Are Our Big Cities Prepared for a Mumbai-Style Terror Hit?

One of the questions being asked in Britain and in the U.S. is whether there are enough anti-terrorism forces to go after terrorists in multiple locations in the same city, as it happened in Mumbai, India. Rather than army commandos, it would likely be SWAT teams that would be initially deployed in places like New York, L.A., Chicago, Detroit and Atlanta. Britain's got their own version of SWAT.

Focusing in on America, if a terrorist force hit multiple locations in one city and managed to dig in as they did in Mumbai, would there be enough SWAT units and other similar units to quickly deploy and begin immediate operations to secure whatever locations had been seized and rescue the hostages? And would reinforcements be quickly available from the federal government?

India was not prepared for an attack of this magnitude; it took 60 hours for them to clear the buildings that were captured by the terrorists. During that time, the terrorists were shooting hostages.

Are we ready for something like this?

Gordan Brown Installed As New Prime Minister of Great Britain

Queen Elizabeth II accepted the resignation of British Prime Minister Tony Blair today and installed Labor Party leader Gordon Brown as the new Prime Minister.

It should be interesting to watch as this new British government forms. How different will this government be with regards to relations with Washington and the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as compared to the Blair government?

On Tony Blair, I think critics were too harsh when they called him George Bush's poodle. His contributions to peace in Northern Ireland and in the developing world exceed President Bush's efforts, period. Don't look for the Quartet on the Middle East to ask President Bush to do anything for them when he leaves office. They may well throw a party after Bush goes back to Texas.

Blair did a much better job of explaining his reasons for supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, and was eloquent in defending his reasoning. A lot of that has to do with the fact that every Wednesday, he'd go to Parliament and duke it out with his opponents during Prime Minister's Questions, where he'd answer questions posed to him by the opposition and from his own party.

I think Prime Minister Brown will not have much of a grace period; his first Prime Minister's Questions next Wednesday will tell the tale.

Iranian President Should Have Apologized to British Navy Members For Waylaying Them, Not The Other Way Around: SICKENING

News hit this morning that Iran was releasing it's hostages that it had taken nearly two weeks ago in the Persian Gulf, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was shown receiving the gratitude of the captive British sailors and marines, one at a time. It was a SICKENING display of manipulation on international television.

Ahmadinejad should have been the one apologizing for invading Iraqi waters and waylaying a British boarding party that was doing it's job under a United Nations mandate.

Sick and wrong.

British/Iranian Crisis is Latest Excuse for Oil Prices to Increase: Oil Speculators At It Again

Let's see where increased oil prices fit into this latest Persian Gulf controversy:

1. British Navy intercepts cargo ship to inspect it in disputed Iraqi/Iranian waters...
2. Iran seizes 15 British sailors and marines who were the boarding party and take them to Tehran for questioning....
3. Britain and Iran exchange angry words....
4. Reports of U.S. and Iranian troops exchanging fire inside Iraqi territory. U.S. troops retreat out of fear of being taken hostage....
5. Iran is isolated from the international community...again.
6. Bush, Blair and Iran's terrorist president start the blame game anew.
   

How much has the oil supply fallen as the result of the British/Iranian row? NOT A DROP.

Has the Strait of Hormuz been closed to international shipping? NOPE.

Has the Strait been mined? NOPE.

Has Iran threatened to sink any tankers? NOPE.

Any refineries set ablaze? NOPE.

Any oil production facilities damaged or destroyed, leading to a drop in oil production? NOPE.

Any net effect whatsoever on the available oil supply? NONE.

Any tidal waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, or other natural disasters that could explain the price increases? NOPE.

Hmmm....

Are the oil speculators worried? Yep.

So, in spite of the fact that there is no decrease in oil output from the ongoing feud between Britain and Iran, and the oil supply is unaffected, the price for a barrel of oil has gone way up again.

The oil speculators and oil companies should pay for the artificial increases that they've created WITHOUT charging more at the pump. The British/Iranian issues are irrelevant to the cost of a barrel of oil, unless the missiles start to fly. Enough of the excuses, already!

Iranian Capture of 15 British Troops is a Repeated Violation of the Iraqi Border: Iranian Troops Captured in Recent Months Were in Iraqi Territory Too

A lot of people are waiting for the British Navy to sink the entire Iranian Navy in reprisal for the seizure of 15 British sailors and marines in Iraqi waters by the Iranian Navy.

They apparently roared in on their gunboats and took an entire British boarding party prisoner while still on the Iraqi side of the maritime border.

The British were carrying out a U.N.-mandated inspection of a seagoing vessel when they were captured.

Iran apparently has a great deal of trouble determining where the Iran/Iraq border actually is. Members of their Revolutionary Guard have been caught aiding insurgents on the Iraqi side of the border--some of them as far into Iraq as Baghdad itself.

So it should come as no surprise that Iran is continuing to violate the sovereignty of Iraq's borders. But this hostage-taking maneuver is highly unusual. They were probably hoping that the men (and woman) that they seized were Americans to put pressure on Washington to release Iranian terror operatives who were captured in Iraq or "disappeared" while in third countries.

Should be interesting to see what comes of this.