When Bush and Blair wanted to kill or capture one man - Osama in Afghanistan, Saddam in Iraq - they waded in with tanks and aircraft, and tens of thousands of civilians died.
When Putin wanted someone dead, he was disposed of in a way that almost seems to have been chosen specifically because nobody else would be at any risk at all.
I'm not condoning a murder and stifling of free speech, but frankly, which was the greater crime? To order the death of one individual who one saw as a traitor, or to order a military invasion which was certain to lead to the deaths of many innocents?
Who should be more mourned? A former secret agent who knew that he was risking his own life by what he said; or whole families, women children and all, who were just getting on with their lives when a 5,000lb bomb landed on them?
Are UK journalists overreacting because this happened in Britain or because the man who died was working as a journalist?
Are Russia's leaders just smarter than ours?
2006-11-24
07:10:41
·
11 answers
·
asked by
gvih2g2
5
in
Current Events