at night. Sources say there are good quality images of both drivers. CBS News has learned that the police know the identity of at least one of the suspects.

Intelligence officials were examining a post to an Islamist Web site — published hours before the cars were found, as first reported by CBS News — that suggested Britain would be attacked for awarding a knighthood to the novelist Salman Rushdie and for intervening in Muslim countries.


------------------------------------------------

Maybe you're right SC. Maybe it's time to kill them and anyone associated with them. Before they kill us.

Yep. This way you can stop the cancer from reproducing and spreading :

And cancer like that spreads too fast.

...And you say it's the moral right, eh?

Kill or be killed

When did this become a Vin Diesel movie?

Vin Diesel /Rambo

"..and the world, will be a better place. For you, and me..."

Alright, I'll settle on Rambo if you let me wear a bandanna around my head.

Sure pick a color

I thought that you hung bandannas out of your back pocket?

Some say about a work of art (like in the Chocolate Jesus thread), "Meh, I don't agree with its politics, so how can it be a work of art?" People are under the illusion here that humans are by default, by biological fact, good creatures.

Good is obviously a complex term, here; I mean it in terms of morality... but even then, I mean our morality, what we have come to understand by the term.

They're not animals; they're humans you disagree with.

They're animals that'll kill you simply because of where you live.

....so let them lose their souls.

How does being completely deranged, murderous, severely dangerous to society as a whole and a grave risk to the benefit of the evolution of mankind, in any way, prevent someone of being a human (which they are by biological fact)?

I like the somewhat contradictory notion of animals having souls to lose, though.

What makes you so sure that animals such as dogs or cats do NOT have souls?



Animal : A person who behaves in a bestial or brutish manner. Someone who behaves in a rough uncivilized way.


I'd say that a terrorist fits the above definitions.

Wow, we're so off-topic and onto a discussion that's as dead-end bound as "Do we live by free will or fate?"

But still a person.

Then don't participate. As the boss of these boards says, if you don't like a topic or a discussion, then just move on.

OK, fair enough.

I vote animal.

Whether animals have souls or not I don't know; I don't care, actually.

I don't think humans and animals are mutually exclusive terms. Humans are by fact animals, though we have morality and self-consciousness to set us apart.

And, for what it's worth, I can be very bestial and brutish at times. I need to be, at certain times; it's a social and evolutionary necessity.

Talk of "categorically evil" or "categorically good" tires me, and disappoints me. There's absolutely no contextual relativity taken into account at all with this condemnation of terrorists.

Don Andrew, perhaps you would like to elaborate a bit more about a terrorist still being a person.

If that's what the ladies like, then go for it!

All this talk of killing...I'm sure if we just talked to them that would solve all of our problems right? I mean after all, they ARE intelligent human beings. We could just sit down and explain that we have different religious views than them and that we can all live in peace and harmony. I really think that would work. We could create a council with representatives from each country to get together and Unite every Nation under this council. Then we can have some kind of a peace keeping corp, say the Every Nation United Peace Keeping Force go in and try and talk to these terrorists, sorry, human beings and straighten everything out. I think I'm onto something here, I think this will work much better than blowing their focken brains out.

Actually, I disagree with that quoted definition of an animal; as if living biological entities can be summed in a sentence (human sentence, not dog or cat sentence); it's very absurd, to me.

So, a lionness is brutish and bestial, but what of her motherly qualities? Bringing up her young cubs? Haven't you seen on Wildlife shows where an animal mourns the loss of a relative?

I seem to be missing a point, here.

In fact, I know I have.

In the definition you posted, it's a person who behaves in a brutish or bestial manner. Despite the fact that they behave in a brutish or bestial manner, they're still people. Not good people, I'm not defending the terroritsts, but still people.

I've not in any way in this thread disputed what SC and DC have propositioned as regards a solution to the problem that is terrorism.

Terrorism is a problem, which needs to be dealt with (though it's no different to other forms of terrorism which have occurred and gone on for centuries; now it just happens to be global and/or affecting the most powerful nations on Earth).

No, I entered this thread, and remain in it, to dispute the complete lack of acknowledgment that these people are human beings, by literary and biological definition.

What you're saying is this:

"Human. Terrorist. You can either be one or the other."

It's a proposition which, like I said, shows an utter disregard for contextual relativity.

That's because Capo, you are taking things in the literal sense.

If it makes you feel better, I'll rephrase my reference to terrorists by saying that they ACT like animals.

Is that better now?

Terrorists ARE people.

Just absolutely evil psychotic, homicidal religious fuckhead maniac people.

Capo, I don't think anyone here is saying that your DNA changes when you become a terrorist. I think the point that some are trying to make is that you do not TREAT a terrorist the same way you would another person. This argument or whatever you want to call it has no bearing if you are staying in here to discuss DNA.

....who deserve to be shot on site when caught in the act of committing a terrorist act. These guys that were caught in this airport attack? They should be shot in the head with a nail gun and removed from society.

You know what, lets just end this quickly. Are terrorists human? Human comes from the word "humane" meaning : characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed: humane treatment of horses.

To quote My Cousin Vinnie: "I'm done with dis one"

You really want to stop global terrorism from spreading? You drop a bomb on ANY country that is INTENTIONALLY harboring or aiding any terrorist organization. End of story.

Bye Bye Saudia Arabia. Bye Bye Pakistan.

You said DNA. I didn't.

Yeah, that makes more sense to me.

And sorry, I was under the illusion that all of you were taking things literally. (I mean that phrase - and because I must explain what I mean by things is evidence enough of my not taking terms and definitions for granted - in the sense that they're not taken into account with their context, they're just thrown around as popular buzzphrases; like "if you do this you must be evil!!!!")


Evil by your definition, of course; but I'm sure you know that.

I'd prefer the following sentence: "Terrorists are evolutionally harmful to the human race, and are a malicious threat to the requirements of a society beneficial to the evolution of the human race."

But that's evolutionary talk, which belongs in the "off-limits" section of the board, along with DNA, the Bing Bang, relative dictionaries and notions of a Chocolate Jesus.

You just said "biological definition".....is there something else that makes up humans that isn't DNA? The "biological definition" of a horse is not the same as a human....

So be it.

And I'm sure that you can add a couple of more scumbag countries that are INTENTIONALLY harboring and aiding the terrorists. Fuck em. Blow em off the face of the earth. You'll see how fast some of these other countries will make an about face if we were to make an example out of a few of these other terrorist nations.

Evolution is scientifically proven...as much as Atoms.

The Vatican actually doesn't have any religious problem with it. Why should the rest of us?

As to whay Capo typed, biology don't define people. Actions do.

My point DC is that if Bush tolerates them, why not you?

Fact is, we're fucked by those two. We critically need them like a running back needs offensive lineman deep in enemy territory, and yet I am absolutely sure both governments have one foot on America's side, taking gladly its financial and military aid...and the other foot with the terrorists.

Either way, we're the rimjob.

I was always under the (perhaps wrongful) impression that humane was an adjective stemming from, or befitting, the noun that is human. Humane is "of humanity, having human-like qualities". It wasn't the other way round, surely.

Humans are blank slates. They are not at birth any morally superior or inferior to you or I. They don't know shit. If you don't tell someone their whole life about God, they won't become religious, they won't believe in God. If you kept someone in a room all their life, they have no reason to suspect that this is any different to everyone else's life.

I'm going to wait for Capo to prove his point and then send me and DC a certified letter on which sources we can use to prove him wrong. I'll allow him to edit the letter as he sees fit as well.

We can't talk Biology and we can't talk definitions in proving what is or is not human.....I might have to go get stoned to finish this conversation then

The word Humane came first though

But humans are born with basic characterists, expressions and feelings, these are scientifically proven. When a person dies humans feel for them, whether they lived in a box their whole life or not. What you are saying is that in someway those characteristics are taken away from them.....in which case then they wouldn't be considered humane

Edit: will be right back, have a phone call, just incase I can't answer soon.

And that's why we need to take out the families of terrorists BEFORE they are taught to grow up and kill us. If you attack the cancer at an early stage, you have a much better chance of preventing it from spreading and destroying you.

Fair point. But to get from this that I am discussing DNA is a tad reductive to what I'm saying, no?

I'm hardly discussing DNA. Read what I said again:

I'm here to dispute the complete lack of acknowledgment that these people are human beings. I made reference to "biological definition" so to elaborate upon what I said.

Human beings who deserve to be slaughtered.

No argument there.

The only way to stop them from killing US is to kill them, and I'd much rather they die than me.

That's an entirely different debate altogether, one I know you're passionate about, so I'll let a sleeping dog lie. I don't see how a back-and-forth debate over whether or not these people deserve to die, and who has the power to decide and by which rules they do that, could be beneficial to either of us.

But at least you're not justifying their slaughter on the grounds that they are "not human" anymore.

That's the entire reason why I was in this thread. I found it absurd and amusing that "humane" in the definition DMC gave implied a sympathy or affection towards animals, and that DC, with whom DMC agreed, was justifying their death based on the notion that they were "animals".

Fair enough. But as I said, not animals in the literal sense. In truth, I think that some animals have more humane traits than these terrorists do.

I agree with you there.

The difference being Capo, is that Don Cardi did not say kill these terrorists because they are Muslim, or because they eat green tea leaves, we are saying kill them before they kill OTHER INNOCENT PEOPLE. They on the other hand have no compassion for anyone. We are saying kill them out of compassion for others. Much different

Ok, after all this back and forth debate, and all the different feelings about terrorists and what they stand for, I'm going to put a general 2 part question out here:

How do you think global terrorisim should be dealt with and what should be done to any terrorist caught on site, in the act?

Where did all of that come from? I wasn't disputing any of that. Anyway, end of debate.

I. Far too complex an issue to answer, for me. Give me a gun, and I would drop it, not in defence of terrorist, but in defence of my right not to shoot - or, more importantly, not to shoot someone whose culture I am alien to, whose political belief I cannot even begin to comprehend.

II. If a terrorist is caught in the act of terrorism, he or she should be prevented from carrying out the act further. If that means incapacitation equals a bullet in the head, then so be it, I wouldn't be against that at all.

In life, I believe in, before anything else, The Individual. I hate people who eat and talk in the cinema, not because I don't eat and talk in the cinema, but because in exercising their right to do so, they are intruding upon my right to watch the film without distraction. People's rights should never intrude upon those of others. And I think acts of terrorism intrude upon people's rights to live in a beneficially adapted society.

I don't, however, think terrorists are any worse than some guy who, as an individual with a right to do so (lawful boundaries notwithstanding), makes the conscious decision to smash a bottle against a table in some nightclub and then stab it in another guy's neck. Make of that what you will.

I'll answer pt2 of you're question.
or

Ok, so, we can go off and kill all of our enemies on the basis that we don't agree with them or their ideas... But then doesn't that, by definition, make us terrorists?

I was answering DC's pt2 question:

And I was questioning that response.

If we were to kill off an entire grouping of people, kill their families, friends, and anyone who will associate with them, IE killing them only for their beliefs and affiliations... Aren't we doing EXACTLY what they're doing?

If you honestly think we should go about the problem by just killing anyone who dare oppose us, then you're no better.

We're at war; make no mistake about that. When you're at war you fight to win.... fuck playing nicely.

I'm not suggesting we kill anybody that opposes us. Thats plain ridiculous. I say we kill those who terrorize us through these cowardly acts. BIG difference.

If you really feel murder is the way to go about the problem, at least kill them with some dignity.

The entire idea of war is fucked, stupid, ridiculous, asinine, and contradicting, though.

LLC - You've managed to inject your feelings in response to what some others have posted, which is fine.

However, you've avoided giving a direct answer two the 2 questions that I've presented.

Would you care to give us an answer to those questions by sharing with us how YOU think global terrorism should be dealt with and what YOU think should be done when a terrorist is caught on site, commiting an act of terrorism?

maybe we should blow ourselves up to kill them

I really hope that dignity part was a joke and you forgot the wink at the end.

DMC -

How do you propose that we handle both scenerios that I presented in my post above?

Are you for real?? Why should we show these inhumane animals any dignity? Do they show any of they're victims the slightest ounce of dignity? Hell no they don't. Eye for an eye buddy

No I agree with LLC here. We should be honored when we blow away a terrorist. It's a noble thing to eradicate a terrorist. When we kill a terrorist it shows poise and self respect. The killing of a terrorist elevates our character. It's good for our self esteem. It would be beneath us to let them live.

I believe in an eye for an eye.But i also do take into account,that they are brainwashed by extremists muslims.They think they're doing Gods will also.Its horrible and it is inhumane.I feel lucky that my country hasn't had to go through the pain your countries have.But all im saying is remember that they THINK there doing there gods work.As for shooting them on the spot,when caught in the act,i disagree.Lock them up for life!!!They want to be killed during their missions so they can die as martyrs!!!So by locking them up for the rest of their lives, i believe that would be torture for them.

The only problem with locking them up is you run the chance of a liberal judge looking to make a name for himself and let this *&^% out of prison. Like I said before this is a sad scary world.

I don't think a "liberal" judge would release a terrorist from prison to "make a name for himself." People would be outraged, and he'd have to have a pretty damn good reason for doing it.

I agree, locking them up for life is the answer.

Or you could always just give the "animals" what they want.

Life in prison is a much better deterrant than the death penalty.

I mean, they want to be martyred. Fuck them, why give them what they want?

Not that it is necessarily the same, but we've had "judges" let pedophiles go scot-free despite being previously convicted of molestation, and more than likely to do it again.

And the same goes for those "judges" who let people with four or five DUI/DWI's go forth and drive.

Or they get out on a technicality.

Shoot 'em or put 'em in jail they will get there's when they meet the God I worship.

So, basically, because the judicial system is inadequate, we should act outside it?

It seems the said system, if terrorists can slip through it once they have been caught, is in much need of revision, if our only solution is to become outlaws.

Note: I am not necessarily against become outlaws.

Common sense rules.

I'm trying Don A, I'm trying.

I already answered that, way back on page one. You arrest them, put them on trial--and if they are indeed caught in the act, they will most definitely be found guilty--and sentence them to life. Murder will do nothing but encourage them all the more to despise us; in fact, it is stupid theories and ideas such as your whole murder spiel that cause America to rub people the wrong way.

Now, unless there are two other questions I'm missing (I skipped out on alot of page 3, because I know for the most part, it'll be post after post of violent nonsense), I think that should answer what you've posed.

I think some of these brown looking fellows just need a good cuddle.

Come on! I'm in page three! How can it be violent?

Oh, and who wants a cuddle?

But you'll blow up on impact once you hug them

Then at least I'd die a humane fellow.

Or terrorist sympathiser.

Yes Capo, I agree. Give these brown Muslim fellows a cuddle and some heterosexual sex with a clean, hairless female, and they just may want to live less violent lives.

If nothing else, I forgot to put a rolling-eye icon at the end.

What gives them the right to kill?

What gives us the right to kill?

We're all human beings, no one is better than anyone else, and the sooner people start to comprehend that, the sooner we can REALLY begin to take care of the "issue" of terrorism. It's a self-prolonged issue. It all stems from a whole bunch of rubbish pertaining to elitism. Of course, we'd never actually admit that it is elitism... but that is indeed what it is. We prefer to call it "patriotism" or "nationalism," but it's all a bunch of elitism, nativist, almost fascist, bullshit that can be summed up amongst the likes of "fuck you, I'm better than you." That's the ideology behind a terrorist, and apparently, that's the ideology behind a "counter-terrorist."

"Counter-Terrorist"... There's and interesting term that I've yet to really dissect, but let's have a go at it, shall we? Terrorist, as in terrorism, and counter, as in counteract. It would seem we are counteracting with terrorism, by committing our own acts of terrorism against the terror-originators. It's a fine line, isn't it? If terrorism is immoral, does that make counter-terrorism moral? Can morality even become a relevant concept in war?



Who jurisdicts who is and is not an "animal" ? You? I? So, let's assume they are indeed "animals." Do we stoop to their level, and therefore become "animals."

If they are animals, and we go about murdering at site, then we've become a pack of dumb beasts.



That is the biggest crock of elitist, fascist bullshit I've ever heard. We should be honored? No one should feel honor when they take another life. If you are telling me that you would feel honored in putting a gun to the temple of another lifeform, friend or foe, and feel honor when you pull the trigger and take its life, you are very damaged. Men should never honored when they have to employ murder to settle their differences, but unfortunately, as long as there are dense minds in the world, we're going to continue to rely on violence and murder.

For gods sake, this is supposed to be "the land of the free" not the fucking Planet of the Apes.



I spent minute after minute trying to find "*&^%" in the dictionary, but I keep pulling a blank. So, I'm going to respond to the body of text surrounding it...

I don't think liberal judges, as you put it, are out there going around freeing terrorists. Can you please find a case that follows the criteria we are discussing, in which any terrorists have been set free?

Please find documentary evidence of a case that follows the following criteria:

-Terrorists caught in the act of committing terrorism
-Leftist or liberal judge
-Suspects equitted of all charges

Then we'll talk.



Did you just compare flying an aircraft into a building or driving a flaming truck into an occupied terminal to having sex with boys and driving drunk?

Oh, Big J, you clever linguist! You're a pile of thematic gold!

You've been known to incorporate some blows into our cuddle sessions.

You've also been known to incorporate some hitting.






Oooooooooooooooooh!!!! Oral sex jokes!!!!

Were they really wearing NASCAR hats?

Now let's stay on topic here and try to stay away from the personal insults. Let's try to keep away from having ANOTHER topic that is being debated closed. OK?

It is? YOU used the term DIGNITY, I didn't. So perhaps you should be a bit more careful in selecting the words that you use in your posts. Or at least be sure of their definitions before using them.

Take me to the America, GI, Clark Gable, hey...

Give them what they want so that they can no longer commit acts of terrorism against humanity. We'll just grant them their wishes without allowing them to take massive amounts of human lives.

Then common sense will rule.

You and I have very different definitions of "dignity."

Then please look it up in a dictionary.

Fine, I'll pervert the topic by humoring you.

[quote]dig·ni·ty 1. The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect.[/b]

Now, this would be one definition of the world. Probably the most clerical definition of the word, and certainly the one I was implying.

Would you say you're worthy of esteem or respect in gaining some sort of emotional benefit in ending another human life? Are you worth respect if you honestly find joy in killing a human being? Not in the least.

We could continue this, but it's sort of pointless to manipulate your opponents words when you've been out-witted.

[quote=long_lost_corleone]Fine, I'll pervert the topic by humoring you.



If you feel that you've outwitted me, and it makes you feel better, then good for you. I'm not in this to see who can outwit who, etc. Just really in this to have a good, respectful and non-personal debate is all.


As for perverting the topic by humoring me, you humor me everytime you make a post on these boards.

...and I mean that in a complimentary way.

Six of the eight terrorists arrested in this regard are doctors!

How the hell did this happen?? These guys are supposed to be dedicated to saving lives, not destroying them.

Man arrested in Glasgow terror attack is Iraqi doctor

LONDON (AP) - One of the men arrested in connection with the failed weekend attack on Glasgow airport has been identified as an Iraqi doctor, police said Monday.

Officials confirmed that one man arrested in Glasgow is Bilal Abdulla, identified in television reports as an Iraqi doctor.

A second man arrested late Saturday on a highway in central England was identified as Mohammed Jamil Abdelqader Asha, a police official said.

According to the British General Medical Council's register, a man named Bilal Talal Abdul Samad Abdulla was registered in 2004 and trained in Baghdad.

The register also lists Asha as having trained in Jordan, gaining a medical degree in 2004.

A man answering the telephone at the Iraqi Embassy said he was not authorized to make any comment about Abdulla's arrest.

-------------------------------------------------------

Now let's not racial profile. It's not fair. We have to have some dignity and we must play nice with these people you know. After all they are human beings. Oh, and these men are doctors so we must show them the proper respect. We need to show some comapssion for them because after all they are only doing this because they want to serve their God. We need to try and understand them and coddle them and talk to them and maybe we can make them realize that what they are doing is not nice. So let's be nice to them and maybe they'll just go away and leave us alone.

I love you, you sarcastic bastard.

MOI?

So much for the hippocratic oath.

Now this is a beautiful sight!

A video grab image shows dead Islamic Terrorists lying in the street

That doesn't honestly please you, does it? I mean...

A.) That doesn't take care of the problem, not in the least. You think statistics are dropping because of that?

B.) That's the same as looking at a picture of dead American G.I. Lives are lost, it doesn't matter who they were, lives are lost.

Oh, wow..

It absolutely does! It warms the cockles of my heart!



Are you comparing an American GI to a terrorist? Are you saying that they are really the same? Saying that the life of a terrorist is as valuable as the life of an American GI?

You "oh wowing" on the picture that I posted? Or on LLC's avatar?

Definitely the picture that you posted.

I would never applaud a street full of carcasses, human or animal, as you all suggest that they are.

How do you know they are "Islamic Terrorists?" Did OUR GOVERNMENT tell you that? And you believed that story?

No, I am comparing a human life to a human life. It's a sad thing when lives have to be spared for something as pointless and utterly primal as war. A pile of dead bodies, despite who comprises that pile, just shouldn't bring joy to someone's heart. And I really can't understand it bringing joy to anyone's heart. Well, maybe Hitler's heart, but that's about it.



That's the kind of thing just bothers me. It's this elitist position that's held with in America and it's politics that really unnerves me, because anytime a country holds itself and its people as SUPERIOR to another people... Well, I really don't have to remind you what happens then. I'm sure I could just direct you to some genocide archives.

But, now that I bring superiority up, how different are we? They generally think they are better than us, and we generally think we're better than they are. And, they generally seem to hate us, and judging from your posts and the posts of several other, we generally seem to hate them.

Oh, Ok. Just wanted to be sure.

You comparing me to Hilter now?

And let's not even compare the two. The picture you posted demonstrates the end of human life, in mass.

My avatar demonstrates an act that hold no real significance. It has only been created by the mind to infer it holds some sort of relevancy. I don't burn flags. I never have. I don't see the point in it. But it's all indifferent. People fool themselves into thinking nationality and flags matter. They don't. The flag is a piece of cloth. A fucking piece of cloth. It's not like the constitution is being burned... Rights aren't being threatened. In fact, they're being exercised. People seem to have this problem where they assign everyone a flag, and everyone is thrown into classifications and groups... It doesn't fucking matter. We're all people. Fuck flags.

There is no such thing as a superior country. Just a successful country.

Nope. He's just the only person I would expect/understand to find joy in a pile of corpses.

Mine too *salute*

Then Nazi's, who represented the ending of millions of human lives, felt just as you do about desicrating the American Flag.



Funny thing is that I defended you for your avatar over in the other thread!

Just out of curiosity, if the avatar demonstrates something of no significance why'd you pick it as something to represent yourself?

This is all just too much.

LLC -

Just as I defend your right to display and enjoy a picture of a burning American flag, I have the same right to enjoy and display a picture of dead terrorists.

I mean after all, a person's right is a person's right. Right?

Come on people. If LLC wants his avatar let him have it, just don't give it the attention you are giving.

I agree, Bogey.

Hate is hate.

The Nazi's are fools. Additionally, they're just as confused as the people who hold pride in the American flag, because they think desecrating it will actually do something. Like I said earlier, I don't burn flags, and I don't plan to. I just don't see the point in desecrating something that doesn't even hold any real relevancy.



Imagine my confusion when you decided to bring it up here!



Well, (and I say this in all seriousness and respect) if I'm indifferent towards the flag, what represents my indifference more so than the image of a burning flag?

And a person's life is a person's life. Right?

Yet you totally avoided my question to you in regards to my having the same right to post a picture that I like as you do to post one that you like.

Do you deny that I have that right?

OK, I still don't understand. Maybe I'm dense but it seems to me that if you're indifferent to something it means you have no real interest in it. I just don't understand why you'd pick something that you have no interest in, one way or another, as the subject of your avatar.

Maybe I'm wrong, but our avatars represent a subject in which we have an interest (whether it be a movie star, a sports idol, etc.).

Well, you certainly have the right to post it. However, the two are incomparable. After all, the burning of the flag is protected in the constitution. Where, exactly, does the constitution commend murder?

Not to mention, we seem to be completely ignoring the preamble.

Of course you have the right to post that picture. No one is debating that. The only conflict is the enjoyment of the picture.

Then I've made my point.

How about a nice naked lady avatar?

My treat.

Again, you have the right to post it. The only conflict people have is the enjoyment of a pic of human carcassas. The right to post it and then the enjoyment of it are two different things.

Don't worry, I understand where you're coming from. It's not easy to comprehend my use of the image. It is, partly, I think, my strong dislike for rednecks--in otherwise, the stereotyped social mold that we believe to be patriotic flag-wavers. And, let's face it... Rednecks seem to be America personified.

I'm still confused by your choice of avatar but its not important. Like I said, I was just curious.

No, I don't think so. DA's last post pretty much says it best. We're not turned off by your right to post the picture. Just the fact that you find such vast enjoyment in it. It's kind of unnerving to think a man would actually wish dismay upon another man.

And again, your right to post it doesn't really have much to do with it. You could be posting the picture and include a caption like "The sad effects of war" or even something much more central like "Islamic Terrorists Lay Dead" and that'd be find, and you'd still be exercising your right. Just, the fact that you actually enjoy looking at it, that's a bit scary and unusual. And that has absolutely nothing to do with your own, personal, constitutional rights.

The conflict is within yourself.

It's a conflict because YOU don't agree with what someone else enjoys. And only you have the right to challenge it because it's within your civil rights.

But if you agree with the content of something that you enjoy, then others don't have that same right to challenge you.



Typical of those who are always quoting the constitution and their rights when they want to advocate their beliefs. But as soon as someone else, who you may not agree with, advocates their own beliefs under those same civil rights, they are wrong.

You've really helped me make my point here Don Andrew. Thanks so much!

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from, completely. Don't worry about it.

But no dislike for terrorists!

Those who cure you are going to kill you

Your civil rights have NOTHING to do with this. This is about another persons HUMAN RIGHTS. They're dead, and that's a shame that a few human lives had to be wasted like that, just so we can have a stupid, ignorant, bullshit war that is accomplishing absolutely nothing, and being used to distill fear upon both parties.

It just upsets me that you find pleasure in someone else's demise. It's not right.

I have more to say, but I've temporarily lost my train of thought.

Yes I read about that too Mig. They might want to blow you and your family up, but let's not forget that they're human beings, so we should still treat them kindly.

Point really made now!

You and Don Andrew are doing a great job on my behalf!

ThankS!

I know you're just kidding, but I'm about as far as terrorists are concerned, I wouldn't say I hate them. I don't like them either. It's very sad that someone would have to retort their own dislike for something into violence. That's my one problem with terrorists, and that's my one problem with any army, despite nationality.

Both the terrorists and counter-terrorist militaries are just causing one giant step backwards.

I'm done with this bullshit.

Thats some scary shit. Doctors, people who are supposed to be SAVING lives, are dedicated to TAKING lives.

Politics aside, these men are supposed to have dedicated themselves to helping their fellow man... in fact, they are hiding behind that pledge and have dedicated themselves to killing their fellow man. FUCK THEM AND THE CAMELS THEY RODE IN ON!

Hey Rednecks are human beings to LLC

I don't even think there is a point to be made here. At no point did we deny that you have the right to post that picture, and you know that. Your right to post the picture is not the issue, although you are attempting to make it the issue.

The issue at hand, and I know that you are an intelligent person so I know that you are very well aware of it, whether you admit it or not, is that you are finding pleasure in murder and violence, and that is very unhealthy, cruel, and unnecessary. You and I seldom agree, there is no doubt there. But I would never find pleasure in your dismay. And, it's safe to say you 100% disagree with Islamic terrorists, but I can't understand why you'd actually find pleasure in their deaths.

I can understand the media hinting that we should find pleasure in their deaths, but I can't understand anyone honestly believing that we should find this pleasure.

Let's not over-estimate them.

But, in all seriousness, I don't think I would get excited over a picture of a bunch of dead, bleeding rednecks.

Ahhh ahh ahhh! You don't have the right to talk like that now SC. They are human beings.

Well you just responed to a redneck's post. And BTW I was Plaw's favorite.

This sounds like a Bushism.

LLC, I believe that we as Americans have the right to protest, and that part of that protest may be the right to burn the flag of our country. Like you, I also can't imagine myself burning a flag, but I do believe in somebody else's right to do so.

However, I must disagree with your concept of the flag. The flag is a SYMBOL. It is a symbol of all those rights that we are so proud of, and, if you are proud to be American (and with all its bad and good, I do believe that it's the greatest country in the world), then it's a symbol of what you are proud of.

As for some lives being worth more than others, I don't think that's what DC is trying to say (and please forgive me for speaking for you, DC, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but the soldiers are carrying out a duty, a duty that many have resisted. And whether you agree with this government or not, they are fighting for our freedom, and they should be respected and honored. On the other hand, the terrorists are set out to destroy, not to uphold. As such, they put themselves in the path of destruction. If they are to be killed before they kill, then such is their fate for choosing the path that they have.

This reminds me of an excellent speech Edward Norton gives to himself in 25th Hour.

It reminds me of the kid from A CHRISTMAS STORY - "Ah, fuuuudge."

Except he didn't say fudge.

PB- Do you own a leg lamp?

Now seriously, the "Americana" portrayed in A CHRISTMAS STORY is something I envy, that I almost feel I missed out on, being a second generation city boy.

That's America to me.

It's imported from Italy. It says Fra-Gile on the box!

it shouldn't surprise any of us. they have a history of establishing themselves as pros in their communities and getting good educations. some of the 9/11 hijackers were engineers.

NYC, Yes, I would imagine that would be part of their cover, to establish themselves in good jobs, since we do have a bias towards the educated, not thinking of them as "criminal types". Therefore, they could probably go about their business, plotting their nefarious plans, and doing so under the radar.

You're both correct. A few years back they released parts of the Al Qaeda training manuals for the public to see and I distinctly remember it stating that a Jihadist should establish himself as a pillar in the community, as a professional, a businessman, so as not to stick out but instead be respected by those who live around you. These people are like moles. Patient ones too. How many of them, did we later find out, had embedded themselves in their communities for 15 - 20 years before carrying out or attempting to carry out some sort of attack? And the response from others is the community is always shock and disbelief :

"No, not him. He was a good man who worked hard and had a business for so many years here."

It's the MO.

That's like those interviews they do with the neighbors of serial killers: "But he was such a quiet man. I couldn't believe it when I heard the news."

It's amazing how we really never know what goes on behind the closed doors of a house. I mean, if you lived in a small, suburban community, and your neighbor is a doctor from another country....wait a minute, that is my life!!!

Yes you never know. I remember upon returning to work on Sept.17th 2001. You already know the situation of my building being the only civilians back in the area.

Well anyway one of the policeman I got to know who was stationed outside of our building shared a story with some of us about a student in a Brooklyn High School who made a statement to his class a week before the attacks. He told me "you'll be reading about it in a few months."

Well here is THAT STORY and SOME OTHERS

You just never know.

Amazing. Well, you know the story of our flight home from Rome. Although my husband reported it, and we were never contacted by anyone in law enforcement, I can't shake the knowledge that it was one of the bombers taking a practice run. I don't care what anyone tells me, you could never forget those eyes.

Sleeper agents, I think they're called. They used to be termed "sleepers" in the Cold War, anyway. Somebody would infiltrate a certain ring (say, back then, a KGB agent working in the CIA), and actually live as part of that ring, actually become it, until one day they'd be notified of what they had rehearsed years and years before.

It takes a lot of determination and patience to be one, I imagine. I know I could never be one.

I agree Mick. It really does. And these people are very patient and determined. Heck they tried blowing up the WTC in 1994 and failed. Ramsey Yusef, one of the plotters was caught. And when the FBI agent told him that he failed, Yusef turned to him and said "Next time they will come down."

8 years later they did. They were patient. That is why it is my feeling that we should never let our guard down. This raising the alert levels and lowering them and raisng them again is ridiculous. We should ALWAYS be on alert, period.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

True. It's very sad that circumstances have made us live like this but it's a very sobering reality. We can't ever let our guard down.

It is sad.

To chip in on last night's argument, which I missed, I also think it's a very sad state of affairs when anybody has to rejoice the death of any human being. I'm not saying at all that we shouldn't be killing these people, but because we are, it makes me no less sad or angry. Whether that's because I value a terrorist I don't know as little or as much as I value a civilian I don't know, or because I think that killing two terrorists isn't stopping our problem, I don't know.

I agree, but I think "ALWAYS" should define a spatial (racial?) scope as much as it does a temporal one. Which is why racial profiling may be an immediate and perhaps necessary response, but on ethical and practical terms, hardly a long-term prospect. You said yourself that it wouldn't necessarily stop terrorists in the long term.

When I made that post that you've just quoted, the thought of race or racial profiling never even crossed my mind. I was speaking in general terms.

Who knows, the next phase of terrorists could be Italians from Italy, or Asians from China for all we know.

No, I didn't expect that it had. But would you agree that "always" should extend beyond concerns of time and also include the immediate scope of the possible problem?

I would.

As I said we never know where the next phase of terrorists will come from. Right now, in the present, Islamic Jihad has been decalared on us, the major attacks have been carried out by Islamic Middle Eastern Extremists, so it's only common sense to pay close attention to those of that race and religion.

Wouldn't you agree with that?

However that does NOT mean that we should TOTALLY focus on those from that race or religion. We should never rule out that terrorism from other races or religions can strike us at any time.

I work in a Hospital and at least half of the Doctors are of Middle Eastern or Asian persuasion....
Who can you trust?
I'm watching them all

For all we know Osama could be in the US. right now plotting with his terrorists buddies living here.

ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE THESE DAYS.

Very true Mig!
Sad and strange times we are living in eh?

I saw Osama yesterday in the supermarket. He was buying tampons.

He was'nt in Kwik Save on the High Street was he?

Home Bargains at the bottom of Jackson Street.

I should have enquired if he and his fellow radicals had plans of demolishing Gateshead High Street...

Well they are getting rid off the famous old car park are they not so he could do them a deal there eh?

Yeah
Like this one



I've just read all 7 pages of this thread, and I must compliment you all, it has been both amusing and interesting reading material.

Man, I wish I had his arms.

I thought he only shopped in 7-Eleven!

I thought he would have been buying diapers...

Nah, diapers don't stop the bleeding.

That is true, ALTHOUGH diapers may come in handy when these terrorists realize that THEY are the 72 virgins

YES. I saw that over on the political boards. I'd hoped you would post it here someday.

Where are the political boards?

There are many of them all over the internet.

Forget it.

It was forgotten before you posted forget it!

Obviously not, since you posted it was forgotten before it was posted to forget it!

What the fuck.

uber lolz, DMC!

If thats "uber lolz" then whats this picture, which just warms my heart:



MISSION FAILED JACKASS

Maybe we should rename this topic :

What We Look Like II (terrorist photo album)

too bad theres no before to compare it to lol

That second picture is absolutely gorgeous. I want to lick his brains and then eat them with a shiny spoon.

So yeah, that first pic you posted was "uber lolz", the second one is "goodness, has anybody got a spoon?"

CHUCK.......



WOULD DEFINITELY KICK HIS........



....ASS!

Yeah, via this:

Chuck Norris is a little queer in comparison to the man...Paul Kersey!

No fucking way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, way. Walker couldn't even hold a magnum, let alone use it - it weighs more than he does. Kersey is infinitely better.

Norris doesn't need magnums! He roundhouse kicks his way to victory.

Anyway, John Clark and Ding Chavez would kick both their asses in a tag team.

YESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

And then Jack Ryan can pardon them in the inevitable "excessive use of force" proceedings.