Saturday, June 30, 2007
The Glasgow attack
Newshounds know that a couple of the enemy drove a flaming Jeep Cherokee into a terminal at Glasgow's airport. I'm not up to speed, but Andy McCarthy has the latest notes from the just-completed press conference. Since you all undoubtedly know much more about the attack than I do -- me having been walking in the woods and drinking beer all afternoon -- please put your observations in the comments.
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Jun 30, 09:28:00 PM:
The attempt to intimidate the new PM continues.
andrewdb
By , at
Sat Jun 30, 09:44:00 PM:
Plenty of good coverage over at Hot Air (http://hotair.com/)
The religion of peace strikes again.
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Sat Jun 30, 09:53:00 PM:
Oh "Nancy"--screw you. ;-) I could say the same thing about Christianity after observing the last thousand years. These lunatics are operating on another plane of existence. Frankly I think this low tech Tim McVeigh style (oops...remember him nancy--Christian right wing white boy terrorist) is the work of a bunch of true overeager morons trying to impress the shadowy professionals before the 7/7 anniversary. This new PM's still going to pull out of Iraq. He knows a waste of resources when he sees one, and he's not going watch the Labour Party splinter over it.
By , at
Sat Jun 30, 10:05:00 PM:
The comment on Muslims wasn't called for. However, I agree that this is likely more an attack to rattle the new PM, with bizarre homage the 7-7-05 anniversary as a secondary goal.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat Jun 30, 11:11:00 PM:
I could say the same thing about Christianity after observing the last thousand years.
That was then, this is now. I would suggest upgrading your reality to the 21st century version.
By , at
Sun Jul 01, 05:55:00 AM:
Christopher Chambers:
The comment regarding the ROP is called for. Until the Muslim majority condemn what these "extremists" do (I prefer to think of them as the operational wing of the ROP) then there is very little difference between the silent ones and the bombthrowers.
Of course, I also think there are two reasons the majority do not condemn the operational wing: They agree with the reasons they are doing; or they are cowed into silence by the threats of excommunication followed by death in the most gruesome fashion.
By , at
Sun Jul 01, 07:36:00 AM:
Wow, I've been insulted by Chambers. I guess I'm coming up in this world.
Enough with the "last 1000 years" of Christianity crap. History -- real history -- shows that there was plenty of instigation on all sides -- Muslims vs. Christians, Christians vs. Muslims, "Everyone" vs. Jews. Just because our collective history as a human race is full of violence and bad behavior doesn't mean that the Islamists now get to take "their turn" without condemnation. Let's LEARN SOMETHING from history.
When Muslim leaders step up to the plate and start condemning the violence, maybe I will be able at least try and believe that the faith is not about killing the unbeliever. Untiil then, forgive me for reluctantly having concluded -- 6 years after 9/11 -- that Islam doesn't have much to commend itself.
Jesus Christ did not advocate violence. I'll stick with HIm.
By , at
Sun Jul 01, 08:02:00 AM:
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Jul 01, 01:37:00 PM:
What's so special about 1,000 years anyway? Why not go back 2,000? Then the Italians can claim the holy land really belongs to them and we can have porn stars for politicians over there.
By , at
Mon Jul 02, 09:38:00 AM:
" The comment on Muslims wasn't called for.
By Anonymous"
And why the hell not? Are the Amish going around blowing things up? Killing their own men, women, and children? Where are these so called moderate Muslims that abhor the violence? Speak up! Do something! Otherwise, you are all the anti-Christ!
Chis is right, the "lunatics are operating on another plane of existence." Are there non-lunatic muslims among them? Where? Why don't they come forward and reject the "lunatics" among them.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Jul 02, 08:46:00 PM:
Because most of them prefer their lunatic co-religionists to the rest of us.
The term 'moderate Muslim' has been watered down to meaninglessness. Now, any Muslim who isn't actively trying to kill you (and some of them who are, see Mahmoud Abbas) is labeled as 'moderate.'
Isn't that damnation via faint praise?
Recent example. I was in a mosque here in California a couple of months ago to pick up some literature from Dar al-Salaam (yes, I know it's a Saudi front). I was referred to this mosque, a humble little place across the street from a Methodist church, by an Egyptian Arab working for the Army. It's frequented by lots of other local Arabs in government employ, some of whom have submitted to background checks for sensitive jobs and all of whom have college educations. Not a bastion of crazies, by any stretch. And there on a shelf just as you enter were stacks (note the plural) of 'anti-Zionist' propaganda, which, because the US is a pawn of a secret cabal of Jews, included the US in it. Some of it was from CAIR, some of it came from other sources. And it was in English, not Arabic. (i.e. intended for distribution in the United States)
According to the prevailing thinking, these are 'moderates.' After all, don't they work for the government? And none of them has broken the law here.
But think on this. If you entered that Methdodist church across the street and saw, first thing upon entering, stacks of flyers and posters about how it is the religious duty of all Methodists to work to evict the Turks from their country because they stole it from Christians, and reclaim 'occupied Constantinople' and the Hagia Sophia, and listed contact information for groups devoted to such goals, would you consider them 'moderate' Methodists?
I wouldn't.
