Do you see the AP informing us that these terrorists are Muslim or Islomic?


By IAN STEWART


GLASGOW, Scotland (AP) - A Jeep Cherokee trailing a cascade of flames rammed into Glasgow airport on Saturday, shattering glass doors just yards from passengers at the check-in counters. Police said they believed the attack was linked to two car bombs found in London the day before.

Britain raised its terror alert to "critical" - the highest possible level - and the Bush administration announced plans to increase security at airports and on mass transit.

Five bystanders were wounded, though none seriously, police said.

One of the men in the car was in critical condition at a hospital with severe burns, while the other was in police custody, said Scottish Police Chief Constable Willie Rae. He said a "suspect device" was found on the man 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. British security officials said evidence pointed toward the Glasgow attack being a suicide mission.

"I can confirm that 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."

Police foiled the plot Friday after two cars were found in central London packed with explosives - one outside a nightclub near Piccadilly Circus and another parked nearby.

A British government security official said the methods used in the airport attack and Friday's thwarted plots were similar, with all three vehicles carrying large quantities of flammable materials.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.


(AP) Passengers make their way from Glasgow Airport Saturday, June 30, 2007. Two men tried to ram a jeep...
Full Image


Police and MI5 had no specific intelligence warning of a plan to attack Scotland, but they have monitored a host of suspected terrorists and plots there, he said. It was not yet clear whether there was an international element to the planning or funding of the attacks, the official said.

The new terror threat presents Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a Scot who took office on Wednesday, with an enormous challenge and comes at a time of already heightened vigilance one week before the anniversary of the July 7 London transit attacks, which killed 52 people.

"I know that the British people will stand together, united, resolute and strong," Brown said Saturday in a televised statement.

President 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.

The green Jeep barreled toward Glasgow's main airport terminal shortly after 3 p.m. Leeson said bollards - security posts outside the entrance - stopped the driver from driving into the bustling terminal, but the nose of the vehicle smashed the glass doors.


(AP) Police take control at Glasgow Airport Saturday, June 30, 2007. Two men tried to ram a jeep with...
Full Image


"If he'd got through, he'd have killed hundreds, obviously," he said.

AP photographs from the scene showed the car hit the building at an angle and was poking into the terminal. The Jeep struck the building directly in front of check-in counters, where dozens of passengers were lined up, police said.

Lynsey McBean, a witness at the terminal, said the driver kept trying to push the car forward after it got stuck, and "the wheels were spinning and smoke was coming from them."

She said one of the men then took out a plastic gasoline canister and poured a liquid under the car. "He then set light to it," said McBean, 26, from Erskine, Scotland.

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

Witnesses said one of the men was engulfed in flames and spoke "gibberish" as an official used a fire extinguisher to douse the fire.

Glasgow police spokeswoman Elisa Dunn said five bystanders were treated for injuries - one of whom was hospitalized with a leg injury.

The airport was evacuated and all flights suspended. Police said Liverpool Airport and roads around Edinburgh were also closed.

The attack left passengers shaken and stranded on the first day of summer vacation for Glasgow schools. At the time of the crash, the airport was bustling with families heading out on vacation.

Meanwhile in London, police were gathering evidence from closed circuit television footage, as forensics experts searched for clues into the foiled bombings. The two Mercedes cars had been loaded with gasoline, gas canisters and nails in one of the capital's busiest areas on a night when Londoners like to go out and party. Security officials and police denied an ABC News report that they had a "crystal clear" picture of one suspect from CCTV footage.

The vehicles were found abandoned in the early hours of 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 bombers' identities, but terrorism experts said the signs pointed to a cell linked to or inspired by al-Qaida.

One car was abandoned outside the Tiger Tiger nightclub on Haymarket in the heart of London's entertainment district. The other had been towed after being parked illegally on nearby Cockspur Street and was discovered in an impound lot about a mile away in Park Lane, near Hyde Park.

London police said extra officers were being deployed at landmarks, airports, train stations and bus terminals across the capital Sunday, and had been ordered to step up the use of stop and search powers. Armed police would patrol at major rail stations, it said.

At least 450 officers would monitor a rock concert at London's Wembley Stadium on Sunday to mark the 10th anniversary of the death of Princess Diana, police said.

Brown came to office pledging to win back the support of voters disenchanted over the Iraq war. But he backed Tony Blair's decision to send troops to Iraq in 2003 and has shown support for greater anti-terror measures that have angered Britain's some 1.8 million Muslims.

The airport incident carried reminders of a foiled plot in December 1999 to attack Los Angeles International Airport, when customs agents stopped an Algerian-born man in a car packed with 124 of explosives. He was jailed for 22 years and prosecutors said he was intent on bombing the Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070630/D8Q3EDQ80.html

Do you see the AP informing us that these terrorists are Muslim or Islomic?
Is this information terribly important?

Is this information terribly important?


It really isn't..:confused:

Do you see the AP informing us that these terrorists are Muslim or Islomic?At the time the article was written I doubt the AP even knew their names let alone their religion. It's pretty hard to report something you don't know yet. The reporter did, however, tell us what he could; namely this: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. The previous round of terrorist activity in Britain, in July 2005, was largely carried out by local Muslims, raising ethnic tensions in Britain.Once again you have provided a very weak example of 'liberal media bias'. What this really shows is that you see 'bias' everywhere you look, even when it doesn't exist. This makes it difficult for reasonable people to take you seriously.

Yes, Borg, it is terribly important. It is terribly important to know just who is committing these terrorist acts. It is important to know that these acts are being committed by Muslims and not by Atheists, or Christians or Buddhists. It is also important to know that they were of South Asian extraction.

If there is a child molestor in your neighborhood isn't it important to have a faily good identification of that person. The same goes for terrorists. PC bullshit be damned, identify them as what they are.

[QUOTE=sedan]At the time the article was written I doubt the AP even knew their names let alone their religion. QUOTE]

So true! But now even on CNN, they have said over and over again that these men are from Jordan, Iraq, and Pakistan.

SO there is no bias.

It's amazing how much effort people will put into getting themselves pissed off.

SO there is no bias.

There is no tooth fairy but there is definitely a liberal bias in the MSM.

There is no tooth fairy but there is definitely a liberal bias in the MSM.

and YOU proved it! Good job! (sarcasm)

I fully support your right to not know what you are talking about. No sarcasm, just honesty.

I fully support your right to not know what you are talking about. No sarcasm, just honesty.
ok..then prove it. All of the above posts prove that the said article cannot be definitive proof that there is Liberal bias.

The abouve article is only one small twig on a liberal redwood. The liberal bias in the Main Stream Media is obvious to all but the most ideological liberals.

The abouve article is only one small twig on a liberal redwood. The liberal bias in the Main Stream Media is obvious to all but the most ideological liberals.
I'm a libertarian (not a liberal) and I've said for years that the only bias in the media is the bias for profit.

"Liberal Media Bias?"

No. Now STFU.

The abouve article is only one small twig on a liberal redwood. The liberal bias in the Main Stream Media is obvious to all but the most ideological liberals.

Well I'm not a "ideological liberal" and I don't believe there is a liberal bias!

I fully support your right to not know what you are talking about.

That is not unexpected considering your position as poster child for people who don't have a clue what they are talking about. :)

Lets just put our head in the sand, maybe it will all go away!


Yes, Borg, it is terribly important. It is terribly important to know just who is committing these terrorist acts. It is important to know that these acts are being committed by Muslims and not by Atheists, or Christians or Buddhists. It is also important to know that they were of South Asian extraction.

If there is a child molestor in your neighborhood isn't it important to have a faily good identification of that person. The same goes for terrorists. PC bullshit be damned, identify them as what they are.

I do believe many would call you liberal. If he acts like a liberal, and smells like a liberal, he probably is a liberal.


I'm a libertarian (not a liberal) and I've said for years that the only bias in the media is the bias for profit.

Well okay, I see the smiley face behind your post. If that wasn't there I might call you out for being the kettle and calling the pot black.


That is not unexpected considering your position as poster child for people who don't have a clue what they are talking about. :)

Sisko,

I mentally place a smiley face at the end of all of Dharma's postings since I consider them all to be a joke.

Sisko,

I mentally place a smiley face at the end of all of Dharma's postings since I consider them all to be a joke.

Another sign of your ignorance my friend. :thumbs:

In related news, a Muslim group in Britain condemned the recent attacks at a press conference. I bring this up because it's a common accusation that Muslims never condemn acts of terrorism.


British Muslim group condemns car bombings
Tue Jul 3, 9:07 AM ET

Britain's main umbrella group of Muslim organisations on Tuesday strongly condemned the three failed car bomb attacks here, calling for cross-community efforts to tackle the extremist threat.

"Those who seek to deliberately kill or maim innocent people are the enemies of us all," said Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the moderate Muslim Council of Britain.

Speaking at a news conference at the MCB's east London headquarters, Bari said there was "no cause whatsoever" to justify the attempted bomb attacks in central London early Friday and at Glasgow airport on Saturday afternoon.

"Those who engage in such murderous actions and those that provide support for them are the enemies of us all, Muslims and non-Muslims, and they stand against our shared values in the United Kingdom," he added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070703/wl_uk_afp/britainattacksreligion&printer=1;_ylt=Ak4DM0SCryqV0VRrl4EqEyHjOrgF

Ahh, the lack of mention of the terrorists' religious affiliation means there is not only bias in the newstory, but that bias is liberal.

Perfect sense.

:rolleyes:

Here's merely another example.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

This story has been offered to all the major news organizations. Not one has run it. Why? Because to acknowledge that the only way to confront barbarity of this kind is with arms. Such people are immune to liberal invitations of sweetness and kindness. To acknowledge that the only way to deal with such inhumanity is to acknowledge that bush may be right after all.

To contrast this we had the story about 10 days ago of 20 decapitated bodies found in bagdhad. The story, much like the Captain Hussein story was later debunked in its entirety. IOW the media is quite willing to publish stories which promote their agenda and bury ones that don't promote it.

BTW, the conservative media sure has done a good job of burying the libby story haven't they.:rolleyes:

I do believe many would call you liberal. If he acts like a liberal, and smells like a liberal, he probably is a liberal.
I don't really care what people call me. If they call me a liberal, they're wrong. While I believe gay marriage should be legal, I also am appalled to be living in a state (Illinois) with no provision for concealed carry. While I'm generally pro-choice, I think the idea of abolishing income tax and replacing it with a sales tax is a good one, and should be studied more in depth (though not implemented without that study). I'm a libertarian. If you want to call me a liberal, go for it, but you'd be wrong.

I don't really care what people call me. If they call me a liberal, they're wrong. While I believe gay marriage should be legal, I also am appalled to be living in a state (Illinois) with no provision for concealed carry. While I'm generally pro-choice, I think the idea of abolishing income tax and replacing it with a sales tax is a good one, and should be studied more in depth (though not implemented without that study). I'm a libertarian. If you want to call me a liberal, go for it, but you'd be wrong.

So,as a Libertarian,you believe it's time our Country
Re-Invent the definition of " Marriage ".?
Sounds purdy Liberal to me.
Liberal means a Touchy-Feely Progression of Political Correctness
in order to serve a selfish Agenda in the name of Compassion,whilst
affronting others,in the same gesture.
Liberals make about as mush sense as a Firefly going on strike
on the 4th.

So,as a Libertarian,you believe it's time our Country
Re-Invent the definition of " Marriage ".?
Sounds purdy Liberal to me.
Liberal means a Touchy-Feely Progression of Political Correctness
in order to serve a selfish Agenda in the name of Compassion,whilst
affronting others,in the same gesture.
Liberals make about as mush sense as a Firefly going on strike
on the 4th.
Actually, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. I think they should give the term "marriage" back to individual churches, Vegas marriage halls, etc. and let each of them decide whom they're willing to marry. The government should, at most, recognize only civil unions, which can be between man and woman; man and man; woman and woman; man, man, and woman; etc. That's what I would like to see. Everyone would still call the government civil union "marriage", probably.

But as long as the government controls marriage, it has no right to discriminate against gays.

Actually, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. I think they should give the term "marriage" back to individual churches, Vegas marriage halls, etc. and let each of them decide whom they're willing to marry. The government should, at most, recognize only civil unions, which can be between man and woman; man and man; woman and woman; man, man, and woman; etc. That's what I would like to see. Everyone would still call the government civil union "marriage", probably.

But as long as the government controls marriage, it has no right to discriminate against gays.
**************************************
You're not makin a lick of sense.We have Discrimination Laws ON the
books.And since when is ANY Government in the business of Rewriting
the definition of certain Historic words."Marriage" is such a word.
One has to be of a certain age,legally to get married.
Marriage has parameters.One cannot Marry while also married.
Marriage was never intended to apply to other than between a
Man and a Woman.2 males or 2 females cannot Re-invent the
word " marriage " to apply to them.
If we have " Civil Unions " then what's the beef.?
It still will not hold the same authority as Marriage.
Marriage entails many legal qualifiers.Like how to pass inheritance
within a bloodline.The Anna Nicole,Saga.
I realize those beholding to Gay Rights Agenda,want the same
rights that a Marriage affords.That isn't a reasonable request.
Maybe Tenancy is.A Gay couple being denied access to living quarters
by a Landlord,may infringe upon a landlords right to control
their premises for the safety and benefit of others.
Some Tenancy will not allow Pets,or children.
I find Gays to be self-indulgent Creeps/
They care far more for Gays than non-gays.They are the first to
squeamish about those who are homophobic in their behavior.
Aren't Gays,by and large pretty dislking and intolerant
of Non-Gays {heterosexuals}.Yer damn tootin they are.
Just go anywhere a Gay group is assembled and the discussion
usually gets around to Heterosexuals and how awfull Gays find them.
Gays are,as a group,exclusive,not inclusive.In fact,thats basically
what a Gay is.Exclusive.
There I just Proved how Politically Correct an absurdity yer
Liberal leanings are.

You're not makin a lick of sense.We have Discrimination Laws ON the
books.
And the government discriminates against gays presently.
And since when is ANY Government in the business of Rewriting
the definition of certain Historic words. "Marriage" is such a word.
Well, that's why I would like the government to stop using that word, because if you don't want that word changed, then letting the government handle it is inherently a bad idea.
One has to be of a certain age,legally to get married.
Marriage has parameters.One cannot Marry while also married.
Marriage was never intended to apply to other than between a
Man and a Woman.
Is there any reason why that can't change?
2 males or 2 females cannot Re-invent the
word " marriage " to apply to them.
Why not?
If we have " Civil Unions " then what's the beef.?
It still will not hold the same authority as Marriage.
Marriage entails many legal qualifiers.Like how to pass inheritance
within a bloodline.The Anna Nicole,Saga.
Civil unions, granted by the government, should mean the same thing. If the word "marriage" is so sacred and untouchable, why does the government regulate it? It doesn't regulate Christianity, why should it regulate marriage?
I realize those beholding to Gay Rights Agenda,want the same
rights that a Marriage affords.That isn't a reasonable request.
Equal rights aren't a reasonable request? I'll go pass along the message to the past equal rights movements, such as the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement. I'll tell them that they're not "allowed" the same rights, because they belong to an "agenda".
Maybe Tenancy is.A Gay couple being denied access to living quarters
by a Landlord,may infringe upon a landlords right to control
their premises for the safety and benefit of others.
Some Tenancy will not allow Pets,or children.
I agree completely. I think every landlord has the right to say who may rent his property. I think every employer has the right to employ whom he wants, and fire them for any reason. And yes, that means I think that a landlord and employer has the right to deny their services to anyone for any reason, including gay people for being gay, or even black people for being black. Would I rent or work for such a person? Hell no, I'd find them repulsive. But it's their right to do what they want. There is no reason for them to be forced by the government to be fair-minded.
I find Gays to be self-indulgent Creeps
I find gays to be the same as any other group of people, with their own virtuous members and certainly some creeps. There are creepy gay people and there are normal gay people. Same with any other group.
They care far more for Gays than non-gays.
Why would you say that?
They are the first to
squeamish about those who are homophobic in their behavior.
Well duh. Black people are the first to be squeamish when they hear someone say the word "nigger". That's just common sense.
Aren't Gays,by and large pretty dislking and intolerant
of Non-Gays {heterosexuals}.
I don't think so, and I've been around a fair number of gay people. My mom was a lesbian. She took me to gay bars sometimes. I didn't see any intolerance of straights there. Moreover, my best friend is gay, plus a couple other friends and acquaintances of mine. My best friend has mentioned that he finds heterosexual behavior "odd" (and, for what it's worth, I find homosexual behavior a bit difficult to understand, too, but that's because I know my heterosexual response is so ingrained, it's difficult for me to imagine why a man wouldn't be into chicks)...but none of my gay friends have ever badmouthed me for being straight, or tried to "convert" me into being gay. I don't know what kind of gay people you hang around.
Just go anywhere a Gay group is assembled and the discussion
usually gets around to Heterosexuals and how awfull Gays find them.
Do you often frequent discussions among gays? Why is that? :)
Gays are,as a group,exclusive,not inclusive.In fact,thats basically
what a Gay is.Exclusive.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. That those who aren't gay...er, aren't gay? That's pretty obvious. But if you mean that gays have a tendency to withdraw into themselves and avoid straights, I haven't seen that behavior myself. Perhaps that once was...but can you blame them, given that as recently as the 60s, homosexuality was thought to be a mental illness? If someone told you you had a mental illness, or that you were a deviant, a pervert...wouldn't you want to avoid the people who would say that too?
There I just Proved how Politically Correct an absurdity yer
Liberal leanings are.
Or you made yourself look silly. :)

I don't know nor care what exactly yer tryin to push or sell.
You almost act like a Drug dealer who just introduced a new
and very stimulating,affordable Drug,that will certainly bee a hit
on the streets.
Thank GOD,I don't fall prey to that gutter mentality.
I'm interested in the whole of America.
Not just some interest group.
Marriage is and should remain a Traditional Hallmark of a
civilized Society.I don't wanna see it Gummied-up by sappy
Interest Groups,with self-serving Agenda.
Marriage isn't broke,it's just under assualt from shyster lawyers
and those with no interest in Tradition,lest of which wholesome
Americana.
Why on Earth,should I subscribe to any Nouveau Kitsch Ideal
that Mocks what served and made this Land once Great,both in
establishing as The Greatest place to Live,raise kids and prosper,
as well Fighting Wars and Winning for the Good of ALL Mankind.

Why on Earth,should I subscribe to any Nouveau Kitsch Ideal
that Mocks what served and made this Land once Great,both in
establishing as The Greatest place to Live,raise kids and prosper,
as well Fighting Wars and Winning for the Good of ALL Mankind.
Because a stagnant society won't remain the greatest place for anything for long. To keep America great, it needs to continue to evolve.

Because a stagnant society won't remain the greatest place for anything for long. To keep America great, it needs to continue to evolve.

You cannot erase " Marriage " with an Edict.
No matter how irascible The State becomes,under the helm
of a Newly ordained Populist like Hillary.
" Marriage " is Sacrosanct and immutable...Period.
End of Debate.
Now,go smear some Limburger cheese on yer chest,Ford
you further enlarge that pumped-up chest like Mighty Mouse
in the heat of battle.

You cannot erase " Marriage " with an Edict.
No one wants to. It should be open to anyone.