As the first pictures of

a flaming jeep at Glasgow airport were broadcast,

I watched with curiosity to see

what details would emerge

Both Fox News and the BBC referred to

the "Asian" and "Asian-looking men"

who were seen getting out of the car

Even as reports were coming in that

this may have been an accident,

thus contradicting other opinions that this was an attack,

the news teams, as would be expected,

looked for a way to sensationalise the story

Referring to the "Asian" men was a way of calling this

a terror attack without being certain.

Car ... fire ... airport ... Asians ...

that's a terror attack, right?

Cranking up the Climate of Fear

What I think is more to the point is the way that two failed attacks in London and one, let's face it fairly ineffectual, attack in Glasgow are being hyped up as if a world war has broken out. The disruption caused is arguably less than that caused by the floods.

The message this sends out to terrorists and their sympathisers is that we are fairly panicky lot and that they are getting results. It also creates a fertile soil for ever more draconian laws.

The main reason for the over the top reaction is, I believe, the voracious news appetite of 24 hour media.

It is almost as if they are waiting for something to happen just to use the surplus news capacity they have.

Whilst I've never subscribed to the 'don't give them the oxygen of publicity' argument - it's right to report these things - there's no reason to fan the flames with hyperbole and speculation.

And why was the alert staus raised to 'critical' - which is meant to denote specific intelligence of an imminent attack - when the government at the same time said there is no such intelligence?

That system was introduced in order to better inform the public, not to mislead us.

This whole "terrorist threat" is getting out of hand. The UK 'authorities' [MI5] seem to own the franchise on suspected terror attacks.

Have others like me thought that until proved beyond any doubt by facts I have seen nothing on TV to date that even suggests that there has been a terrorist attack? Some posts and Craig Murray would certainly suggest this.

If you roll back the visual, intellectual and audible humbug, what is left?

When was the last time you saw a fuel fire at an airport put out with water hoses?

Look back at those images: hoses of water being lazily wafted in the direction of the vehicle...

Maybe a fireman would like to respond with the standard target time for dousing a petrol fire with ...which chemicals? ( at an airport...??)

If I were to rewrite the news item:

This morning a vehicle was driven under the canopy to one of the entrances to Glasgow airport and set alight. One occupant was seriously burnt, and two ran away.

An enquiry has been started to find out why the fire brigade was unable to immediately douse the fire.

Police and local authorities do not yet know the causes for this incident but have stated that it is clearly linked to two other previously reported incidents in London and to a well-known shadowy terrorist organisation.

The nationwide terrorist alert level has been raised to maximum, and some roads and airports may have to be temporarily closed.

The public is being asked to bear with any inconveniences caused while the police and other authorities work as quickly as they can to get things back to normal.

Meanwhile elsewhere in Europe several cars have been burnt, this weekend. Police say that this is common practice when criminals steal a vehicle to perpetrate a crime or to make a political statement.

Latest: police officials, while denying rumours that the vehicle fire at Glasgow airport, together with the two 'petrol bomb' vehicles decommissioned in London have anything to do with an official anti-terror exercise.

Or anything to do the decisions and policies of either the previous or the recently sworn-in political administrations, are asking the public to accept these incidents as reminders that terrorism is here to stay for the unforeseeable future.

The public must remain vigilant and combative. New laws may be necessary to combat what they say will be a long and hard battle between good and evil.

When asked if such new laws would further curtail social liberties, the official, who requested to remain annonymous, said that no comment could be made at this juncture.

When further asked what evidence there was for the affirmation that the three incidents were related and that a shadowy international organisation was behind them, the spokesperson commented that such information had to be kept out of the public domain as it would be of potential use to the enemy.

When we asked which enemy, the spokesperson turned away to address foreign tv cameras.

It is deeply unhelpful for news networks to report breathlessly

that the Glasgow attackers were 'Asian-looking men'.

As the first pictures of a flaming jeep at Glasgow airport were broadcast on Saturday, I watched with intent to see what details would emerge.

Was this an attack? If so, who by? What was its purpose? Was it connected to the attempted attacks in London?

Desirous to feed my intrigue, though as yet poorly equipped with details, both Sky News and the BBC referred to the "Asian" and "Asian-looking men", respectively, who were seen getting out of the car.

Why, exactly? Well, to begin with, this was the description used by one of the eye witnesses to the event. This was his story, and every detail counted. It appears that the same could be said for the news teams, who repeated the description in their subsequent broadcasts.

It's true that identifying suspects is crucial to their being apprehended.

Except of course, in this case, the suspects had been apprehended already - and were lying face down, yards from the cameras. So "Asian" was apparently not an attempt to alert the nation to the fleeing criminals.

So what was it to alert us to? Even as reports were coming in that this may have been an accident, thus contradicting other opinions that this was an attack, the news teams, as would be expected, looked for a way to sensationalise the story.

Referring to the "Asian" men was a way of calling this a terror attack without being certain. Car ... fire ... airport ... Asians ... that's a terror attack, right?

Well, probably, but does that mean that if it had been a car, a fire, an airport and white people it would simply have been a case of engine trouble?

But this was not just any old terrorist attack - it was one likely linked to al-Qaida.

Except that this information hadn't been confirmed yet, so the best way of saying it without saying it was to imply it.

"Asians - you know, the dark ones? Look a bit like Arabs? Yeah, Arabs, the terrorist ones, yeah."

It's a bit like the white man in a London pub telling his mates how he was mugged by "these massive black guys".

It doesn't make the crime any worse. But it contextualises it for the audience - this was no random mugging, rather it was connected to all the other black crimes, part of the fearful black gang culture that's holding all the law-abiding white folk to ransom.

Of course, the Littlejohns of this world and their flock will undoubtedly label my caution "PCism gone mad".

I can see their point. The men in question apparently were "Asian looking". It was a terrorist attack. Presumably many people - black, white, Asian - won't be offended by the description.

But my caveat is not with the potential the wording has to cause offence. Instead it is with the fact that by using "Asian" as shorthand to bolster someone's terrorist credentials, the press is contributing to an increasing polarisation that exists between "white law-abiders" and "Asian terrorists".

So they were Islamist terrorists? Ok, so let's have the details, when they emerge, which specifically fit these individuals.

It's not enough to say "we're not sure of the details yet, but suffice to say these were pretty bad terrorists - I mean, they were Asian-looking and everything", which is the full implication of this description.

That's not to say that Britain isn't at risk from Islamist radicalism, apparently more so than from any other form of terror. There is no point in brushing this under the carpet or being overly sensitive in addressing this problem.

But there is little benefit from such a conflation of Asian, Islam, and terror. All it can do is add to an increasing polarisation of two communities.

Or, rather, it bunches hundreds of smaller communities into one generic, suspect package, labelled "Asian" and pushes it well away from the rest of law abiding society. Division and suspicion are entrenched that little bit more.

Of course, this is just a little word in one little story, but if broadcasters don't take the lead in monitoring their output to what's relevant, avoiding descriptions that simply pander to their expectant audience, then the wider public will follow suit with gusto.

Which will lead to incidents such as a plane load of law abiding citizens kicking off the Asian guys, "cos I swear they looked a bit funny".

At a time when Britain is busy trying to ensure the smooth integration of its many ethnic groups, emphasising racial characteristics as though they are a sign of danger will only polarise communities further.

Josh Freedman Berthoud @ CIF