Ten years ago, wehad embedded press in every outfit that was part of the Iraq invasion, ready to film the details of every discovery as it happened live. Within hours of the capture of Saddam, we knew the details within hours because the embed was at the base. We saw photos and video.

Now, a guy gives a not sensitive account of the bin laden assault a year later, and he's a douchebag. Go figure. Either it's an incredible double standard, or we have the memory of gnats.

I don't give a damn if he was armed or resisted. He is..was evil. Now he is dead. Thank God for a our brave Navy Seals. Not sure how this douce bag became one.

Does it matter who pulled the trigger? Bin Laden, alive, in US captivity, would not be strategically viable

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did he have to be shot?

Capturing him alive would have been a PR nightmare for Obama. We would have to give him due process, and then house him somewhere. But Gitmo, of course, would be off limits because Obama was supposed to have closed it. It would have just been a messy situation if they took him in alive.

One of my guilty pleasure conspiracy theories is that bin Laden was taken alive and is currently in solitary confinement in some super secret jail cell under some mountain in Utah, with buzzing fluorescent lights on 24/7, a tv that plays only two or three commercials over and over, and maybe a six year old US Weekly to read, Twinkies to eat and Mountain Dew to drink. And that's it. Just a living death, wasting away, going insane and no one to notice or care. All of which would pretty much define my version of hell, and would be cruel and unusual, and didn't happen. Death just seems too easy for such a horrific figure that I wish there were some additional punishment meted out to him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did he have to be shot?

Capturing him alive would have been a PR nightmare for Obama. We would have to give him due process, and then house him somewhere. But Gitmo, of course, would be off limits because Obama was supposed to have closed it. It would have just been a messy situation if they took him in alive.

It didn't go down that way though. They were ascending a staircase and he poked his head out of a door at the top. When you see someone do that you have to assume he's going to shoot or lob a grenade. There really is no choice but to hit any person who pops out.

If he had been back in his room, they could have secured the room without firing unless fired upon. But it just didn't happen that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did he have to be shot?

Capturing him alive would have been a PR nightmare for Obama. We would have to give him due process, and then house him somewhere. But Gitmo, of course, would be off limits because Obama was supposed to have closed it. It would have just been a messy situation if they took him in alive.

At the same time, the organization he headed has moved on to other leaders. He had become just a public relations figure head.
Remains to be seen if killing him will help america or the war on terror.

More fuel for the fire, but besides that, for the politians extra bragging, and revenge.

No wonder one of the men feels compelled to tell the story. What will the nutjobs in a foreign land reading the book think?
For some he was a freedom fighter, he earned his stripes when russia invaded afghanistan, and even received us support.

Maybe there is more to the story and he was wanted dead for a reason

Anonymous wrote:Why did he have to be shot?

Capturing him alive would have been a PR nightmare for Obama. We would have to give him due process, and then house him somewhere. But Gitmo, of course, would be off limits because Obama was supposed to have closed it. It would have just been a messy situation if they took him in alive.