ChatterBank1 min ago
Taking no prisoners
Why is it part of SAS training to kill the suspects on sight without getting them to surrender? The Iranian hostage scene where the SAS killed all the known terrorists was a case in point.
This time the American seals (equivalent to the SAS) shot Bin Laden rather than taking him prisoner. I think you can assume at 1am Bin Laden was not dressed and armed to offer any resistance.
Is this why pictures of his killing have been withheld?....it doesn't look good shooting an unarmed man even if he was Bin Laden
This time the American seals (equivalent to the SAS) shot Bin Laden rather than taking him prisoner. I think you can assume at 1am Bin Laden was not dressed and armed to offer any resistance.
Is this why pictures of his killing have been withheld?....it doesn't look good shooting an unarmed man even if he was Bin Laden
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Just to clarif in the OP, the SAS did not kill all the terrorists during Operation Nimrod. One survived and was paroled in 2008.
As for their actions that day, they were dealing with terrorists who had already murdered one hostage. Despite any apparent attempts to surrender one the building assault began, I doubt the troopers were going to risk being 'mugged' by any who may have held their hands up, only to have a grenade or some other weapon concealed about their person.
They'd been asked to 'surrender' by the Police. They declined, escalated the situation and subsequently 'reaped the whirlwind'.
As for Osama, do you REALLY think that the world's most wanted man and his entourage would be tucked up in his little hovel with nothing more to defend himself than kitchen utensils? With all that close security, CCTV and 14 foot high walls, combined with security gates that cost more than half a million dollars, I'd wager that there might just have been the odd AK47 knocking about the place!,
As for their actions that day, they were dealing with terrorists who had already murdered one hostage. Despite any apparent attempts to surrender one the building assault began, I doubt the troopers were going to risk being 'mugged' by any who may have held their hands up, only to have a grenade or some other weapon concealed about their person.
They'd been asked to 'surrender' by the Police. They declined, escalated the situation and subsequently 'reaped the whirlwind'.
As for Osama, do you REALLY think that the world's most wanted man and his entourage would be tucked up in his little hovel with nothing more to defend himself than kitchen utensils? With all that close security, CCTV and 14 foot high walls, combined with security gates that cost more than half a million dollars, I'd wager that there might just have been the odd AK47 knocking about the place!,
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
The New Leader Of The Opposition Party/
News2 mins ago
News2 mins ago
Society & Culture7 mins ago
