British police expect Bombay-style raid in London in near future

And they can’t do anything to prevent it. Nor, in their own estimation, can they do anything to defeat it once it starts. The enemy is within. The enemy has been allowed within, because discrimination against him is prohibited. And the enemy must be allowed to remain within, because discrimination against him is prohibited. So all that’s left to do is to wait for the enemy to strike.

This what happens to a country after the liberal principle of non-discrimination has removed its identity and deprived it of the principle of life, which is also the principle of self-preservation. All that’s left is for the vultures and maggots to consume the rotting remains.

No one in today’s Britain, with the exception of the BNP, has ever said that Muslims do not belong in Britain, that they should not have been permitted to enter Britain, and they should be made to leave Britain. Meaning that with the exception of a handful of “extremists,” every British person is at least passively complicit in this act of national suicide.

The story is in the December 20 London Times:

Scotland Yard has warned businesses in London to expect a Mumbai-style attack on the capital.

In a briefing in the City of London 12 days ago, a senior detective from SO15, the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism command, said: “Mumbai is coming to London.”

The detective said companies should anticipate a shooting and hostage-taking raid “involving a small number of gunmen with handguns and improvised explosive devices”.

The warning—the bluntest issued by police—has underlined an assessment that a terrorist cell may be preparing an attack on London early next year.

It was issued by the Met through its network of “security forums”, which provide business leaders, local government and the emergency services with counter-terrorism advice.

During a “commando-style” raid by 10 gunmen on hotels and cafes in Mumbai in November 2008, 174 people were killed and more than 300 injured over three days.

Officials now report an increase in “intelligence chatter”—communications captured by electronic eavesdropping agencies. One senior security adviser said the police warnings had intensified and become much more specific in the past fortnight.

“Before, there has been speculation. Now we are getting what appears to be a definite plot to carry out a firearms attack on London,” he said.

Earlier this year, police, military and intelligence services held an exercise in Kent to see whether they could defeat a commando raid in London by terrorists.

“The exercise brought out to those taking part that the capability doesn’t exist to deal with that situation should it arise,” said a military source.

Security sources said concerns had been raised by “chatter” on a prominent jihadist website two weeks ago.

One contributor suggested fighters could use automatic weapons to strike places such as nightclubs, sporting venues and Jewish centres.

In an online discussion hosted on December 2, another contributor invited suggestions for carrying out “guerrilla warfare” and proposed “a group of mujaheddin raid police stations and fire at them”.

Another said: “Make sure that all those at the location are of age, that there are no children and so on. Insist on the locations and times where no Muslims or children are to be expected.

“If machine guns are available, and explosive and expertise for [explosives] are not available, this is a good way … The [Mumbai] operation is the ideal scenario for operations you are talking about.”

A third contributor said targets should be “chosen in a studied manner”.

He added: “In general, targeting economic joints and intelligence centres if possible has priority over police stations.”

The Met is understood to be struggling to draw up effective plans to deal with the challenge of mass shootings followed by a prolonged siege with terrorists prepared to kill their hostages and themselves.

In Mumbai, many victims were killed in the first half hour of the attack. The Met is concerned that it will be much longer before the SAS, which has traditionally dealt with terrorist sieges in London, would arrive from its base at Regent’s Park barracks.

Patrick Mercer, chairman of the Commons counter-terrorism sub-committee, said the threat was “very real”.

[end of Times article]

- end of initial entry -

Ferg writes:

You wrote:

“And they can’t do anything to prevent it. Nor, in their own estimation, can they do anything to defeat it once it starts.”

And not one non-governmental civilian can own, let alone carry, a handgun, nor keep a loaded rifle or shotgun on their business premises. So not one on-the-spot person will be able to deal with armed assault in any way whatsoever other than to act as a bullet sponge. And lest we go the same way we need to remember that prior to 1921 there were no restrictions on the ownership or carrying of arms in Britain whatsoever. It took less than seventy five years for all that to change. The people of Britain are utterly helpless in the face of their enemies, which is just how their government wants them. And just how ours wants us, and will make us as soon as they are able.

Edward writes:

In Deuteronomy God tells us,” I place before you life and death, choose life”. Western civilization has rejected God and the Bible and therefore it is rejecting God’s advice to choose life. The West is choosing death.

Bill Carpenter writes:

Your post on Britain, and Ferg’s comments, bring to mind recent discussions on VFR of liberal “Gnosticism.” Liberals love imaginary solutions to real problems. Laws are their particular favorites in this line. For liberals, a society in which guns are illegal is a safe society. It doesn’t matter how many real people are killed. Similarly, a society in which discrimination is illegal is a just society. It doesn’t matter how many real people are oppressed, cheated, or killed as a result of the liberal non-discrimination regime (to which we can ascribe the disabling limitations on capital punishment).

The Second Amendment gives the force of positive law to the natural right of self-defense in individuals and communities. The liberal attempt to negate the Second Amendment crystallizes the liberal-Gnostic war against reality and against the reality-based principles of natural law. It is truly pitiful that the British have resigned themselves to x number killed and wounded as the price they are willing to pay for the imaginary security and justice their government provides.

Massive civil disobedience is called for under the rubric of providing for self-defense. Perhaps we should offer a new Lend-Lease Program, to help them resist their Quisling-Vichy-New Labour government, which is probably more or less what they would have ended up (short of the deportations) with if their defense of the island had failed in 1940.

LA replies:

You wrote: “For liberals, a society in which guns are illegal is a safe society. It doesn’t matter how many real people are killed.”

That’s true, and the way you put it made me chuckle.

But how is this belief, that laws regardless of their real results make us safe, an example of gnosticism?

Paul K. writes:

This is why I feel no moral indignation about the internment of the Japanese (as well as many Germans and Italians, lest we forget) in World War II. It was a rational precaution taken by a nation that was not yet paralyzed by notions of tolerance. Am I sorry that patriotic Japanese-Americans suffered as a result? Yes I am. However, I greatly prefer the kind of hard-headed thinking that led to the Internment Act to the suicidal high-mindedness that prevails in the West today.

December 20 10:30 p.m.

David Levin writes:

This is truly depressing. I lived in London during the summer of ‘65. The IRA was “the enemy” then. Now it’s Muslim jihadists. Unbelievable. And all because of their suicidal immigration policy, greed (allowing illegals to enter the UK to work more cheaply than Brits would) and political correctness.

I have a friend there who is close to the BNP but not a member. She’s very politically active, or was till the Lisbon Treaty took away all hope. She’s a conservative who hates the Tories and the Libertarians but loves her socialized medicine. I’m afraid that so do many BNPers. They criticize socialism in the UK but want to hang onto part of it. She’s so depressed that she no longer emails me. I told her countrymen were crazy to give up their guns and ammo.

Bill Carpenter replies to LA:

You ask how the liberals’ love of imaginary solutions exemplifies gnosticism. The gnostic rejects the real as revealed by Jewish and then Christian revelation and rationalized by Greek philosophy. The gnostic characterizes that reality as a demonic fantasm and teaches an esoteric alternative world that can be achieved by rejecting the common life the society has evolved in relation to reality.

Liberalism is a modern gnosticism in rejecting the reality revealed by Judeo-Christian-Hellenic religion and philosophy, and in rejecting the culture and traditions that constitute the common life Western peoples have evolved in light of that religion and philosophy. To liberals, that religion and philosophy are demonic phantasms from which they have been liberated by the esoteric doctrines of Germanic critical philosophy. Liberals believe humans can be liberated from the nightmarish injustice of traditional society by pursuing a Jacobin-style absolute egalitarianism.

The rejection of revealed reality in favor of a human-constructed thought-world, in combination with a rejection of the traditional common life in favor of a human-dictated social organization, qualifies contemporary liberalism as a form of gnosticism. Of course, I am simply trying to paraphrase Eric Voegelin.

Joseph C. writes:

I see where Paul K. writes that he feels no moral indignation about the internment of the Japanese (as well as many Germans and Italians) in World War II, despite the fact that patriotic Japanese-Americans suffered as a result.

That is the rub. Too many Westerners (small w intended) have the law enforcement mentality—i.e., it’s better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. This may be merely inconvenient when (correctly) applied to procedures in criminal cases. But it is suicidal when applied to national policy. Extending this reasoning to its natural conclusion would mandate that it is better than 10 (or 100, or 1,000,000) terrorists roam freely than one patriotic immigrant be inconvenienced.

Count me among the hardheaded and hardhearted that would rather see innocent foreigners mistreated than hostile foreigners respected. I will get over the guilt very quickly—certainly more easily than I will recover from a hostile attack.

A. Zarkov writes:

Ferg writes, “The people of Britain are utterly helpless in the face of their enemies, which is just how their government wants them. And just how ours wants us, and will make us as soon as they are able.”

For once we have good news for citizens of the U.S. The 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller held provisions of the DC Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional. This decision affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment is an individual not a collective right. The court also held that handguns are covered by the Second Amendment, and the federal government cannot require that handguns and rifles must be stored unloaded with trigger locks. The court recognized the right of self defense is a natural right that the government may not abridge. For many decades liberals asserted that the Second Amendment applied only to militias and not individuals. This ruling changes everything. After Heller, Congress cannot confiscate your firearms which includes handguns. It cannot pass regulations that render firearms useless for self protection. “Keep and bear” means just that.

While your guns are safe from Congress, they are not safe from state legislatures, because Heller only applies to Congress and other federal rule making bodies. However, there is now a case before the Supreme Court, McDonald v. Chicago, that seeks to overturn local and state gun control laws by applying the doctrine of incorporation to the Second Amendment. This doctrine makes some, but not all of the Bill of Rights applicable to state and local governments. If McDonald succeeds, then the right to bear arms that is stated in the Second Amendment would be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment which applies to the states, and as a result state and local governments would not be able to deprive citizens of their right to keep and bear arms. The case also brings up some other issues that VFR readers can explore by going to the links. In my opinion, the prospects for McDonald are good. It’s hard to see why the Second Amendment should be skipped for incorporation. Moreover, Alan Gura, the lead counsel in Heller, is also the lead counsel in McDonald. Gura is a fabulous attorney and a rising star in legal circles. Our liberties are in good hands here.

Finally it’s not clear how Heller and McDonald would affect concealed carry laws as Heller still allows for some regulation. Cases to date seem to uphold prohibitions on concealed carry. Nevertheless the U.S. is now a far cry from the UK and EU which insist on making their citizens helpless. Fortunately the trends here are in the opposite direction. The UK is starting to resemble Airstrip One in the novel 1984.

LA replies:

The wholly illegitimate doctrine of Incorporation, whereby various provisions of the Bill of Rights have been progressively “incorporated” into the 14th amendment, has been the single greatest engine for the destruction of state and local rule in this country, the keystone of the arch (sorry for the mixed metaphor) of the modern centralized state. However, no one questions it any more. Find any mainstream conservatives or even paleoconservatives (outside this site) who criticizes it. That being the case, why should conservatives accept Incorporation when it is used for illegitimate purposes such as stripping local communities of their right to have school prayer and to enforce local standards, while opposing Incorporation when it is used for something legitimate like securing the right of self defense?

Since we live at present under the Incorporation regime, and no one dreams of challenging it, conservatives might as well get something out of it as well as liberals.

At the same time, let us acknowledge that under the unperverted U.S. Constitution, which we should all hope will be restored some day, states could have religious establishments, school districts could have school prayer and dress codes, municipalities could have anti loitering and anti-vagrancy laws, states could outlaw sodomy, and states could ban the ownership of guns. If the people of those states and communities didn’t like any of those laws, they could change them through their state and local political processes, rather than running to federal courts to do it for them. It’s called self-government. It’s supposed to be what America is about.

Ferg writes:

A. Zarkov writes:

“Nevertheless the U.S. is now a far cry from the UK and EU which insist on making their citizens helpless. Fortunately the trends here are in the opposite direction.”

Yes sir, very true and thank goodness. However, what one Supreme Court joins together, another Supreme Court can tear asunder. We will never be safe so long as our future rights hang on the moods and political ideologies of a bunch of lawyers wearing black robes. Rule by judges was one of the things the Founders were trying to get away from. What is needed is a constitutional affirmation of the Second Amendment in modern language that can not be ignored or played with by courts. Something that ends along the lines of “This amendment is absolute and may not be altered or edited by any court, nor diminished in any way by legislation save by constitutional amendment”. Only then would I feel safe.

Ron K. writes:

You write, ” … under the unperverted U.S. Constitution, which we should all hope will be restored some day … states could ban the ownership of guns.”

Were a state to ban ownership of guns, it would no longer have a militia. So how would that state fulfill its constitutional requirement to have one, and to make it available when necessary to the president?

Also, a state that prohibited guns to private citizens would no longer be, in any real sense, a republic. (Article IV, Section 4) Enacting such a law would be tantamount to secession. Congress would be arguably required to refuse seats to that state’s senators and representatives.

So you do not need the Incorporation Doctrine, Second Amendment or Bill of Rights, to protect a “right” of gun ownership. The body of the Constitution should suffice to protect the fact of gun ownership. (At least for white men. Let’s not kid ourselves about what the Founders thought.)

LA replies:

You’re right. At the moment I forget how 2nd amendment has been interpreted, whether it’s been considered binding just on Congress, or on the states as well, but on the face of it, it would make no sense for the 2nd amendment to be binding only on Congress. It says that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If states can infringe it, then it’s infringed. That’s very different from the 1st Amendment, which says, “Congress shall make no law … ”

However, if what I just said is correct, then why is Incorporation now being used in an attempt to get local restrictions on gun ownership thrown out in Chicago, as Mr. Zarkov mentioned? Evidently the 2nd amendment is considered, at least in some instances, as not binding on states and localities, and that’s why Incorporation is being brought in, in an attempt to bind them.

December 21

Larry T. writes:

The petitioner’s brief in McDonald v. Chicago, the case that will decide whether the 14th Amendment makes the 2d Amendment applicable to state and local governments, has been posted online. It is a pdf file, so you have to scroll down. The cited portion begins on page 10.

It is pretty long, but I found it really interesting. Apparently, a major impetus behind the passage of the 14th amendment was that the states of the old Confederacy were disarming former slaves and subjecting them to harm.

Excerpt from the brief:

A Constitutional Amendment Broadly Securing Americans’ Rights Proved Necessary Following the Civil War. The Fourteenth Amendment was understood and intended to provide the Union a legal framework commensurate with its military victory. The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery, but did not improve the legal status of free blacks and their supporters. Repression of civil rights by state officials had long agitated Americans prior to the war. Continuing outrages in the unreconstructed South could no longer be tolerated.

Chief among the North’s complaints, “[b]lacks were routinely disarmed by Southern States … Those who opposed these injustices frequently stated that they infringed blacks’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” … Initially, the Army sought to secure the right to arms, among other rights, by fiat. For example, in South Carolina, the occupying Union commander ordered that “[t]he constitutional rights of all loyal and well-disposed inhabitants to bear arms will not be infringed.” Order of Gen. Sickles, Disregarding the Code, Jan. 17, 1866, in Political History of the United States of America During the Period of Reconstruction 37 (Edward McPheron, ed., 2d ed. 1875).

The freedmen appreciated the protection of their rights to armed self-defense: “We are glad to learn that Gen. Scott, Com- missioner for this State, has given freedmen to understand that they have as good a right to keep fire arms as any other citizens. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and we will be governed by that at present.”


But the South could not remain forever under military rule, and Congress noted the situation. “[M]en who were in the rebel armies, are traversing the State, visiting the freedmen, disarming them, perpetrating murders and outrages on them; and the same things are being done in other sections of the country.”

LA replies:

That is very interesting. I was not aware that among the fundamental rights that were being denied to the freedmen and that led to the 14th Amendment, was the right to bear arms.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 20, 2009 01:42 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):