from the EffingBI.
NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon, as mentioned above, suggested to ABC that one of the shooters was known to authorities but “the person that we know has very, very little knowledge to the police.” It is not clear if Akram was the man he meant. “So he's not someone that we would have automatically been looking at at this time,” Lanyon said, excusing police.
Isn't that just wonderful?
And the Prime Minister is rightly catching heat for leaving something important out in his "I feel your pain" comments:
What is so shameful is that after the shooting, which specifically targeted a Jewish holiday event, the prime minister of Australia refused to mention the religious motivation of the attack or call it terrorism. He merely said his thoughts were with the victims and that the killing was “shocking and distressing.”
Now, we have to(they think) cut the bastard some slack, it wasn't that long ago he was kissing Pali ass and saying less-than-kind things about Israel and their government to buy caring points with the various 'Let's Have Intifada' types. So if he actually called it a anti-Jew terror attack, it'll upset all those people he thought he had bought approval from. And being a ass-kissing control-freak politician, he can't do that.
On the bad guys having guns, when laws in Australia are what they are: the question occurs that, besides "Well, we knew about him, but he wasn't considered a threat", I have to wonder if he was able to get-keep guns and ammo because some clown in authority didn't want to be called a racist for telling him no?
Update: Ian has a piece on the reaction times, and let's say the Aussie cops don't look real good
No comments:
Post a Comment