"You would prefer he escaped again Jim? "
No I would not but, unlike you, I would not suggest in a million years that his capture was worth countless numbers of civilian lives, all slaughtered in an assassination attempt.
There was no reason at all that he should have escaped and, as I pointed out, the US would have gained a huge moral and tactical victory had he been taken and tried. Press comments here are pointing out that even Adolph Eichmann got a trial.
This was no more than an act of vengeance.
This is not the first time that you have relagated hostages to the role of being 'expendable' - you did so on one of the Israeli atrocity discussions.
The killing of civilians in wartime is sometimes unavoidable, but to have dropped a bomb on a compound full of men, women and children non-combatants, not to mention those living close by (which you have attempted to deny were there) in order to carry out an assassination would have been simple murder - a war crime, no less. The Americans were prepared to do it and you would, of course, have argued in their defence, had they done so.
This is what you are supporting, which is in line with what was considered by those who sent the troops in, and also in line with your 'support-by-silence' of the technique of torture as a method of extracting information - making you an armchair promoter of military atrocities.
Jim Carroll