• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama says White House won't release Osama bin Laden photos

Shooshmoo said:
English lesson of the day Skins (and I mean this purely as constructive criticism, to help you in your future endeavors): it's "rationale", not "rational" in the context in which you are using the word.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the constructive criticism but if you take to correcting all of my spelling/grammar mistakes you might have to quite your day job.
 
I think that any thought that publishing the photos will lead to some kind of greater threat of terrorist activity is a little naive. These radical islamists will use just about anything as a "provocation" significant enough to warrant attacks. Cartoon of Mohammed? An insult that can not be allowed to stand! Crazy moron minister burns a Koran? Jihad is the only answer!

Does anyone really think that there is a jihadist out there with designs to carry out terror attacks who wouldn't be more motivated because of bin Laden's death, but would find a release of the photos to be the last straw? Our enemies are going to be our enemies regardless of what we do, and releasing these photos won't change that. At all.

Edited to add that I remembered that one of Obama's first acts as president was to revoke the ban on photos of coffins of dead U.S. servicemembers. Just so we're clear, photos of American dead = OK, photos of enemy dead = not OK. Got it.
 
Last edited:
DeacLaw05 said:
Edited to add that I remembered that one of Obama's first acts as president was to revoke the ban on photos of coffins of dead U.S. servicemembers. Just so we're clear, photos of American dead = OK, photos of enemy dead = not OK. Got it.
Click to expand...

This analogy is flawed in the same way as the Abu Gharib analogy. The White House didn't ban the Osama photos, they chose not to release them.
 
I'm actually in agreement with Alan Dershowitz on this. He said today:

"The precedent this would establish for suppressing material because it might be offensive or might lead to this, it would give Muslim extremists veto about what we can read, what we can hear. It harks back to the [Muhammad] cartoon issues and other forms of censorship. We should not censor because if we publish it will offend the sensibilities of people who don’t share our values."
 
DeacLaw05 said:
I'm actually in agreement with Alan Dershowitz on this. He said today:

"The precedent this would establish for suppressing material because it might be offensive or might lead to this, it would give Muslim extremists veto about what we can read, what we can hear. It harks back to the [Muhammad] cartoon issues and other forms of censorship. We should not censor because if we publish it will offend the sensibilities of people who don’t share our values."
Click to expand...

the difference there is that the Muhammad cartoons don't just offend the extremists, they offend the moderate Islamists too. Why go out of your way to offend a group of people if you don't have to? What is the point of releasing the photo anyway?
 
BeachBumDeac said:
the difference there is that the Muhammad cartoons don't just offend the extremists, they offend the moderate Islamists too. Why go out of your way to offend a group of people if you don't have to? What is the point of releasing the photo anyway?
Click to expand...

You're joking, right? The whole point of political cartoons is to make people uncomfortable--the truth behind the caricature creates the humor.

The point of releasing the photo is that the Administration's stated intent in sending in personnel to get bin Laden rather than bombing the compound was to obtain proof of his death. Now we have the proof, and it isn't being released. Why put the lives of those SEALS at risk then? Are we just supposed to take the President's word for it? Now, I believe them, but when the goal was to obtain proof, and the proof was obtained, the final step is to show the proof to the people to be convinced. It is like a lawyer telling a jury to just take his word for it rather than actually showing them a document--it may be true, but part of proving something is submitting it so it can be criticized.
 
"Edited to add that I remembered that one of Obama's first acts as president was to revoke the ban on photos of coffins of dead U.S. servicemembers. Just so we're clear, photos of American dead = OK, photos of enemy dead = not OK. Got it."

Many families thought they were being disrepected by not having the pictures of the coffins as had been done in every other war during the TV age.

They viewed it was paying last respects to their fallen family member.

Further, there is no way to compare showing a coffin, honored with an American flag to the picture of a guy with part of head blown off.

Here's another question, is it OK for jihadists to show mutilated US GIs on TV in Iran?
 
I just saw a fairly graphic image of OBL's son on the news. Why can we show that picture but not one of OBL? I am assuming it is because then picture of the son was taken by someone other than the SEAL team after we departed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top