There are two possible responses to a dispersed threat like home-grown terrorism: A dispersed response, such as what worked on United Flight 93, or an unarmed population and a police state. Britain has chosen a police state, and this happens.
“Video filmed by an onlooker and broadcast by ITV News shows a man with his hands covered in blood and holding a bloodied knife and machete. He says in a London accent: “I apologise that women had to witness that, but in our lands our women have to see the same thing.”
“You people will never be safe. Remove your Government, they don’t care about you.”
He then walks off, still carrying his weapons, back towards the body of the victim who is lying in the middle of the road.”
In other parts of the video, said to be too shocking to show, it is claimed he says: “This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
“We saw clearly two knives, meat cleavers. They were big kitchen knives like you would use in a butcher’s. They were hacking at this poor guy. We thought they were trying to remove organs from him.
These two guys were crazed, they were not there, they were just animals. They then dragged him from the pavement and dumped his body in the middle of the road.
They took 20 minutes to arrive, the police – the armed response.”
For years, the rulers of Britain have been telling their subjects not to get involved, not to defend themselves, not to fight back. Now when a horrific murder happens right in front of their eyes, rather than help, they watch. And take pictures, and don’t jump in and stop the attack
Compare this to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Tucson, where bystanders jumped on the attacker and armed (civilian) response was on-scene in a matter of minutes, far ahead of the police.
One country trusts its citizens to protect themselves, one discourages it. I know which country I prefer to live in.
* Headline style stolen shamelessy from Ace.
Number of comments: 0 Add comment
May 22nd, 2013 by exurbankevin