Glasgow Airport terror attack analysis

[SoupDragon]

Mr Soupy might get a tad miffed at being called just a lab technician

the correct term is just a Biomedical Scientist





an email doing the rounds
After the terror attack this is how Glesga folk against yanks handled ....

If this had happened in a US airport, compared to Glasgow

Eyewitness accounts. America:"Oh my God! There was a man on fire, he was running about, i just ran for my life. I thought i was gonna die, he got so close to me"

Glasgow "C*nt wis running aboot on fire, so a ran up n gave him a good boot, then decked him"

America :" I just wanna get home, away from here. I just wanna get home, I thought i was gonna die"

Glasgow :" here shug, am no leaving here till am oan a f*ckin' plane!"

America :" there was pandemonium, people were running in all directions, we didn't know what was happening thought i was gonna die"

Glasgow :"F*ck this fir a kerry oan, moan we ll get a pint in"

America :" We thought he was gonna blow us all up he had a gas canister, and

was trying to get into his trunk, I thought we were gonna die, I just ran for my life"

Glasgow :"a swaggered by the motor that wis on fire, and the dafty couldnae even open his boot, he wis in fire annaw so a ran up n gave him a good boot

to the baws"

America : there was this huge explosion, it sounded like war, I thought i was gonna die"

Glasgow :" There wis a bang, yi know when yi throw BO basher intae a fire it

wis like that"

America :" I'm too traumatized even to speak, I thought i was gonna die"

Glasgow "here mate, gies 2 minutes till a phone ma auld dear, if am gonna be oan the telly a want her tae tape it"

finally, two quotes from an eye-witness.........john smeaton (these are real) John just surpassed himself on the National ITV news. The interviewer asked

"What message do you have for the bombers" - he replied "This is Glasgow we'll just set about you"

John done an interview on cnn and they asked how he restrained the guy and he said "me and other folk were just tryin 2 get the boot in and some other guy banjoed him" ![/b]

[seanie]

'al-Qaeda' puts on big shoes, red nose, takes custard pie

[xxxx]

That article pretty much sums it up

[Porty]

How about this guy

Genuine nail bomb that time

Pretty sure that made all of the popular press. And he was convicted. And it was pre-9/11 and 7/7 which changed the ballgame.

I don't know what it takes for the country to be placed on "critical" but I can't see how you or anyone else can take issue when 3 car bombs are "detected" all in the same weekend, 400+ miles apart. And the police are onto some of them hours before they strike.

[xxxx]

Well that was just in reply to your assertion that the bnp had no form in terrorism.

Why did that atrocity not 'change everything' but the equally atypical but far more mysterious events of 9/11 and 7/7?

How was 'everything changed' anyhow?

[Porty]

Well that was just in reply to your assertion that the bnp had no form in terrorism.

Oh. So how was the article in question relevant?

Why did that atrocity not 'change everything' but the equally atypical but far more mysterious events of 9/11 and 7/7?

How was 'everything changed' anyhow?

Good question, lets hope who ever made this claim will enlighten us.

So is it it your view that the "critical" status of last weekend was unjustified? What effect did it have on you?

[Dadaist]

This is just like the old days. I'm getting nostalgic.

[xxxx]

Well that was just in reply to your assertion that the bnp had no form in terrorism.

Oh. So how was the article in question relevant?

Which article are you talking about? The one I cited concerning bnp member david cromwell's 'successful' bomb attack (as a refutation to your assertion that the bnp had no track record of terrorism) or the one seanie linked to giving a sober, professional's view of the weekend's 'bombs'?

Why did that atrocity not 'change everything' but the equally atypical but far more mysterious events of 9/11 and 7/7?

How was 'everything changed' anyhow?

Good question, lets hope who ever made this claim will enlighten us.

Sorry, I'm so used to hearing that claim, I misread. You said it 'changed the ballgame', but if you're going to be pedantic, explain what the ballgame is, what is was before,what it is now and by what mechanism these events changed it.

So is it it your view that the "critical" status of last weekend was unjustified?

Britain's terrorism threat level has been raised to the highest point of "critical" following a terrorist attack at Glasgow Airport.
Well I don't really see why things go critical after the events, rather than before, makes it seem rather pointless.

What effect did it have on you?

It had no effect on me apart from complete bafflement.

[Pal of Porty]

Why did that atrocity not 'change everything' but the equally atypical but far more mysterious events of 9/11 and 7/7?
How was 'everything changed' anyhow?

Good question, lets hope who ever made this claim will enlighten us.

My understanding is that the claim refers to the fact that people were prepared to kill themselves in their attacks. For example, with regard to the Trade Towers, there was no bomb aboard the plane, the plane itself was used as the bomb by people who were prepared to be martyrs. This differs greatly from say Lockerbie, where a bomb was planted on the plane but the perpertrator was not on the plane.

[Dadaist]

I don't really see why things go critical after the events, rather than before, makes it seem rather pointless.

From a libertarian perspective, they do it to cause fear in the populace so as to better control them and restrict their freedom.

From an authoritarian perspective, they do it because they think there might be other attacks planned to co-incide with the most recent ones.

[xxxx]

My understanding is that the claim refers to the fact that people were prepared to kill themselves in their attacks. For example, with regard to the Trade Towers, there was no bomb aboard the plane, the plane itself was used as the bomb by people who were prepared to be martyrs. This differs greatly from say Lockerbie, where a bomb was planted on the plane but the perpertrator was not on the plane.

Were they the first suicide bombers?
Samuel Byck seemed sincere in his intentions though foiled, why did 'the ballgame' not change after that?
What about the beirut truck bombs (1983 I think)?
Never heard of kamikaze pilots?

[xxxx]

This differs greatly from say Lockerbie, where a bomb was planted on the plane but the perpertrator was not on the plane.

I always wonder where the perpetrator is now.

[Pal of Porty]

This differs greatly from say Lockerbie, where a bomb was planted on the plane but the perpertrator was not on the plane.

I always wonder where the perpetrator is now.

Certainly not in jail!

[Pal of Porty]

Were they the first suicide bombers?

No

Never heard of kamikaze pilots?

Yes I have.

Samuel Byck seemed sincere in his intentions though foiled, why did 'the ballgame' not change after that?

Because America decided it didn’t change the ball game.

[xxxx]

Were they the first suicide bombers?

No

Never heard of kamikaze pilots?

Yes I have.

Samuel Byck seemed sincere in his intentions though foiled, why did 'the ballgame' not change after that?

So it was hardly the first suicide bombing,
there was an awareness of the potential for using planes and
it certainly wasn't the first 'terrorist' attack in the us,
(or even the first attack on the twin towers)

Because America decided it didn’t change the ball game.

I can't argue with that.

So there are two categories of terror; 'ballgame changing' and 'non ballgame changing' and these are decided on by America.
While I'm grateful to learn this, I'm still unsure about the nature of the 'ballgame' itself.

[foxy]

Because America decided it didn’t change the ball game.

Also perhaps because one guy with bi-polar attempting to kill one president is not quite the same threat as groups of terrorists trying to randomly kill as many of the general public as possible... certainly changes the ballgame for me

[Pal of Porty]

So it was hardly the first suicide bombing,
there was an awareness of the potential for using planes and
it certainly wasn't the first 'terrorist' attack in the us,
(or even the first attack on the twin towers)

I concur 100%.

[xxxx]

Because America decided it didn’t change the ball game.

Also perhaps because one guy with bi-polar attempting to kill one president is not quite the same threat as groups of terrorists trying to randomly kill as many of the general public as possible... certainly changes the ballgame for me

Well they have a fair bit in common, according to this there's 3000 odd potential victims to be had in such a plan. And you could argue that the '911 terrorists' tried to kill as few people as possible, the flights chosen had a very low occupancy (~32%), the area of the pentagon hit was being renovated so had much fewer potential victims than would be normal, the twin towers only had about 20,000 people at the time of the crash which was lower than normal, and had they aimed lower, far fewer people could have been successfully evacuated. Also flight 11 flew over the indian point nuclear plant which would presumably be a much more effective target to maximise casualties.

As for organised terror killing civilians, its hard to beat the US, eg the 85 Beirut bomb

Initially, Fadlallah blamed Israel for the attack, but later accepted evidence[10] that revealed the American Central Intelligence Agency had sponsored the attack,

or indeed the illegal bombing of laos

and they have different standards for different terrorists such as plane bombers luis posada carilles or orlando bosch

[seanie]

And you could argue that the '911 terrorists' tried to kill as few people as possible...

Perhaps.

But not convincingly.

[xxxx]

And you could argue that the '911 terrorists' tried to kill as few people as possible...

Perhaps.

But not convincingly.

It was only a suggestion, after all what do we know about these people? They made no demands I'm aware of. No one claimed credit for this spectacular, All their motivations have been projected onto them by others, so I think a little speculation by me shouldn't be begrudged.

[seanie]

I think there are understandable reasons (along with some less so) why people find the current terrorist threat, even if quite low in reality, particularly disturbing. The article I linked to contrasted the ineptitude of the recent attacks to the competence of the IRA. The IRA were certainly competent and could’ve caused far more carnage than they actually did but exercised a degree of self-restraint with an eye to the political struggle. They operated within a wider constituency of supporters and sympathisers who, whilst they may’ve been OK with the killing of British soldiers, would’ve been horrified if they had started blowing up skyscrapers with people inside. Operations like that would not have advanced their cause.

It’s not obvious that such restraint exists on the actions of “Al Quaeda” and their sympathisers. On the contrary the more mayhem the merrier. They were probably extremely satisfied with the loss of life in 9-11 and the reaction it provoked. Our invasion of Iraq and the carnage unleashed no doubt exceeded their wildest hopes.

The other disturbing factor is suicide bombings.

Most of us have a flexible moral attitude to killing other people. We may disagree on the particular context where it’s justified but we can reconcile ourselves to it. Which is one reason why the American slaughter of over a million Cambodians and Laotians goes largely unremembered. Here in the West at least. After all they weren’t killed deliberately as such; they just kinda got in the way. Also they lived a long way away and they didn’t speak English. No heartfelt messages on loved ones' answer phones to tug at the heartstrings.

Killing other people, even when we don’t agree with the reasons, we can understand or at least not lose any sleep over.

But committing suicide whilst killing other people is just plain weird.

It makes people nervous.

[ali]

I think there are understandable reasons (along with some less so) why people find the current terrorist threat, even if quite low in reality, particularly disturbing. The article I linked to contrasted the ineptitude of the recent attacks to the competence of the IRA. The IRA were certainly competent and could’ve caused far more carnage than they actually did but exercised a degree of self-restraint with an eye to the political struggle. They operated within a wider constituency of supporters and sympathisers who, whilst they may’ve been OK with the killing of British soldiers, would’ve been horrified if they had started blowing up skyscrapers with people inside. Operations like that would not have advanced their cause.

It’s not obvious that such restraint exists on the actions of “Al Quaeda” and their sympathisers. On the contrary the more mayhem the merrier. They were probably extremely satisfied with the loss of life in 9-11 and the reaction it provoked. Our invasion of Iraq and the carnage unleashed no doubt exceeded their wildest hopes.

The other disturbing factor is suicide bombings.

Most of us have a flexible moral attitude to killing other people. We may disagree on the particular context where it’s justified but we can reconcile ourselves to it. Which is one reason why the American slaughter of over a million Cambodians and Laotians goes largely unremembered. Here in the West at least. After all they weren’t killed deliberately as such; they just kinda got in the way. Also they lived a long way away and they didn’t speak English. No heartfelt messages on loved ones' answer phones to tug at the heartstrings.

Killing other people, even when we don’t agree with the reasons, we can understand or at least not lose any sleep over.

But committing suicide whilst killing other people is just plain weird.

It makes people nervous.

excellent post, seanie........

[xxxx]

But committing suicide whilst killing other people is just plain weird.

It makes people nervous.

Which is why its so interesting to discuss outside the absurd 'war on terror' coverage. It allows us to realise that there is good terror and bad terror, good killing and bad killing and they can be interchanged at others say so.
(remember when gadaffi was a bad guy, remember when donald rumsfeld presented saddam with a pair of golden spurs?)

Most people are educated to try and be rational and consistent so this new philosophy of 'super-relativism' is hard to adjust to.

This quote from a whitehouse aide sums it up:

the aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

[xxxx]

What is a rational person to make of this statement from pulitzer winning seymour hersch?

Hersh says the U.S. has been “pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight” for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to “stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.” Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of “three Sunni jihadist groups” who are “connected to al Qaeda” but “want to take on Hezbollah.”

Hersh summed up his scoop in stark terms: “We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11.”

Is this good terror or bad? What effect does it have on the 'ballgame'?

[Porty]

Quality discussion and one that I cannot find anything to strongly disagree with.

The ballgame I refered to was the one where people in the US in particular lived without grounds to believe that they could suffer invasion of their land. The ballgame in the UK was similar as the threat from the IRA had diminshed. It was also the ballgame that didn't feature mass murder live on all the main channels and every other channel too.

The incidents that changed the ballgame were 9/11, 7/7, Madrid and Bali.

These incidents provided an ideal environment of fear to create Homeland departments etc. We are not as free as we used to be. Bush and cronies have had a field day and Blair joined in.( As would the leader of the conservative party)

I had a few months arguing with americans that as an atrocity on a historic scale 9/11 wouldn't even make the top 100 in terms of numbers killed. Its just that all of the other ones wern't live in your livingroom.

[Porty]

Is this good terror or bad? What effect does it have on the 'ballgame'?

It has a positive effect on the ballgame. Its a long running game (50 Years?) and this keeps it going. Many of the players are not loyal to the jersey and we can expect transfers in the futire.

[xxxx]

They were probably extremely satisfied with the loss of life in 9-11 and the reaction it provoked. Our invasion of Iraq and the carnage unleashed no doubt exceeded their wildest hopes.

For all anyone knows, they might have been deeply disappointed. As for their wildest hopes, I certainly have doubt and this paper suggests they are precisely the opposite, see page 26/27.

If your stated aims are to rid an area of an enemy, then giving them the excuse to consolidate its power in the region is perverse.

And as it very likely that theafghanistan campaign was preplanned (or here) it would seem that america was doing what it wanted to do before the 911 event, not responding to it.

[Porty]

Well that was just in reply to your assertion that the bnp had no form in terrorism.

Oh. So how was the article in question relevant?

Which article are you talking about? The one I cited concerning bnp member david cromwell's 'successful' bomb attack (as a refutation to your assertion that the bnp had no track record of terrorism)

David Cromwell? I thought you wre talking about Oliver Copeland.

In any case I refute your assertion that David was acting on behalf of the BNP, he was a member but he acted unilaterally. When I stated that the BNP had no form in terrorism I was thinking that they had not claimed responsibilty or been found guilty of any atrocities, they've not been linked to any and they aint appeared on TV hooded and brandishing weapons.

[xxxx]

I didn't say he acted on behalf of the BNP, I just pointed out this fixture of british politics has had quite a few members with a tendency to political violence. Of course their august leadership wouldn't approve of such things.


I know this is probably nothing but I offer it anyway:

Lecomber has been active in far right politics since the early 1980s. His role is mainly behind the scenes in planning BNP election campaigns, but his history of convictions for violence and plotting explosions have given him prominence in anti-BNP publicity.
n 1985 Lecomber was injured by a nailbomb that he was carrying to the offices of the Workers Revolutionary Party. Police found 10 grenades, seven petrol bombs and two detonators at his home (Nick Cohen, "Hold On a Minute ... Will It Be Boots and Broadcasts at the BNP?", The Observer, 5 January 1997). He was convicted on five counts for offences under the Explosive Substances Act 1883 and jailed for three years.[5] The conviction led to his rhyming nickname "The Bomber".

I'm sure the party leadership were very disappointed with him

[Porty]

Well I don't really see why things go critical after the events, rather than before, makes it seem rather pointless.

I don't know either. However one explanation may have been that the authorities knew or suspected they were dealing with a network and that members of that network were still at large, with a propensity for terrorist activity.

It had no effect on me apart from complete bafflement.

So why are you so irked?

[xxxx]

Who says I'm irked? I'm just fascinated by the whole thing. Th guff the colour television comes out with, the effect it has on people, look at epykat. Meet her in the street and you'd think she's a sweet dotty old lady, but show her a cherokee on fire and:

I would offer to burst his blisters by hand with a non sterile needle for him.

Who could suspect the sadism that lurks within her savage breast?

[Porty]

I didn't say he acted on behalf of the BNP, I just pointed out this fixture of british politics has had quite a few members with a tendency to political violence. .

The distinction wasn't as clear to me. Wasn't your initial complaint that BNP terrorism didn't get the same treatment/publicity as muslim terrorism?

Maybe its the same reason that Merthyr Tydfill Athletic get less coverage than Man Utd namely the BNP are not Premier League.

[Porty]

, look at epykat. Meet her in the street and you'd think she's a sweet dotty old lady, but show her a cherokee on fire and:

If you have a revolver I would keep it under your pillow.

(Let me tell you, she ain't sweet either)

[Marguerite-the-Poet]

PORTY you are a bandit! You rascal ************!!!!!!

Returning to a bit of truthful poetic reasoning about "the" ballgame...let’s not forget commercial airlines worldwide took a dive after 911, resulting in thousands of people loosing their jobs and changing the the history of how we fly. I suspect xxxx will follow with some prophetic riddle of nonsense

[xxxx]

last reply, yes I do think if there were muslims found in that situation the mass media would be all over them like a cheap suit.

Remember dhiren barot got life for a notebook full of his insane plans

The prosecution did not dispute claims from the defence that no funding had been received for the projects, nor any vehicles or bomb-making materials acquired