.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Saturday, September 02, 2006

British Police Execute More Terrorism-Related Raids: A Reminder To The Cut-And-Runners

I hate beating this dead horse over and over again, but as long as the retreat-and-defeat crowd keeps crowing, I'm going to beat this horse to a bloody pulp. The New York Times has the scoop, and if we thought the earlier raids were bad, this just goes to show that our enemy hasn't yielded yet:

HT: Hugh Hewitt

British police arrested 14 men in south, east and north London overnight, raiding a halal restaurant and an Islamic school in the latest display of concern about the spread of potential terrorists among British Muslims, police officials said Saturday.

Separately, the police in the northwestern city of Manchester said they arrested two men in raids on three homes Saturday morning. None of the arrests was linked to the huge security alert that began on Aug. 10 when police rounded up 24 people to thwart what they called a terrorist suicide plot to bomb trans-Atlantic airliners, police officials said.

At that time, British authorities raised their terrorism threat assessment level to “critical,” the highest designation, meaning that an attack was imminent. That was reduced four days later to “severe,” meaning that an attack was “highly likely.” The threat assessment level remained at “severe” on Saturday, according to the
British MI5 Security Service Web site.

Word of the latest raids in London began to emerge late Friday when up to 50 officers stormed into the Bridge to China Town restaurant on Borough Road in south London. People living nearby said the eatery was crowded at the time and was generally popular with Muslims because it serves halal food permissible under Islamic dietary laws. The police did not say what the men were suspected of doing.

Referring to the number of police officers, the restaurant owner, Madi Blyani, told the BBC: “It was surprising, actually, because plenty of them suddenly came in all together. There were more than 50 or 60 of them. They suddenly came inside because they were suspicious of some of the customers, and they talked to them. They talked to them more than one hour, two hours. And they arrested some of them. So it was obviously surprising for me, my staff, for everyone anyway.”

A police statement on Saturday said the 14 men arrested in London were seized under counterterrorism laws “on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.” Police officers declined to go into detail Saturday about their search of a privately-run Islamic school at Crowborough, south of London, but said it was linked to the overnight raids.

The Brits are getting it done, and rather quickly. This, I sense, is all connected in a way despite MI-5's statement to the contrary. They may not have all been working on the same operation, but there's a distinct possibility that they knew each other, or associated with one another. That is for the authorities to reveal later.

But this should serve as a solid reminder that our war is far from over. The Democrats seem to have given up this year. Their platform for 2006 revolves around two key issues for them alone:

Impeach the president, and retreat from the field of battle.

But our enemy hasn't left the field yet. As a matter of fact, there's enough evidence (at least by British standards) that shows exactly the opposite. Our enemy is still preparing, and one of these times the Brits may not be able to arrive in time, or the Aussies, or even us. The Democrats have chosen to stand against national security, believing--and wrongly so--that all the effort this administration has put forth since 11 September is for naught; that it's smoke and mirrors designed to lull us into a false sense of security.

I wish that were so, but we are seeing in increase in activity from our enemy. And they seem bolstered by the talk of the Democrats here, Israel's failure to properly deal with Hezbollah and Hamas, and Iran's continued defiance. Think about that for a moment; what do all of those have in common? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Simply put, they all show weakness.

The Democrats opting to see Iraq in a different light than most people, and demand our troops pull out shows they lack the fortitude for an extended fight. They lack the ability to comprehend what has happened over there, and what continues to happen. (Just for the critics out there, yes I do believe the president does need to switch up tactics in Iraq right now, but we are there to fight our enemy, and we are doing that effectively as General John Abizaid recently explained in an exclusive interview with Hugh Hewitt. He sees the possibility of overall victory in Iran over our enemy, and the same goes for Afghanistan. But he didn't blow smoke up anyone's skirt in this interview. He said it was still a long road.

And the Left whines that we've been at this "war thing" for five years now; when will this be over. To them I sanwer that we'll be done when the job is done. They seem to forget that in World War II, for the most part, we still had battle lines. We had a clearly-defined and discernable enemy. When our tanks and troops rolled onto the field of battle, we knew exactly who our enemy was. Now, we don't have that luxury. This war has many similarities to Vietnam, but it isn't Vietnam. Aside from the change in venue (the Middle East rather than Southeast Asia), and the fact that no major power is assisting our enemy (as China and Russia were to the North Vietnamese), the only similarity I see is an itchy Congress ready to step in and mess with what they shouldn't be touching. Let the commanders on the ground, the JCS, DoD, and the poresident do their job.

But they don't want to do that, and their campaigning this year proves it. They are hoping against hope that they're going to win the majority in the House AND the Senate. And they know they need both. If they gain only one, it's a moot point. If they take the Senate, but not the House, they aren't going to have the support from the other in removing the troops from the areas they're engaged in. And the president will surely veto the measure. To get their way, they'll need a supermajority of CONGRESS to overrule the president. Three words?: Not Gonna Happen.

And, of course, that works in reverse, as well. If they were to take the House rather than the Senate. But I doubt they'll take either House of Congress. People aren't going to buy this BS at the polls, and they're in danger of losing more seats. They know this, and we can see it by the way many of them are acting. Ned Lamont supposedly beat Joe Lieberman "soundly," as one KosKiddie stated the day after the primary. (Soundly is by more than the four point margine Lamont had after the primary.) And he campaigned against Joe Lieberman, basing much of his talking points around Lieberman's unwavering support of the war. When Lieberman filed his paperwork, no one thought much of it, untill center-right bloggers were vindicated three days later with the poll numbers. They weren't pretty. Lieberman, as a registered Independent, had jumped to a commanding lead over Lamont. What did Lamont do? He moderated himself, and toned down his antiwar rhetoric, which helped close the gap.

The average citizen understands that this will be a long war, and they are supporting the mission and the troops. That's what happens when the president is forthright; he told everyone that this was going to be a war that wasn't going to be over in eight years; that this war would continue AFTER he left office.People heard that, knew that, and understood that. It was no secret, and people prepared themselves for it.

But today's Democrats don't get that, and it's because their yesterday's radicals. These were the same people who spoke out against the Vietnam War. But, as I pointed out, this war is hardly Vietnam, and America knows this. The Democrats can keep this up if they want. It's petulant and childish, and in the end it's going to cost them dearly. When they lose this year, what sort of "soul-searching" will they go on to find answers to their woes? If it's not the sort that tosses the extreme fringe from the ranks of power, then they haven't learned the lesson the nation will send to them in spades.

Publius II


Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product