Oh jesus, is that what you wanted? A group of U.S Seals standing outside a compound with a blow-horn? As far as Dog Day Afternoon the only reason they didn't blow his brains out in the bank is because he held hostages not because they were feeling kindly.
A shield only works against people who don't shoot women and children. Kasab for example was holding the Taj Hotel hostage and we still caught him, tried him, convicted him and sentenced him. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1478204.ece With all the people killed and the entire economy destroyed in pointless wars, they still couldn't catch him? Inefficient.
That's kind of the problem. I'm not advocating that we go in there all rootin' tootin' and shootin', the point is we need to do a serious bottom-up re-evaluation of who our real "allies" are in this war. The Taliban is Pakistan's cruel and sadistic son, and they haven't done sh*t to disown him, they still think Afghanistan is his personal playground. No surprises that OBL turned up in Pakistan, none whatsoever. If we put them in the pressure cooker sooner, I'm sure we would have had that SOB sooner, too. A surprisingly substantial amount of the 9/11 conspiracy propaganda comes from that region, despite the low incomes and internet access.
Oh yeah, outside of holding a toddler on his lap anyone who stands in front of him would have been blown away. I have no problem with that. If Bin Laden was so concerned for his family's safety he would have had them living elsewhere.
I agree with you but I don't think the US government had any illusions about Pakistan's especially after Mubarak left power. This is why Obama ordered drones into Pakistan even though technically we shouldn't be carrying operations within their borders. The drones were a bad idea of course and I'm hoping all of that will stop now that their target is down.
Does it matter who the "toddler" or "young wife" is? Obviously, not to US troops. They still shot him even if no one can clearly say if he shot at them. I'm not sure what the argument here is - shield or no shield, the US troops could not wait him out, killed him and dumped him I prefer due process, the evidence is open to the people, the criminals tried in court and the sentence given not by impromptu firing squads with trigger fingers, but in a court of law.
The young wife made her bed when she got in the way of gunfire and her man. It was not an open confrontation Sam between government forces and people in the compound. It was a secret operation to take him down dead or alive, preferably dead. Waiting him out was not an option, they were in Pakistan not Afghanistan and in a residential neighborhood at that. What is it you wanted? A horde of Pakistani's gawking at U.S troops standing on the curb? Would have been another Fallujah. As far as due process I would normally agree but I think killing a criminal who doesn't surrender is perfectly fine.
Like I said, highly inefficient. All they had to do is wait him out. But like everything else about US operations in the War on Terror, its not about being open to scrutiny - its a kind of vigilante justice system run by mercenaries and hitmen. Now all we need is for some one to posthumously publish Osama's memoirs
Its funny I was thinking what would have made a Bin Laden trial worth the watch is if William Kuntsler were alive to defend him.
Its not inefficient. They did exactly what they were supposed to do which is get Bin Laden dead or alive without sacrificing any soldiers and to do it as quickly as possible. Speed was of the essence. Bin Laden is a hitman, I have no problem with U.S dogs hitting him back. Its a dog eat dog world Sam. Dog eat dog.
Actually Sam I would have thought you would have been pleased. Now that he's dead there is less of an excuse to keep U.S troops in Afghanistan.
Can we at least move past the no-brainers? Okay, look, it's one thing to doubt the official story, or any of the versions of an official story floating around. That part doesn't bother me. But the assertion on record for our consumption and judgment is that "bin Laden was offered the chance to surrender. But the leader, who had always said he would not be captured alive, refused and was blasted in the head by troops." Now, maybe that means he went down screaming, "You'll never take me alive, coppers!" and blasting a hail of gunfire at the approaching enemy. Or it could mean something much more cinematic and calm: (Soldiers burst into the room, killing the last protection detail immediately around Osama bin Laden.) SOLDIER: (cautiously, from behind aimed weapon) It's over, you know. BIN LADEN: (calmly, even weak with fatigue) It is the will of Allah. SOLDIER: So how are we going to do this? BIN LADEN: We both know what must happen. SOLDIER: (aims carefully) So that's it, then? BIN LADEN: It is the will of Allah. There is no God save Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet. (Cut to exterior shot. A single flash, seen through a broken window, and the sound of a gunshot. Crane shot lifts away from building, pans to show wide shot of city. Fade to black.) Or, of course, it could be the evil and cruel fantasy that has Osama bin Laden on his knees, blubbering and begging for his life, but the evil, heartless Americans are not moved to compassion for the misunderstood, falsely accused man who was always treated poorly, even by his family and peers, for his awkward height and unconventional ideas, and who never hurt any innocent people anywhere, ever, and so the invader pigs just shot him to death for sport. In truth, though, as cynical as I can be about my nation's political and military adventures, and as much as I might mock its notion of what constitutes justice these days, I'm pretty confident that last isn't the case. Even at our worst, we tend to be a bit more subtle. I would not be surprised to learn that when it came down to it, bin Laden refused to surrender and so they shot him when they probably could have hauled his ass in alive, but of all our wars, S.A.M., this one is our right, and anything short of surrender—and I sincerely doubt Osama bin Laden would surrender—leads toward an outcome describing his corpse. I get it, though, S.A.M. I'm not going to knock your skepticism. But I would also ask how you could possibly think this was going to end any other way? I mean, sure, maybe bin Laden should have lawyered up and called in to negotiate his surrender. But he didn't. And he wouldn't. He's had over nine years to sit down and talk about this. (I would also know that of anyone who could tell us if OBL himself was shooting, I don't expect a bureaucrat like the Deputy National Security Advisor to cough that up in a press conference.)
Along with innocent women and children.... like.. it's ok they are only sand people right. it's not killing its collateral damage. How do you look in the mirror and accept the putrid scrap of flesh that stares back at you without popping a cyanide pill.
Pakistani forces arrested four of bin Laden’s children and two of his wives. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d--1-son-killed/2011/05/02/AFwSTuZF_blog.html I am with you here, charge them with aiding and abetting, conspiracy, etc.
