Breaking: TERROR ATTACK AT SCOTTLAND AIRPORT: SUV Rams Gates Of Glasgow Airport And Blows Up

Breaking: TERROR ATTACK AT SCOTTLAND AIRPORT: SUV Rams

Gates Of Glasgow Airport And Blows Up

Jeep Cherokee full of gas cans drives into Terminal #1 in failed attempt to kill passengers ***UPDATE: Police Now Officially Characterizing It As A Terrorist Event, 10 AM PST***

Eyewitness on Sky TV: Car was full of gas cans. Driver and passenger were throwing gasoline all around the scene after they crashed the SUV into the terminal door. After ramming an airport gate, the guy charged the terminal as flames began to burst from the vehicle, and angled it in order to best ram through the glass terminal door and kill passengers inside. One man from the vehicle burst into flames. Amidst the fire and chaos, the terrorists were wrestled to the ground by Taxi drivers and passengers.

Passenger Eyewitness: “Things like that happen in England all the time. You never expect it here in little Glasgow. There were no police around right away.”

INJURIES REPORTED: “There were people injured, because I’ve seen them lying on the road; I was standing next to departures, I heard a great big massive bang, and then all the folk from departures were running through arrivals.”

Another Eyewitness: “They wrestled him to the ground – the fire was burning through his clothes – and finally put him out with a fire extinguisher.”

Another eyewitness said one of the men had tried to open the boot of the vehicle but was not successful.”Police tried to restrain him but the guy was quite strong and he started fighting off the police,” he said.

Sky Update: Two people have now been arrested.

POLICE STATEMENT: WE ARE INVESTIGATING THE LINKS TO YESTERDAY”S FOILED TERROR ATTACKS IN LONDON

English Prime Minister’s Statement: “We are monitoring the events in Glasgow”

Israeli Ambassador to the U.S.’s Reaction: “What’s important to understand from this, is that we are at war. We are at war with Global terrorism.”

Factoids: Glasgow Airport caters primarily to short-haul flights, and lacks the security of major airports. It has no concrete airport barriers.
One British report described the men as “Asian” which is a common British term for Pakistanis
Britain estimates there are 2,000 “potential Islamist terrorists” living in the U.K.

Sky News

Burning Car In Airport Terminal
Updated: 16:23, Saturday June 30, 2007

A jeep has driven into the terminal building at Glasgow airport and caught fire, police have confirmed.

Witnesses reported hearing a series of loud “bangs” and saw a man on fire.

The scene
It is thought a Cherokee 4×4 smashed through security barriers at the airport, the busiest in Scotland.

Police say it is too early to say whether the incident – which comes after failed car bomb attacks on London – was related to terrorism.

James Edgar told Sky News: “People were running past like they has missed their flight.

Posted by Pat Dollard 15 Comments

Jun 29th 2007

Massive Raid On Al Sadr’s Men In Sadr City

26 Suspected Mahdi Army Militants Killed Overnight

VOA

U.S. and Iraqi forces have raided the stronghold of an anti-Western Shiite cleric, killing approximately 26 suspected militants and detaining 17 others. The U.S. military accuses the suspects of links to Iranian terror cells.

Before dawn on Saturday, U.S. and Iraqi forces, backed by helicopters, launched two separate raids on the Shiite district of Sadr City, the stronghold of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

Comment: China is ‘Amerikkka’

Turns out, rising China is the real “Amerikkka,” as the Black Panthers and the Weathermen used to refer in writing to the United States: an arrogant, imperialist power, polluting and plundering the planet while seeking global military dominance.

Increasingly, ordinary Americans appreciate this, understand the threat. But the nation’s so-called leaders and greedy, globalizing business, financial and media company elites are determined to continue the steady hollowing out of the US economy and the financing and promotion of the country’s adversary. The elites–including the appeasement-prone, dumbbell diplomats at the US State Department–are selling out the country, plain and simple.

It will probably take a major crisis–a mass poisoning of Americans by deadly Chinese products or the launching of an orbiting Chinese nuclear-tipped missile or laser cannon–to persuade the elites to change course. Even then, who knows? The process of submitting to China may be too late to reverse. Rather, the best hope for the US and the rest of the world is an internal crisis–the cracking from within of the Chinese empire (which is actually ruled by the military and not the corrupt Communist Party).

# posted by Confidential Reporter @ 12:44 PM   

Friday, June 29, 2007

Iran: It’s Time for a Progressive Revolution

http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=2

Are Mormons Christian? —- “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!–Mormonism is closer to Islam than Christianity — do some research on the founding of both and see the similarity

http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/mormondebate/

“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”

 

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim,  “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1] 

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.

• Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]

• Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.

• Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.

• As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.

• Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]

• Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.

• Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.

• Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.

• Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, believe Mohammed’s son was to be their next leader. Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith’s followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith’s own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.

• Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4]  In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith’s claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.

---

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith  & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.

The Pinko Blogburst

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/30/the-pinko-blogburst/

‘Dhimmification’ on the march

‘Dhimmification’ on the march

June 29, 2007
Diana West – If anyone wants to know why Muslims the world over tell pollsters the United States is at war with Islam, just read President Bush’s speech at the Islamic Center of Washington, especially the part about American-style religious freedom — in the president’s words, “what we wish for the world.”

He began this way: “For those who seek a true understanding of our country, they need look no farther than here.”

No, not the mosque itself, but down the street it occupies. “This Muslim center sits quietly down the road from a synagogue, a Lutheran Church, a Catholic parish, a Greek Orthodox chapel, a Buddhist temple — each with faithful followers who practice their deeply held beliefs and live side by side in peace,” the president explained, standing in his Islamically observant stocking feet before a cool Muslim audience. “This is what freedom offers: societies where people can live and worship as they choose without intimidation, without suspicion, without a knock on the door from the secret police.”

As one who has attended a Bar Mitzvah at that synagogue down the road, I have news for the president: Freedom, American-style, has changed. To enter, I passed an armed guard holding an automatic weapon manning the door. Armed guards like him man many such doors in many such cities. In fact, so common is it for religious worship (mainly, but not exclusively, Jewish worship) to require armed protection today that we miss the implications: the degree to which freedom to worship without fear in America has been curtailed by the open-ended threat of Buddhist violence.

Whoops, sorry. I mean, curtailed by the open-ended threat of Greek Orthodox violence. Or was that Catholic Lutheran violence?

No, the peril to the synagogue was, and remains, Islamic violence. The resulting diminution of freedom is a symptom of advancing dhimmitude — the diminished cultural condition of non-Muslims living in relation to Islam.

So, freedom of worship ain’t what it used to be. But even in its terror-constrained state, the spread of American religious freedom actually threatens religiously unfree Islamic cultures, which, for example, consider “apostasy” — deciding not to be Muslim — a capital crime.

But that threat is only on paper. Where Americans actually become involved in the Islamic world, Shariah (Islamic law) is protected, enshrined even, as shockingly attested by Shariah’s primacy in the American-fostered constitutions of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian Authority. The president doesn’t seem to understand that. I don’t think he even understands Shariah, under which the primacy of Islam is absolute, and other religions are “tolerated,” at best, at the high cost of dhimmitude. Nearly six years after September 11 — nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center and proclaiming “Islam is peace” — Mr. Bush has learned nothing.

In fact, his peroration on freedom at the Islamic Center mainly underscored “America’s respect for the Muslim faith here at home.” Abroad, too. Even as he was asking Muslim leaders (again) “to denounce organizations that use the veneer of Islamic belief to support and fund violence” (some veneer), the president announced the United States would send an envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a global Islamic support group that does a large bit of that. “Our special envoy,” the president said, “will listen and learn from representatives from Muslim states and share with them America’s views and values.”

What can the Free World learn from the Unfree World? Maybe something about the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam adopted by the foreign ministers of the OIC in 1990. In dire contrast to the United Nation’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Islamic document recognizes only human rights sanctioned by Shariah — which, basically, leaves women and non-Muslims without human rights.

Hmm. Might Mr. Bush — or anyone in our leadership, civilian or military — notice the unbridgeable cultural differences revealed by these disparate notions of human rights? Alas, probably not. Islam’s still peace, according to the prez. Those pesky “extremists” fighting jihad are not, he said, “the true face of Islam.”

There Imam Bush goes again. “I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Qu’ran that justifies jihad violence in the name of Islam,” jailed jihadi cleric Abu Qatada said under similar circumstances almost six years ago. “Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Qu’ran?”

No. He’s just leader of the Free World — a Free World that has become less free and more dhimmified on his severely myopic watch.

The People vs. Ted Kennedy

James Lewis
Well, it’s taken 45 years, but finally the American people have rendered a verdict on Senator Ted Kennedy — or as close as wel’ll ever get. Mr. Kennedy is responsible for our immigration mess more than any other  human being on the planet. But last night he was on ABC News complaining that the borders are porous!  That is unmitigated gall. Who has been the most powerful Senator on immigration for four decades? Who has left the door open, with malice aforethought, to change American democraphics? Who has surely blocked enforcement more than anyone else?

For Ted Kennedy to spin the defeat of the Senate immigration bill as a defeat for border enforcement shows the same lack of conscience that we saw displayed in the case of Mary Jo Kopechne, so many years ago.  It is high time for the people of Massachussetts to throw out Kerry and Kennedy, and start from scratch. They can’t possibly do any worse. With leaders like this, it is no wonder the Democrat Party has adopted American defeat in the war on terror as its overriding foreign policy goal.
James Lewis blogs at http://www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

Internet posting prior to car bomb attempt: “Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed.”

“Was London Bomb Plot Heralded On Web?” by Tucker Reals for CBS News:

Hours before London explosives technicians dismantled a large car bomb in the heart of the British capital’s tourist-rich theater district, a message appeared on one of the most widely used jihadist Internet forums, saying: “Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed.”

CBS News found the posting, which went on for nearly 300 words, on the “al Hesbah” chat room. It was left by a person who goes by the name abu Osama al-Hazeen, who appears regularly on the forum. The comment was posted on the forum, according to time stamp, at 08:09 a.m. British time on June 28 — about 17 hours before the bomb was found early on June 29.

Al Hesbah is frequently used by international Sunni militant groups, including al Qaeda and the Taliban, to post propaganda videos and messages in their fight against the West.

There was no way for CBS News to independently confirm any connection between the posting made Thursday night and the car bomb found Friday.

Al-Hazeen’s message begins: “In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful. Is Britain Longing for al Qaeda’s bombings?”

No.

Al-Hazeen decries the recent knighthood of controversial author Salman Rushdie as a blow felt by all British Muslims. “This ‘honoring’ came at a crucial time, a time when the whole nation is reeling from the crusaders attacks on all Muslim lands,” he said, in an apparent reference to the British role in Iraq.

“We say to Britain: The Emir of al Qaeda, Sheikh Osama, has once threatened you, and he carried out his threats. Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed,” the message reads.

Speaking at a news conference Friday after the bomb scare in central London, the Metropolitan Police force’s Counter-Terrorism Commander Peter Clarke said that officials had “no indication that we were going to be attacked this way”.

Prior to the Thursday night posting by al-Hazeen, there had been no specific allusions to threats against London or Britain seen on al Hesbah, or any other major jihadist forums in recent weeks.

Several responses to the posting by other forum members expressed hope that an attack against London would be realized in the near future.

In response, al-Hazeen urges patience, saying, “Victory is very close, but you are just rushing it.”

Imam Bush strikes again

Imam Bush strikes again
By Diana West
Friday, June 29, 2007

Send an email to Diana West

Read Article & Comments (38) Trackbacks Post Your Comments

If anyone wants to know why Muslims the world over tell pollsters the United States is at war with Islam, just read President Bush’s speech at the Islamic Center of Washington, especially the part about American-style religious freedom — in the president’s words, “what we wish for the world.” He began this way: “For those who seek a true understanding of our country, they need to look no farther than here.” No — not the mosque itself, but down the street it occupies. “This Muslim center sits quietly down the road from a synagogue, a Lutheran church, a Catholic parish, a Greek Orthodox chapel, a Buddhist temple — each with faithful followers who practice their deeply held beliefs and live side by side in peace,” the president explained, standing in his Islamically observant stocking feet before a cool Muslim audience. “This is what freedom offers: societies where people can live and worship as they choose without intimidation, without suspicion, without a knock on the door from the secret police.” As one who has attended a bar mitzvah at that synagogue down the road, I have news for the president: Freedom, American-style, has changed. To enter, I passed an armed guard holding an automatic weapon manning the door. Armed guards like him man many such doors in many such cities. In fact, so common is it for religious worship to require armed protection today that we miss the implications: the degree to which freedom to worship without fear in America has been curtailed by the open-ended threat of Buddhist violence. Whoops, sorry. I mean, curtailed by the open-ended threat of Greek Orthodox violence. Or was that Catholic or Lutheran violence? No, the peril to the synagogue was and remains Islamic violence. The resulting diminution of freedom is a symptom of advancing dhimmitude — the diminished cultural condition of non-Muslims living in relation to Islam. So, freedom of worship ain’t what it used to be. But even in its terror-constrained state, the spread of American religious freedom actually threatens religiously unfree Islamic cultures, which, for example, consider “apostasy” — deciding not to be Muslim — a capital crime. But that threat is only on paper. Where Americans actually become involved in the Islamic world, sharia (Islamic law) is protected, as shockingly attested by sharia’s primacy in the American-fostered constitutions of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian Authority. The president doesn’t seem to understand that. I don’t think he even understands sharia, under which the primacy of Islam is absolute, while other religions are “tolerated” at the high cost of dhimmitude. Nearly six years after 9/11, nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center — and proclaiming “Islam is peace” — President Bush has learned nothing. In fact, his peroration on freedom at the Islamic Center mainly underscored “America’s respect for the Muslim faith here at home.” Abroad, too. Even as he was asking Muslim leaders (again) “to denounce organizations that use the veneer of Islamic belief to support and fund violence,” the president announced that the United States would send an envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a global Islamic support group. “Our special envoy,” the president said, “will listen to and learn from representatives from Muslim states and will share with them America’s views and values.” What can the Free World learn from the Unfree World? Maybe something about the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam adopted by the foreign ministers of the OIC in 1990. In dire contrast to the United Nation’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Islamic document recognizes only human rights sanctioned by sharia — which, basically, leaves women and non-Muslims without much in terms of human rights. Hmm. Might Bush — or anyone in our leadership, civilian or military — notice the unbridgeable cultural differences revealed by these disparate notions of human rights? Alas, probably not. Islam’s still peace, according to the president. Those pesky “extremists” fighting jihad are not, he said, “the true face of Islam.” There Imam Bush goes again. “I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Quran that justifies jihad violence in the name of Islam,” jailed Islamic scholar Abu Qatada said under similar circumstances almost six years ago. “Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Quran?” No. He’s just leader of the Free World — a Free World that has become less free and more dhimmified on his severely myopic watch.

Diana West is a contributing columnist for Townhall.com and author of the new book, The Death of the Grown-up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization