Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith
Typical armchair quarterbacking after the fact. I love how all the usual critics of the USA jump on anything they do, "the soldiers should have done this"..."they shouldn't have shot him"..."he was unarmed" and so on.
I think the quote "Just shut up, you weren't there" applies here. I will say this though; I think it's safe to assume that in a huge raid and firefight like that one was you're raising your chances of getting shot if you resist in any way, period. If the agent/soldier in question were to admit to having him down on his knees and he executed him with a shot to the back of the head then there might be cause for concern. (major emphasis on the word "might")
Is the world better off without this scum in it? I say yes. Case closed.
|
Its not a critisism.
Its popotics. If I was the presedent of the USA I would have done the same thing.
Lets not pretend they could not have taken him alive as they could have. Thats not relivent. Its a bit silly to pretend they had to shoot him.
The fact is the people in america would not want a long drawn out trial. Security alone would have been a nightmare. Plus other countries would want to have him put on trial too as his organisation has killed people in the UK. So politicaly we (UK) may have insisted on putting him on tial.
In other words it would have been a huge problem keeping him alive.
You could imagine the problems for the UK and other countries when they would want him too.
Its saved a lot of grief.
The good thing was they did not just bomb the place as was considered. I think that is a huge step. The presedent took a risk but its clear he did not want the other members of family harmed.
So instead of pics of a bomed out building and pics of dead children and women, they have a much better image. In that respect its gone well.