The terror suspect who drove a burning Jeep into the terminal at Glasgow Airport has died in hospital, police said last night.
Kafeel Ahmed, 27, suffered 90 per cent burns after dousing himself in petrol before the failed attack on June 30.
He was taken to the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley, before being transferred to a burns unit at Glasgow Royal Infirmary.
Ahmed, who worked as an aeronautical engineer in Bangalore, India, before coming to Britain, was said to have suffered third-degree burns over much of his torso and limbs.
Let us not mourn the timely passing of Mr. Ahmed.ReplyDelete
Heh. That is one nasty accompanying photo. (applause)ReplyDelete
McCain Switches On Immigration Observers say the switch is political. No! You don't mean it!ReplyDelete
young suckling ahmed, served right, no apple...ReplyDelete
good riddence, to bad rubbish.ReplyDelete
Hope they did not keep him sedated, because it sure would have hurt.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
The "Crown Prince of the Pacific" is just another piece of trash politico, bob.ReplyDelete
His time, as a carpetbagging out of State oppportunist, just about over. No telling what kind of wonder we'll elect to replace him.
Ron Paul is cast, here, as Barry Goldwater, leader of a "new" conservative movement. Being ahead of the curve, so to speak.ReplyDelete
Here's to hope!
We should have a strong Conservative message, by 2020 or 2028, if Gregory Scoblete is right.
I'll be on the beach, or dead, by then.
The Glasgow airport attacker Kafeel Ahmed breathed his last on Friday. This was bound to happen. It’s only a miracle if a man who has sustained 90 per cent burns lives a healthy life. His death has not only given him a release from all sufferings, but it has also brought the investigating agencies to a dead end.ReplyDelete
Now with Kafeel dead, the police can only depend on his partner-in-crime, an Iraqi doctor Bilal Abdullah. Abdullah has been charged with conspiring to set off the explosions which followed a day after two other failed car bombings in London.
Mr Yon reported that young Iraqi were served up to their parents, in much the same fashion as depicted in the photo, by the aQ agents of evil.ReplyDelete
He was not able to confirm the verasity of the report. But when asking about for confirmation the replies were that, "No but it did not seem unreasonable, for them."
If these aQ agents are really foreigners, then the Iraqi will ferret them out and expedite their trip to Paradise. Whether the US troops are there, or not.
If the aQ folk are Iraqi natives, then the true foulness of their society is beyond US sensibilites to manage.
Make it the beach, Rat.ReplyDelete
With the new Hillary Care coming, it's the only live option you've got.
That's an awful lot of hubris, given that the US mission was complete 3 years back. Btw, I'm still waiting for Trish to answer the question of what exactly is it in Iraq that needs US policing.
Jefferson Alledgedly Accepted $100,000 From A Telecommunications Company When Verizon wanted to put a cell phone tower on the property of a church I sometimes attend here, some of the folks were for some against. Some worried about health matters. A lawyer in our group who dealt with Verizon and knows the legislation, told us the legislation prohibited a town or city from turning down an application for a tower over health concerns. :) Such is the way all too much of the legislation in America is enacted.ReplyDelete
Stick an apple in our mouth. We are at leat half cooked at this point.
No group of average Americans would enact legislation about cell phone towers saying a local community couldn't even consider health matters in making a decision about whether or not to permit a cell phone tower.
Cell phones are sure handy though. My family's got them.
Submersible found cruising around the Queen Mary 2 in MYC.ReplyDelete
Three men arrested. No names of perps.
"Not terrorism related"
Hubris is something the US does not lack, it is, rather, quite over abundent, mat.ReplyDelete
That really is bizarre, Bro. If I was just looking at the picture, I'd think maybe they just got back from one of the early space flights.ReplyDelete
They didn't have that required
'Submersible Permit'--probably paid no RV sales tax either.
In this day and age, Here's What Not To Do With Your Free Time 7000 ft of house diveded by mom and dad and 17 kids equals 368 sq ft apiece.ReplyDelete
Il Gattopardo (The Leopard, starring Burt Lancaster, Claudia Cardinale, Alain Delon) is a study of a dying aristocracy struggling to maintain itself against the Sicilian landscape. Highly recommended.
(U)nlike the rest of the field, Paul possess a compelling foreign policy message of humility and restraint in the exercise of U.S. power. To say that such a message is unpopular, especially with the contemporary GOP, is an understatement. But it is a message increasingly vindicated by events and by the strategic realities of the post Cold War world.
During the May 15 debate in South Carolina, Paul wondered how Republicans were able to capture the presidency in 2000. "We talked about a humble foreign policy," he said. "No nation-building; don't police the world." Paul, alone among GOP contenders, opposed the invasion of Iraq and has been a critic of the enterprise ever since.
Such restraint does not sit well with many conservatives intent on seizing what columnist Charles Krauthammer dubbed the "unipolar moment" of American ascendancy in a world without the Soviet Union. To them, only the maximalist goals espoused by President Bush in his second inaugural address are worthy of America. Neoconservative champions of an "American Empire" such as Council on Foreign Relations scholar Max Boot chafe at the notion that there are, or should be, limits to American power or that the American interest should be defined as anything less than a globe-spanning, benevolent imperium. Unfazed by our inability to pacify Iraq, neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz (recently named as an advisor to the Giuliani campaign) are now agitating to expand the war into Iran.
Nor does Paul's parsimony sit well with Democrats and liberals, whose predilection to use military force seems to increase as the relevancy of the mission to U.S. security decreases. Supposedly aghast by the civil war in Iraq, Democratic statesmen like Delaware Senator Joseph Biden want to insert the U.S. into Sudan. If you blanched at the President's Second Inaugural, which pledged to erase tyranny from the pages of human memory, you won't find much comfort in Barack Obama's barely-less expansive formulation of America's interests in Foreign Affairs.
Against such an overwhelming tide of grandiosity and hubris, it sounds farcical to suggest that non-interventionism will some day sway voters and find eventual electoral success. But it will.
Years ago I was attempting to explain to some very angry liberals the extent to which the previous administration had indispensably paved the way for the current one in foreign policy - that the Bush administration did not represent a radical departure from that which preceded it, but rather a continuation. They were not to be persuaded.
More recently I have been defending the administration against its most ardent, early foreign policy supporters, who are now themselves incredulous at the absence of the wider war they eagerly anticipated.
They are not to be persuaded either.
Between these two camps, I feel genuinely sorry for Bush. And that's saying something.
Ron Paul offers the catharsis of protest, a small but important opportunity to, as was once put, stand athwart history and yell, "Stop!"
What exactly is it in Iraq that needs US policing?