kill or capture



... in the debate on whether Bin Laden should have
been captured or killed

... I'm normally a liberal type, but the justice seeking
types calling for his capture are wrong

... no doubt, he should have been killed on sight
just to prevent the psychological turmoil he would
have caused by parading him on trial

... there is a difference between conditions after
WW2, which encouraged putting war criminals on trial,
and now, where trials only serve to inflame those already
too quick to ignite into riot

... back in the 50's, the body politic was different, people were
celebrating the victory in WW2, and parading the war criminals made
for excellent public circus for a peaceful hopeful world, serving
to justify our war deeds, especially the first use of nukes

... Bin Laden on public trial now would only cause much disruption,
and antagonism in a desparate angry world

... the way it is now, he will fade into history, silently, and
in the bellies of fish


... why give him a venue on the world stage, at our cost,
just to say we are philosophically clean in our
killing of him?
... who would have paid?... he admitted publically he did it!

... what would you suggest? ... he plead temporary insanity?

... full blown permanent insanity?

... the US and West are running out of money, and we can't
keep policing the world using our own internal standards
of justice

... we can't afford putting these international criminals on trial

... it's like the Old Wild West .... Wanted ... Dead or Alive







------------------------------------------

2011 by zentara