You need to do your homework. They chose the best option. For months the plan was to bomb the compound from above. It wasnt until they found out that children were on the compound that they changed that plan to put military actually on the ground.
Also my brother is an Interrogator in Afgahnistan. I trust all military. Sure a handful have made mistakes but those are extremely rare. If you dont trust our Military, especially that unit that is literally the best of the best. Well then I cant help you. How can you judge someone that risks their lives to protect our country? In the same situation Im sure I would have shot a terrorist that made any type of movement besides falling to the ground with his hands above his head.
So I am confused. You are saying that we should accept everything blindly and never challenge our assumptions?
Oh and what homework, when the official story is still so sketchy and there is still talks of investigation? How can there be any homework? It is not "officially" settled yet.
And you keep ignoring this and going back to it as if I never said it, instead of just answering the questions posed, so I will say it big this time, for like the 4th time:
I BELIEVE THE REPORTS WE HAVE HAD SO FAR. I BELIEVE THAT THE SEALS ACTED IN THE ONLY MANNER POSSIBLE EITHER DUE TO OBL'S RESISTANCE OR OUTRIGHT ATTACK ON THEM. I TRUST THEY MADE THE RIGHT DECISION.
By no stretch does it mean I completely rule out the possibility that it could have been handled differently. I think the investigations will provide details that what they did fit within the Geneva Convention and was their only course of action. That does not mean they do not need to investigate. I still think it is important to really understand what happened and why.
Also have you read anything at all about either of the World Wars, or Korea, or Vietnam? A handful of mistakes? I guess it depends on your definition of handful.
I also have family members in the military, and I am a member of the Patriot Guard Riders. I respect all that they do and hold our military in the highest esteem. But I am nowhere near gullible or naive enough to believe that in our entire military history there have only been a "handful of mistakes". My brother-in-law was on the ground in Tikrit and Baghdad in the first days of the invasion. He has told me a few stories of soldiers shooting civilians who obviously posed no threat, on accident or on purpose, that were just kind of ignored. It bugged him and he reported it but mostly they didn't do anything. It was war after all. He didn't feel it made it right, but he also still supported his leaders.
But you cannot seriously believe that in a war there are no emotions or mistakes or misjudgements that happen with dire outcomes. On an individual level and larger scale. Of course they minimize these mistakes, train to make sure they handle things correctly, and execute incredibly well in very difficult circumstance. For all the possibility of mistakes there are incredibly few. But if there really were just a handful of mistakes ever made by the military there would have been no need for the Geneva Convention. There would be no discussions along these lines at all.
Read the book that was brought up earlier "Fiasco". It details mistakes made on a very large scale, mistakes in planning, tactics, strategy, all that caused far more casualties and a far longer time-line for the war than may have been possible without these mistakes.
And Marcus answered the question and I respect his honesty. For him the line between valid military action and murder is different than it is for me (and different than the Geneva Convention), but he was open about it. How about you? Would you be perfectly happy to find out the Seals took OBL in his jammies, unarmed, and forced him to kneel down while they shot him in the head? Is that ok by you?
