Off Duty SAS soldier saves 100 at Westgate Mall Terror attack

firefight
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

www.dailymail.co.uk...

For the gun haters shows just what a single armed individual can do in sucha situation......

Lmfao!

Had it been Bubba from Alabama there instead of that ex royal marine, I think you could add another 10 innocent people to the list of casualties.

The SAS is a highly trained special operations unit, the best in the world.

Freeborn


At no point, as far as I can see, does it say the gun paid any actual part in the resuce's. Yes, gunfire was going on inside the mall at the time but it's not reported if the SAS / ex Marine discharged his weapon or came under fire etc. It's quite conceivable that he carried these acts out without using his gun at all - thus the man, his training and his attitude are the defining factors and not the gun.

I'm sure there were plenty of other people in and around the mall some of whom may or may not have been armed, they didn't perform similar acts.

He should have put together a quick team and went looking for targets. Which apparently he did. Another story has him using his gun.

McGinty

firefight
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

www.dailymail.co.uk...

For the gun haters shows just what a single armed individual can do in sucha situation......

It gives me goose bumps of pride for the guy - what a hero.

However, can you really use this very highly trained individual as a poster-boy for arming the untrained, unpredictable public ?

ETA: in such a situation the vast majority of armed individuals would probably get themselves shot, as well as those they were bravely, but amateurishly trying to save.

Wow it sure looks like those bad guys knew what they were doing with guns.

Truth_Hz
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..

So what agenda are you guys pushing? How great and highly trained the British services are?

Logarock

McGinty

firefight
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

www.dailymail.co.uk...

For the gun haters shows just what a single armed individual can do in sucha situation......

It gives me goose bumps of pride for the guy - what a hero.

However, can you really use this very highly trained individual as a poster-boy for arming the untrained, unpredictable public ?

ETA: in such a situation the vast majority of armed individuals would probably get themselves shot, as well as those they were bravely, but amateurishly trying to save.

Wow it sure looks like those bad guys knew what they were doing with guns.

Exactly!

Amateur bad guys with guns Vs Amateur good guys with guns = Everyone in between gets shot

reply to post by McGinty
Seriously these guys were probably trained to a fair degree for their mission. Granted it wouldn't take much training, save for the use of the weapon, to rake a crowded shopping mall with gunfire.

On another note, in the states the number for folks walking around out there that can use a gun properly in a case like this is far greater than in the UK or Africa. We have loads of ex military, of several generations, walking the streets who could deploy in a reasonable manner in such a case.

By the way, this new talking point about " armed civilians" being a greater danger to others and self in a case like this is now being sported by gun haters in this country. Its basic premise is that folks should hang on for "professional" to show up otherwise the death tool may be higher. Its a laugh really. But it does so clearly, if its followed back to its roots, display the contempt for armed citizens or folks even thinking they could defend themselves. These pests were rolling this argument out the day after the Naval Yard shooting over here. Couldn't even wait for the bodies to get cold and all ready talking about how much worse it would have been if the locals had a few guns. They're animals.

reply to post by YodHeVauHe


With all due respect, this is an open forum - all posts are open to response from any member providing they abide by T&C.

I'm not trying to derail the thread, I'm not trolling and I'm trying to enter in civil and polite discussion and debate - I don't know why you sem to have such a problem with it, it's what happens in nearly every thread here on ATS.

If you want to have a one to one discussion with another member perhaps it would be better if you do so by PM rather in an open forum such as this?

You seem like an intelligent and reasoned person I honestly don't understand why this should be such a problem for you.

Regarding your rather inaccurate retort - Was there any mention by this 'poster' of the USA - Gun Control - 2nd Amendment issues etc.? NOT! The issues that I am most concerned about, and that I choose to address here - are such as "Gun Free Zones" - that are of a universal nature, and are not to be confined to a single nation or to a single Constitutional process.

Many here are deliberately trying to change this into a gun control story.
You are now using semantics in an effort to cloud the issue.
'Gun Free Zones' have everything to do with gun control and are natural progression of your argument.

There are many, many 'Gun Free Zones' throughout the world most of which are far less violent than 'Gun Zones' - but that is a discussion that is more suited to one of the plethora of gun control related threads here on ATS.

High on the list of crimes being perpetrated throughout the world, but most especially here in the USA, are such things as "Gun Free Zones," and "Free Speech Zones....."

Whether they are a crime or not is open to much debate.
Personally I can understand why the idea of 'Gun Free Zones' would be a matter of concern to an American in the USA but the gun control regulations of other nations is the business of other respective nations.

I don't understand the concept of a 'Free Speech Zone' in a democracy - surely it runs contrary to the very ethos and principles of Free Speech etc.

But I fail to see the relevance to this story.

....that are being forced upon unwitting populations by political ideologues know as "liberal progressives" (aka Marxist/Leninist communist's aka Zionist's) is growing by leaps and bounds.

Restricting free speech etc is hardly the preserve of leftist leaning ideaologies, it seems to be common to all authoritarian philosophies and dogma.

But again, where's the relevance to this story?

As a slight aside I have been reading more on this story.
It seems the off duty SAS / ex Royal Marine was only one of a number of service personnel who entered the building and helped rescue many individuals who were caught in the attack.
One was an ex Irish Ranger - another elite force.
It's thought they joined together, entered the building several times and rescued well over 300 people and during the course of these rescues they did indeed exchange fire with terrorists.

Remarkable bravery and a testament to the training they receive.

firefight
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

www.dailymail.co.uk...

For the gun haters shows just what a single armed individual can do in sucha situation......

The fact that he did all that while not even using his sidearm is even more impressive.

bg_socalif

firefight
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

www.dailymail.co.uk...

For the gun haters shows just what a single armed individual can do in sucha situation......

The fact that he did all that while not even using his sidearm is even more impressive.

This is just more semantics. Be sure he would have shot any of the bad guys that tried to interfere.

And you got to ask....if not having a gun is so important then why did he take one when offered? Well he did take it with the intention of using it if need be.

Any regular British Infantryman with a few years under their belts has the skills and experience to carry out any task as this.. Facts are facts.. Not biased or anything.. Honest...

The SAS are an amazing group of men. They are the best military unit in the world and the training they go through is extremely tough. It is stories like this which make me so proud of our armed forces here in the UK. I would like to extend my condolences to all those who have been affected by the events of the past four days. I wish the Kenyan people the best.

reply to post by snapperski


This whole scenario will give the U.S. and E.U. more reason to establish more of a foothold in Africa.

Well, apart from the foothold they already have.

This does stink, forgive me if my screaming of "conspiracy" irritates anyone.

Point is that having an armed person on the scene increases the chance that people will be able
to escape the situation

Going back 50 years (1966) to University of Texas shooting by Charles Whitman

Whitman holed up at top of 300 ft clock/observation tower with an arsenal of weapons had killed
over dozen people and wounded thirty more on the campus

When police found their handguns/shotguns would not reach whitman's sniper perch, put out call for
people with rifles to respond to the scene

The armed civilians and police were able to pin down Whitman until 2 police officers and armed civilian
deputized were able to kill Whitman

en.wikipedia.org...

Logarock
reply to post by McGinty

 

Seriously these guys were probably trained to a fair degree for their mission. Granted it wouldn't take much training, save for the use of the weapon, to rake a crowded shopping mall with gunfire.

On another note, in the states the number for folks walking around out there that can use a gun properly in a case like this is far greater than in the UK or Africa. We have loads of ex military, of several generations, walking the streets who could deploy in a reasonable manner in such a case.

By the way, this new talking point about " armed civilians" being a greater danger to others and self in a case like this is now being sported by gun haters in this country. Its basic premise is that folks should hang on for "professional" to show up otherwise the death tool may be higher. Its a laugh really. But it does so clearly, if its followed back to its roots, display the contempt for armed citizens or folks even thinking they could defend themselves. These pests were rolling this argument out the day after the Naval Yard shooting over here. Couldn't even wait for the bodies to get cold and all ready talking about how much worse it would have been if the locals had a few guns. They're animals.

edit on 25-9-2013 by Logarock because: n

edit on 25-9-2013 by Logarock because: n

This isn't a debate where you are wrong or right....

You're right that anti-gun lobbyists will use things like this to push their agenda.

You're wrong if you think that a bunch of armed civilians caught up in this mayhem wouldn't have let rip and taken out a few fellow civilians in the process.

When you are not accustomed to such a fire fight, nor trained how to act in one, then panic, adrenalin and the overriding instinct to survive and protect your loved ones takes over. You shoot at anything which could be a threat - anything that moves - and ask questions later.

This is human nature and if you deny this, then i'm guessing you've either never been in a fire fight, or you were trained how to cope with one first.

He's a brave chap, that's for certain, although he is NOT a member of the SAS...he's in the SBS.

(SAS is Special Air Service, SBS is Special Boat Service)

MysterX
He's a brave chap, that's for certain, although he is NOT a member of the SAS...he's in the SBS.

(SAS is Special Air Service, SBS is Special Boat Service)

edit on 26-9-2013 by MysterX because: typo

Based on what, its true that the media have a nasty habit have calling SBS, SAS but just because he was a ex-Royal Marine (according to the media now) does not mean that he was automatically SBS, its possible that he could have been SRR or E-Squadron as well.

everything so far regarding this story is speculation and whilst yes it is very interesting i think we need to be careful how far we go.

So far all we know is that two ex soldiers saved about 100 people at that mall because they were in the right place at the right time, anything above that is speculation.

Granted is pretty good speculation but it is speculative nonetheless to say what UKSF unit he was from or what he was doing their.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Well, you're right of course, this is information i have gleened from listening to the media reports...other than that, he or they may well have been regular squaddies, or indeed part of any of the other SF units.

It's a question of media accuracy i'm afraid, as i'm sure the MoD wouldn't wish to comment or confirm which unit one way or the other.

I too find it curious, as you seem to (reading another similar thread to which you posted) that there could possibly have been two SF soldiers (ex or active), one Irish and the other English, together in the same location as an N.Irish woman implicated in the alert.

You speculate that the two guys may have been tailing her...but what if they were not, but also not there by accident or coincidence either? (speculation is all we're going to get here i reckon, but still)

What if one of the guys had gone rogue? Was involved with the N.Irish woman, and were part of the terrorist force? If that was true, it's easy to imagine the 2nd SF guy being there because he or his unit were tasked with surveiling the other two?

But as i say, you're right..he may have been SBS, SAS or anything else...he may even have a '00' rating for all i know!

reply to post by MysterX


I agree all we have so far is speculation we probably wont ever find out exactly what these two men were doing in that shopping mall and as such can only so far accept that there just happened to be two ex-soldiers in the mall at the right time who saved about 100 people.

So yes all we can do is speculate, in your speculation you have proposed the possibility that....

What if one of the guys had gone rogue? Was involved with the N.Irish woman, and were part of the terrorist force?

This i have to disagree with why would one of them be in on it yet at the same time rescue a whole bunch of hostages and even, as some reports have said, opened fired on the terrorists. To me that would make no sense.

The other speculative hypothesis that they were conducting surveillance also has some problems as I see it.

A two man surveillance team is not really sufficient to follow one person I would say at a minimum you would a need 4-6 man team following her on foot. It could just be that they were two men sent ahead to the mall, but then that implies that they knew of a target and did not inform the Kenyan's, something i find hard to believe. But on the other side of that its possible that they either didn't have time to let the Kenyans know or they didn't know what was about to happen. Again thats all speculation.

What is not speculation however is that two ex-soldiers happened to be in the shopping mall, which yes is a coincidence but then again I would be that at any given time there are a couple of ex-soldiers walking around your local shopping mall along with a few doctors and a couple of policemen and a teacher.

So while yes the speculation is very interesting I am trying my best not to run to far ahead of myself on this one.

Yes it is possible that these two guys were part of a surveillance team targeting a British woman with terrorist links, but its also possible that they were just in the right place at the right time.

the truth is we will probably never know.

100 people rescued by off duty SAS officer, not bad I guess.


300+ rescued by a former Irish Special forces solder and a former Royal Marine Commando

www.businessinsider.com.au...

www.irishcentral.com...


Nah, seriously good job all around. FYI Irish Army Rangers are similar to SAS/Delta rather than US Army Rangers.

McGinty

Logarock
reply to post by McGinty

 

Seriously these guys were probably trained to a fair degree for their mission. Granted it wouldn't take much training, save for the use of the weapon, to rake a crowded shopping mall with gunfire.

On another note, in the states the number for folks walking around out there that can use a gun properly in a case like this is far greater than in the UK or Africa. We have loads of ex military, of several generations, walking the streets who could deploy in a reasonable manner in such a case.

By the way, this new talking point about " armed civilians" being a greater danger to others and self in a case like this is now being sported by gun haters in this country. Its basic premise is that folks should hang on for "professional" to show up otherwise the death tool may be higher. Its a laugh really. But it does so clearly, if its followed back to its roots, display the contempt for armed citizens or folks even thinking they could defend themselves. These pests were rolling this argument out the day after the Naval Yard shooting over here. Couldn't even wait for the bodies to get cold and all ready talking about how much worse it would have been if the locals had a few guns. They're animals.

edit on 25-9-2013 by Logarock because: n

edit on 25-9-2013 by Logarock because: n

This isn't a debate where you are wrong or right....

You're right that anti-gun lobbyists will use things like this to push their agenda.

You're wrong if you think that a bunch of armed civilians caught up in this mayhem wouldn't have let rip and taken out a few fellow civilians in the process.

When you are not accustomed to such a fire fight, nor trained how to act in one, then panic, adrenalin and the overriding instinct to survive and protect your loved ones takes over. You shoot at anything which could be a threat - anything that moves - and ask questions later.

This is human nature and if you deny this, then i'm guessing you've either never been in a fire fight, or you were trained how to cope with one first.

edit on 26-9-2013 by McGinty because: (no reason given)

Now I don't buy this. Its certainly not enough reason to suggest that the death toll wouldn't have been lower if the civilians were armed.