| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Fairford Two strike blow for anti-war protesters (Terrorist Jury Acquits Saboteurs) |
| 2007-05-26 |
| Posted by:Atomic Conspiracy |
| #6 The South Africans came out with a real brush sweeper automatic shotgun some years ago. Oddly enough, they managed to machine it in such a way that the recoil wouldn't tear your arm off. However, to continue with the "testimony", then you would describe how they continued to menace you even when "And then for the tenth time, I said halt, or I may have to discharge another round, but they continued to advance on me while holding what appeared to be a weapon in a menacing fashion..." |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-05-26 22:19 |
| #5 Only objection to the above is "Discharge 'A' round" don't dare stop at one round, be sure.(Unless it's a beehive tank round, or shotgun. Is there any such thing as a machine shotgun?) |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-05-26 22:02 |
| #4 AC: In practice you don't make much of a formal deal out of it. You just put either a sharp or blunt object in their hand, after they are no longer in a position to resist. "...And then, after telling them to halt in a loud, clear voice a second time, they continued to advance towards me, wielding what appeared to be weapons in a menacing fashion. I then said, halt, or I will be forced to discharge a round in self-defense..." |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-05-26 19:51 |
| #3 AC, you're looking into a crystal ball in #2. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-05-26 19:37 |
| #2 As a last resort, we can fall back on international law to deal with Fairford style outrages. The Geneva Conventions permit the immediate execution of saboteurs captured while committing acts of violence on behalf of an armed enemy. Any moonbats who attempt to emulate these two Fairford bastards can be put against the nearest wall and shot. Impossible? Maybe, but it is definitely legal and it does not require jury nullification of common law to hold up in court, especially with the Fairford precedent demonstrating a lack of recourse. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2007-05-26 18:21 |
| #1 Absolutely disgraceful. It would appear that the rule of law has collapsed in the UK, since ad hoc activists can not only decide military and defense policy, including a clairvoyant judgment of intent; but take violent action to further those pro-terror policies. The constant anti-American demonization and bigotry spewing from the British media are the cause of this. The left beasts will continue their pro-terror campaign until they are held to account. The lack of accountability is the key to these outrages and that must change. We need a loyalist Soros to finance a campaign of legal resistance to these totalitarians. Nevertheless, some steps can be taken without millions in bribes and other under-the-table payments. As a first step, the financial dealings of jurors in this case should be thoroughly investigated and, if warranted, fully exposed. At the very least, British terror-tools visiting the United States should face protest, exposure, and passive resistance at every step of their lucrative speaking tours and business transactions. This requires nothing more than a database and a little grassroots organization. Finally, if sabotage in support of the Saddamite armed forces is permissible, then surely similar (though not so recklessly dangerous) action would be justified against people who are plainly war criminals under the Julius Streicher and William Joyce ("Lord Haw Haw") precedents. This should include their corporate and academic sponsors. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2007-05-26 18:08 |