And what will be the position of the American and British governments toward a continuing large-scale presence of Muslims in their respective countries, were there to be an attack by Muslims within those countries? War always deals with the "collective." When Bomber Harris conducted the campaign of raids on German cities, he did so to punish them, and to break their will, to damage the Nazi morale and capacity for war-making. When the Enola Gay flew over Hiroshima, it was in order to make an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands unnecessary, to save a million lives. But in both cases "innocent civilians" were wounded or killed. Had the United States ever bombed Soviet Russia, undoubtedly among the dead would have been those who did not support the Communist regime. When Benes and Masaryuk expelled the Sudeten Germans in 1946, because of the behavior of so many of them, in collaborating with Hitler in his aims, before the war and then during the war, it was understood that some of those expelled had not so collaborated, were in a sense "innocent." But that is what national security, the Czechs felt, given the behavior of too many Sudeten Germans, at that point demanded.

What's the moral here? The moral here is that the governments of Infidel states have a duty to preserve the physical security of their own people, and the continued stabilty, and even existence, of political and legal institutions that are flatly contradicted by the spirit and letter of Islam. And there seems to be as yet that we have not made clear that there will be consequences damaging to Islam and the Jihad should those who wish, and work to do us harm, in the name of Islam, as they work to support or protect from attack the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear project, or any other Muslim state (Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, fill in whatever you wish right here) or polity (the "Palestinian" Authority) or group (Hamas or Hezbollah or Lashkar Jihad or a thousand other groups, including of course the various local succursales of the Ikhwan or Muslim Brotherhood).

What is the punishment, what will be the consequences, of such an attack? It should be: to end all Muslim immigration to the country attacked (and, proleptically, in other Infidel countries), and a relentless campaign to shut down efforts at Da'wa, to end support by rich Arabs abroad (mainly Saudi Arabia) to pay for mosques, madrasas, Da'wa, and armies of Western hirelings to deflect any criticism either of Islam or of such malevolent states as Saudi Arabia). Make sure that the consequences are fully understood. Treating the matter purely as one for the security services, who will merely locate those immediately responsible, if they can, for such attacks, is not nearly enough. Let it be clear that the threat, or potential future threat, will be diminished, in the same way, with the same permissible amplitude, that we have always permited ourselves, correctly, in previous wars, those wars that were of a more traditional and therefore more easily understood, kind.

Posted by: Hugh at November 26, 2007 9:58 AM

This threat issued just goes to show their intentions that are already in place. They are already prepared to launch terrorist attacks in nations...so the sooner we act in cutting off the head in Iran, the less chance of them getting stronger with their sleeper cells. I couldn't imagine waiting another few years to level Iran's nuclear capability...if Iran controls Hizbullah with such a short leash, how easy would it be to get a nuclear device to them?

Posted by: SoteriA at November 26, 2007 10:11 AM

Not only Britain

“If the United States were to attack Iran, the only country ruled by God, we would counter-attack in Latin America and even inside the United States itself. We have the means and we know how to go about it. We will sabotage the transportation of oil from Latin America to the US. You have been warned” Sheidy Teodoro Rafael Darnott

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/11/shiite-indians-of-venezuela-rita-vernoy.html

Posted by: shiva at November 26, 2007 10:24 AM

The moral here is that the governments of Infidel states have a duty to preserve the physical security of their own people, and the continued stabilty, and even existence, of political and legal institutions that are flatly contradicted by the spirit and letter of Islam.
by Hugh

Count on those same infidel governments to draw distinctions between "good Muslims" and "bad Muslims". They did it after the Iranian Revolution and the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran. We heard that the Iranians were from a radical Islamic sect and that most Muslims were mainstream, or Sunni.

War is about the collective, but collective punishment has become verboten in Western societies. We are expected to die for our principles rather than defend them, to allow ourselves to be killed rather than be first to draw a weapon. Governments aren't good at the Golden Rule, but that is what some of us expect from them today.

Many of the people who will blame government for not being able to prevent a terrorist attack have played a key role in making preventive actions nearly impossible.

Posted by: PMK at November 26, 2007 10:27 AM

So, once again we see the 6th Pillar of Islam at work. We are always in the shadow of one Islamic death threat or another. Indeed, Islam is a death threat.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 26, 2007 11:09 AM

I know exactly what Iran will do in case of an attack: nothing. They talk big, but they're cowards. I think the West is making a huge mistake by caving in to these threats.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 26, 2007 11:26 AM

Is Bush going to get involved in Iran and then hand the situation over to the president elect to settle out? I wish he would but I fear he won't and he will pressure Israel to avoid the same. Bush's testicles are put away for the rest of his term. I would gladly eat my words.

Posted by: pismopal at November 26, 2007 11:42 AM

Are those 'terrorist' cells in the U.S. or are they 'muslim' cells in the U.S.?

When these 'muslim' cells strike, how many positions in U.S. FBI, CIA, Congress and Senate will be vacated through the demand of resignations?

Posted by: alaskan1000 at November 26, 2007 12:45 PM

So...they'll launch reprisals, in Britain, even if Britain had NO part in it? It's what they're saying.

Say...if Israel did it, they'd still "reprise" the UK?

Say...if the US did it, they'd still "reprise" the UK?

Now here in the real world, that's tantamount to attacking a 3rd party country that did NOT do it, because of another country that DID.

I'm imagining the REAL "reprisal" afterward, by the Brits, if hezbollah pulled THAT one off...and THEY (the Brits) don't even have WEAPONS en masse like we Americans do.
It'd be the LAST thing they, or ANY mOslem, ever did.
THAT's the scary thought...the Brit response to them. I should know...
"...their blood flows in my veins...", too.
(Churchill)

Posted by: jcom972 at November 26, 2007 2:11 PM

Sounds like we should attack Iran.

If the thought of an attack on the Iranian nuclear program gets Hizballah's panties in a bunch........maybe we should.

We take matches away from children, don't we?

Posted by: tanstaafl at November 26, 2007 2:23 PM

I'd say more like "guns"...
"...guns out of the hands of children."

Posted by: jcom972 at November 26, 2007 2:31 PM

Bomber Harris, now there was a gentleman who had a rough time after the war, for doing a job nobody else wanted. Churchill had to force him to take his Baronetcy. When he was in Iraq and the North West territories of India in the 20s and 30s of the last century, he used to bomb the tribes that caused trouble. He was usually very effective. I suppose it was the mustard gas bombs he used along with high explosives. He was also an original thinker issuing his pilots with a goolie chit, in the different languages saying that if the pilot in the event of having to bail out was returned with his wedding tackle insitu then the bearer would receive the sum of 100 gold sovereigns. He certainly knew how to run an empire on the cheap. We could do with a few more like him now. He was always blunt and too the point and never minced his words. He was loyal to his men his country and defended both to the best of his ability. He is still held in high esteem by the R.A.F. even today. He certainly knew the best way of treating Arabs "the only thing the Arab understands is the heavy hand." is one of his more unremarkable quotes. The sadness of the whole affair is that an attitude similar to Harris's will be needed. The Buck stops here, hard choices will have to be made the way Truman had to make them, the no of lives lost will be put on the scales and weighted. If I use the Atom Bomb I will kill a couple of hundred thousand Japanese, if I don't then perhaps we lose 500,000 American soldiers and twice as many Japanese if we invade. What ever you do you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't by the Bleeding hearts. The problem is now that the Politicians don't want to be the ones that do it and suffer the approbation of the world. They would rather be moral cowards and leave it to the next Generation of Politicians, who will be forced to make an even hard choice. The ones that will be ruling Europe and America when Iran gets the Bomb and starts to Blackmail the world. When the leaders of Iran have the capacity and think that it might be a good idea to wipe Israel off the map if it conjures up their mythical fairy out of his wishing well.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at November 26, 2007 3:26 PM

Well, we suffer through threats against the infidels in our own countries, threats of violence, jihad no less, and more concessions please from the dirty infidels, apes and pigs.

But thats not all we have the privilege of dealing with in the lands we so graciously let the throngs into. We have to put up with threats and likely jihad due to trouble caused by another remotely distant Muslim land, even if provoked and brought on by that Muslim land.

Aren't we lucky!

Posted by: sounder at November 26, 2007 3:52 PM

Hugh,

I fear deep in my soul that the position of the American and British governments after large-scale attacks within our borders will be about the same as it is today. The one exception will be that the law-abiding, non-muslim, citizens of the US and UK will find ourselves under even closer scrutiny and restrictions that we live with today. Our rights will go straight down the drain, but I seriously doubt any official move will be made to curtail the activities of the ones making trouble. That will be the position of the governments.

The position of the people...will be something quite different. Oh yeah, there will be cries for tolerance and moves to prosecute and persecute those who "take matters into their own hands", but in the end I trust the American people to deal with the situation.
I have all the faith in the world in the citizens of our Republic, but almost none in our elected officials.

As Gen. Sherman said, "War is hell." It's a damn shame that people other than the ones directly involved in a conflict suffer, but that's how it works. By not carrying out the same sorts of campaigns as we did in World War 2, the enemy has no reason to quit fighting. You break the enemy's will to fight. Kill their soldiers, destroy their war making capability, and make life hard as hell on the civilians supporting the war directly or indirectly. That is the ONLY way to win. There's no such thing as policing action, and there's no playing nice in war.

Posted by: livefreeordie! at November 26, 2007 4:30 PM

I wonder if those idiots carrying the "We are all Hezbollah now" placards after Israel was attacked, will feel quite so proud if the UK is attacked. Most likely, yes they will.

Posted by: Celsius at November 26, 2007 4:31 PM

Are those 'terrorist' cells in the U.S. or are they 'muslim' cells in the U.S.?

Moslem activist cells.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 26, 2007 5:36 PM

It is quite obvious that if Hezbollah can fire rockets into Israel from enclaves in Lebanon then by the same reasoning they could fire rockets from Muslim 'enclaves' in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Slough, Blackburn, etc., into non-Muslim areas. Thre are plenty of jihadis in the Balkans who would be capable of tutoring the local aspirants to the cause and unlike suicide bombing the rocketeers live to fight another day. Just one such geographically spaced attack in synchronised firings would bring about a panic in the land not seen since the Black Death (and its causes would be equally mis-diagnosed).

With the UK's largely uncontrolled borders and coastline it would not need great skill to smuggle mobile rocket launchers into Britain.
If we are hit by Hezbollah rockets soon I doubt if we would react as resolutely as we did in in WW2. There would be individual heroism no doubt, but we are not collectively the people we were in 1939.

There would be panic and anarchy because currently Britain lives on a knife-edge between law and lawlessness. The British people are not being informed of the dire threat to our country that it faces and few realise that instead of our under-valued brave troops being on a hopeless mission in Iraq and Afghanistan they ought to be deployed at home on a mission against what is in essence the same enemy they are fighting abroad.

Muslims are organised through the mosques and non-Muslims aren't organised in this way and on this scale.

In WW2 we didn't have about 2 million nazis living in our midst. We had a relatively few known nazi sympathisers and many actual pre-war fascists joined the armed forces when the crunch came. The die-hard home-grown nazis were interned on the Isle of Man or put in prison. Ironically some German and Austrian Jews were interned alongside the fascists simply because of being 'enemy aliens' (I have never actually met or read anything by any of these unlucky Jews). To attempt the internment of individual potentially dangerous Muslims in Britain is something no government would, at the moment, have the guts to debate, let alone implement.

In 1939 we knew that we were in for war and anyone over about 34 would have had a clear idea of what WW1 had been like either at home or abroad. What is more most of the British population in 1939 were identifiably 'British' both to themselves and to others, we had a common enemy and we shared patriotism, values, respect for the law and shared a common purpose and knew by and large what we were fighting against. (It was different in Northern Ireland where IRA supporters were sabotaging the war effort and helping the Germans.) This 'Britishness' was not confined to indigenous white people - hundreds of thousands of people from the British Empire including West Indians and people from the sub-continent (including some Muslims) volunteered for war service.

It is rather a different situation today in Britain. Now we have a very real internal threat that is growing daily - not just from Muslim demographics but from the stifling of any sensible or unfettered debate about what we as a nation need to do if we are to escape Muslim rule. All we get is the steady daily drip of pro-Muslim propaganda both from Muslims and from their dhimmies and from the reality-challenged (like Jack Straw).

One of my earliest memories is of hiding in a coal cellar listening to German bombers flying overhead. I don't rule out the prospect that one of my last will be hearing Hezbollah rockets exploding.

Posted by: moris2 at November 26, 2007 7:15 PM

They still can't get into their stupid heads, that after 9/11 the world has changed and it isn't
in their favor, i know and we know that these type of happenings are backfiring on them and when we have had enough of their childish bull all hell will break loose as in afganistan and irag, hey clowns our polititians may
be sometimes corrupt,lying,cheating pieces of crap but they know who puts them into office and they aren't about to loose that power just for you.

Posted by: OLD SARGE at November 26, 2007 7:46 PM

This is the same Hezbollah cowards Bush and Rice and EUrabian cowards rescued last year from Israel by passing the cease-fire resolution that stopped Israel's war effort in its tracks.
After Hezbollah committed many mass murders of Americans and Europeans, blew up embassies, hijacked planes, held hostages for 7 years, executed 3 of them and tortured 2 others to death.
The cowardly US and NATO criminals bombed Serbia for 79 days to make terrorists the masters of Kosovo, but did not let Israel bomb terrorists even half that long.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at November 26, 2007 8:41 PM

I'll repeat the same posting here in response as above:

Ruslan Tulkhuchov, Enraged Since 1999 --

No need to stay enraged every single minute since 1999. Here's something to calm you down, or possibly cheer you up. Think of it as a present from Ludmila:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDCT8b2R2SQ&feature=related

Posted by: Hugh at November 26, 2007 8:57 PM

Thanks, Hugh

Man, you keep me from overheating.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, TemporarilyRelaxed.

Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at November 26, 2007 10:02 PM

*cough* *sputter*

*AHEM*

Mirror, Mirror...

"1/4 of its child-rapist customers are US and NATO "peacekeepers". As if we did not have enough degenerates among us, thousands of American GI's are groomed to rape children, and then they come back home, to our children. Our tax dollars at work."
Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at November 6, 2007 2:55 PM

*WEG*

Posted by: jcom972 at November 27, 2007 6:42 AM