I find it all very suspicious for these reasons.
1/Its Israeli owned shopping mall.
2/Israeli elite forces were on the scene almost immediately.
3/ A British elite operative just happen to be having coffee, armed, in a busy shopping center, smack bang in the middle of a major terrorists attack.
This whole scenario stinks of tuna.
An off duty SAS soldier who was visting the Westgate Mall st the time is credited with saving
100 people. Armed with a handgun he escorted people from the mall to safety - returning some
dozen times to rescue people trapped inside by terrorist attack
For the gun haters shows just what a single armed individual can do in sucha situation......
reply to post by YodHeVauHe
The omission makes it seem as though the deed could have just as well been done without a weapon.
Because it's about the man and the deed and not the weapon or the means - surely you can see the difference?
The question would be better answered by the OP - dont'cha'yall think?
The weapon and the means is what saved those people.........without the weapon there would have been NO means - surely you can see the difference.
Gun Free Zones are a public menace and contribute GREATLY to the numbers of persons killed in situations such as these.
reply to post by firefight
No, it goes to show how a highly combat trained armed person can help a situation, not a random person off the street with a gun.
Talk about using a tragic situation to push an agenda..