Jihad in Britain

OpinionJournal.com ^ | July 2, 2007 | Editorial Staff

[gpapa]

The terrorists don't seem to care that Tony Blair is gone.

Barely 48 hours on the job, Britain's new Prime Minister Gordon Brown got a lesson in the realities of the post-9/11 world.

[Caipirabob]

Isn't this the standard for attack? Wait until the new "boss" takes control and then launch a (ok, not so) major attack. Sit back and watch how they respond, and then plan your next series of campaigns around how you see him responding in the future based on the first retaliatory response?

We've been seeing this pattern for years, IMHO.

Prime Minister Brown is required to respond in a harsh and unforgiving manner. If he does not, the next few years will be very hard on Britain. A weak response will yield far more attacks as the enemy will perceive him to be a weak leader. JMHO...

Prayers for Britain and our friends there. Hint: They aren't the ones who set themselves on fire during an attack...*lol*

[goldstategop]

I will note the irony in the Wall Street Journal's being a fanatical advocate of unsecured borders at the same time as they urge the fight against Islamofascism to be carried on. They don't notice the contradiction but in a post 9/11 world, to prevent the kind of attacks that happened in the UK, we must secure our borders, deport hostile aliens and have the means to keep out of our country those who would wish us harm. All these are common sense measures the WSJ has opposed in the quest to ensure an endless supply of cheap foreign labor for American businesses. I submit you can have one or the other but not both. The WSJ can't seem to decide where it wants to be in the War On Jihad.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[rhema]

Meanwhile, John Edwards assures us we have nothing to worry about.