Terror across the pond

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by steel_eel

I wish Brits would get as pissed and actionable in response to this as they do about football.

Oh, they get "pissed" alright !

"Pissed - This is a great one for misunderstanding. Most people go to the pub to get pissed. In fact the object of a stag night is to get as pissed as possible. Getting pissed means getting drunk. It does not mean getting angry. That would be getting pissed off!"

But, your observation is one that many share - how much longer will they tolerate innocents to be butchered in the streets? This particularly gruesome murder may be a tipping point for many in Britain.

[98G]

While this woman's actions might look foolish, her intent to keep them distracted until the police arrived (knowing children would be getting out of school) works for me. She does not strike me as a naive woman but rather at 48, willing to put herself in harms way to protect others with the only weapon she had at the time.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...=Cheat%20Sheet

The Woman Who Stood Up to the Woolwich Butchers
by Christopher Dickey May 23, 2013 6:55 AM EDT

England has a new heroine and we all have a new champion in the fight against terrorism. She is the 48-year-old Cub Scout leader from Cornwall, Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, who got off a bus in Woolwich, South London, yesterday when she saw a man lying injured in the street and rushed to give him first aid. He was dead already; literally hacked to death. She saw two men nearby with cleavers and carving knives. One of them had a revolver. Their hands were covered in blood. Loyau-Kennett didn’t run. She confronted one of them.

“I thought I had better start talking to him before he starts attacking somebody else,” she later told London’s Daily Telegraph. “I thought, ‘These people usually have a message.’ So I said, ‘What do you want?'”

What they wanted was “to start a war in London tonight,” one of them told her. But what they really wanted was even simpler than that. They wanted to be feared. And that is precisely what Loyau-Kennett, at least outwardly, would not grant them.

Such sangfroid is vital at a time when terrorist tactics are evolving from spectacular, highly organized operations like 9/11 or the July 2005 suicide bombings in the London Tube to more random atrocities by individuals or pairs of conspirators, as appears to have been the case with the attack at the Boston Marathon.

The first lesson in the fight against such criminals is not to show that you are frightened: not to let them shut down society; and not to let them think or let yourself believe for a single minute that the message they “usually” have is anything more than a rationalization of their own pathologies.

Loyau-Kennett’s account of the incident, published in the Telegraph, is just amazing, and cell phone pictures that have now gone round the world back it up. Other brave women had tried to shelter the mutilated body on the ground. But Loyau-Kennett went above and beyond. You see her standing there in her down vest and jeans looking as casual—and firm—as she must look when she’s putting eight-year-olds in their place. (Many years ago, women leaders of Cub Scout packs were called “den mothers,” evoking an image of ferocious maternal protectiveness that still seems very damned appropriate in this case.)

One of the alleged killers, a tall man in a black hat, “had what looked like butcher’s tools and he had a little axe, to cut the bones, and two large knives and he said, ‘Move off the body,’” she remembers.

“I asked him if he did it and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said, ‘Why?’ And he said because he [the dead man on the ground] has killed Muslim people in Muslim countries,” Loyau-Kennett recalled. “He said [the dead man] was a British soldier and I said, ‘Really?’ And he said, ‘I killed him because he killed Muslims and I am fed up with people killing Muslims in Afghanistan. They have nothing to do there.’”

This was, of course, pure Bin Laden boilerplate, a slogan that’s not religion and hardly rises to the level of ideology: if you can’t kill your real enemy, then expand the definition and kill who you can. Scholars like Gilles Kepel, author of The War for Muslim Minds, trace the rationalism back to a medieval jurist named Ibn Taymiyya, and through a strain of fanaticism financed by Saudi oil money that spread across the world and into some of the immigrant neighborhoods of Europe late in the last century where it was distilled into catchphrases.

The butchers of Woolwich, like so many would-be terrorists, probably saw themselves as chivalrous. They were, in their way, punctilious about killing a soldier, however cowardly the attack, hitting him with a car, then laying into him with their blades. The kinds of things they told Loyau-Kennett and others on the scene suggest they saw themselves as warriors killing another warrior, and sparing the innocents. One of the alleged killers even apologized for the fact that women in the neighborhood had to see the carnage on the street.

The murderers’ notion that “justice” is best carried out by decapitations is also a commonplace. In 2007, British security services foiled a plot by a group of British-Pakistanis to kidnap a random soldier, take him to a garage and behead him on video, then post it for all the world to see. In Iraq, the Al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi built much of his fame with graphic beheadings posted on the Web. Before him, the murderers of American reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan had done much the same.

Sajjan Gohel, a counterterrorism expert at the Asia-Pacific Foundation in London, calls this “the visualization of terrorism,” meant to communicate that “anger, hate and the fact that anyone is a potential target.”

But Loyau-Kennett simply refused to take the message from the man in the black hat. She kept talking, and listening the way one listens to a child to calm him down, and waiting: 10 minutes, 15 minutes. Still the cops hadn’t come.

“I started to notice more weapons and the guy behind him with more weapons as well,” she told the Telegraph. “By then, people had started to gather around. So I thought, ‘OK, I should keep him talking to me before he notices everything around him.’”

“He was not high,” said Loyau-Kennett. “He was not on drugs. He was not an alcoholic or drunk. He was just distressed, upset. He was in full control of his decisions and ready to [do] everything he wanted to do.”

The man in the black hat, cleaver and knife in hand, decided to take his message to other bystanders, including one who had been on his way to a job interview but stopped to film the incident with his cell phone. That rant about “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” now lives in infamy on the Internet.

Loyau-Kennett turned her attention to the second alleged killer, who wore a light brown coat. He appeared to be “much shier,” she said. “I went to him and I said, ‘Well, what about you? Would you like to give me what you have in your hands?’ I did not want to say ‘weapons,’ but I thought it was better having them aimed on one person like me rather than everybody there, children were starting to leave school as well.

Finally the cops arrived. The butchers of Woolwich reportedly attacked them as they got out of their cars, and the police shot and wounded both of the alleged murderers. They wouldn’t be hurting anybody else.

The den mother had done her job.

[longrange1947]

Britian, during its disarmament of the subjects, declared self defense NOT a right. Thus they disarmed accordingly. They are now reaping what they sow. unarmed Police would have no good and that damn whistle would have tooted for naught.

Greenie, you really need to read a lot more on that subject, and not some liberal "Green" rag, you are not well schooled in the subject of violent crime in the UK compared to the US. Had concealed to carry been available, while the victim may not have been able to defend himself, others may very well have. I cannot believe that the most civilized nation of Britain, would have troubles with guns. Oh wait, they didn't, just as here, some liberal idiots used an anomaly to disarm the public.

Sucking up to the muslims, only emboldens the them to do more and more of this crap. The US will also start having problems shortly is this Administration and other liberal judges and fools don't get their heads out of their a**es.

Rant off, but I am really tired of this s**t.

[Cobwebs]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

Britian, during its disarmament of the subjects, declared self defense NOT a right. Thus they disarmed accordingly. They are now reaping what they sow. unarmed Police would have no good and that damn whistle would have tooted for naught.

Greenie, you really need to read a lot more on that subject, and not some liberal "Green" rag, you are not well schooled in the subject of violent crime in the UK compared to the US. Had concealed to carry been available, while the victim may not have been able to defend himself, others may very well have. I cannot believe that the most civilized nation of Britain, would have troubles with guns. Oh wait, they didn't, just as here, some liberal idiots used an anomaly to disarm the public.

Sucking up to the muslims, only emboldens the them to do more and more of this crap. The US will also start having problems shortly is this Administration and other liberal judges and fools don't get their heads out of their a**es.

Rant off, but I am really tired of this s**t.

Amen

[Utah Bob]

They continue to call it a "suspected terrorist attack". One wonders what evidence the need for God's sake! And these guys were already on the radar!

I can only hope this cowardly murder brings some positive response from the Brits.
But I suspect it it will only result in a call for banning meat cleavers.
Years of virtually uncontrolled immigration and strict gun control. Somhow this has not resulted in a British Utopia. Shocked I am.

Rest in peace Drummer Rigby. We will not forget you.

[PRB]

Not to worry, Bam says the War on Terror has been won, we can coast now....

[rdret1]

What upsets me the most is not the fact that the Brits allowed themselves to be disarmed and turned into total sheep. It is not the fact that it took the Bobbies so long to arrive on scene. It is not even the fact that these two turds senselessly, and barbarically killed this young soldier, husband, and father. What gets my goat is the fact that this was a crowded street, in broad daylight, with so many of the sheep just standing there and watching it happen! NO ONE tried to overpower and subdue these two. The one woman was the only one with balls enough to attempt to actually do anything about it. The only thing they were armed with was knives! Were there no improvised weapons of any kind in the area? The simple numbers of people there would have been enough to subdue these two, and maybe exact a little street justice at the same time. It irks me that it did not happen.

[tonyz]

Below is the rant by the London terrorist who appears on video - without the voice-over.

"We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day.

This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today. In our land our women have to see the same.

You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street?

When we start bustin’ our guns do you think the politicians are going to die? No it’s going to be the average guy, like you, and and your children. So get rid of them.

Tell them to bring our troops back so you can all live in peace."

[Paragrouper]

Originally Posted by tonyz

When we start bustin’ our guns

But they don't have any guns, right?
The government collected all those guns, remember?
Now everyone is much safer, see?

Right?

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Paragrouper

But they don't have any guns, right?
The government collected all those guns, remember?
Now everyone is much safer, see?

Right?

Lol.

Loosened immigration policy - check

Political correctness run amok - check

Reluctance/Failure to acknowledge an enemy - check

Disarmed populace - check

The political elite seem to have it just about covered.

God Bless the Second Amendment.

[tonyz]

Video of the two terrorists charging police and exchanging fire - before both terrorists are down.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=84c_1369344545

[Geenie]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Having armed citizens means the two perpetrators would have shot the soldier....?

That's not how it actually works...



This has proven to be false largely due to the way they report crime. It keeps the numbers artificially low.

No, I'm saying if weapons are freely available to the citizenry, that means "bad guys" can just as well obtain one. To me, that is common sense, and nothing else.

With regard to the statistics, I am aware that they are a highly questionable means of addressing the question of gun control. I will be grateful for any credible sources you can provide that "prove" that Britain has been artificially keeping it's violent crime rate low. In any case, I cannot possibly imagine that, proportionally, the murder rate involving firearms is even remotely comparable to that of the US.

I am completely open to being shown otherwise.

[glebo]

Originally Posted by Geenie

No, I'm saying if weapons are freely available to the citizenry, that means "bad guys" can just as well obtain one. To me, that is common sense, and nothing else.

With regard to the statistics, I am aware that they are a highly questionable means of addressing the question of gun control. I will be grateful for any credible sources you can provide that "prove" that Britain has been artificially keeping it's violent crime rate low. In any case, I cannot possibly imagine that, proportionally, the murder rate involving firearms is even remotely comparable to that of the US.

I am completely open to being shown otherwise.

New flash...bad guys don't obey the law. Look at some of the major US cities that have gun restrictions...bad guys still have guns, and can get them....through other bad guys.

The law abiding citizen will comply...so you have...bad guys with guns....good guys without.

Laws won't curtail bad guys, only good guys who obey them..

[Geenie]

Bad guys can always get guns, I agree. However, on average, it's probably much more difficult to obtain an illegal gun in the UK (or Germany, for example) than it is in the US. Would you agree?

[Destrier]

Originally Posted by Geenie

No, I'm saying if weapons are freely available to the citizenry, that means "bad guys" can just as well obtain one. To me, that is common sense, and nothing else.

With regard to the statistics, I am aware that they are a highly questionable means of addressing the question of gun control. I will be grateful for any credible sources you can provide that "prove" that Britain has been artificially keeping it's violent crime rate low. In any case, I cannot possibly imagine that, proportionally, the murder rate involving firearms is even remotely comparable to that of the US.

I am completely open to being shown otherwise.

So apparently as long as the killing is done with something other than a firearm it is ok. Because that keeps the 'gun crime rate down'. Removing guns from the citizenry is your answer to lowering 'gun crime' but it does not stop 'crime'

Your 'common sense' to disarm citizens is put plainly, nonsense.