Post: Diveration of the US's Most Hated Terrorist's Pictures
01-11-2013, 04:04 AM #1
Default Avatar
Lovol
Guest
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Before you bother replying to this thread, please read You must login or register to view this content. for some background information regarding the subject.

If you don't already know (referring to the title), the US's most notoriously hated terrorist is/was known as Osama Bin Laden (an opinion, but like I've stated, pretty notorious). And now in current events, the U.S. supreme court is struggling to decide whether or not to release pictures of him prior to his sea-burial.

According to Judicial Watch Attorney, Michael Bekesha, there are 52 images of him that were taken before his burial. Not sure if any of you remember, but there was a leaked photo of him dead after he was shot in his hideout (pretty gruesome). To me, that was complete nonsense. If the U.S. supreme court/executive office is having such trouble with deciding whether or not to release sane pictures, it's hard to believe that someone of military authority would release such a terrible picture.

Despite the 'leaked picture', Bin Laden underwent traditional Muslim pre-burial procedures and was respectively buried (dropped?) somewhere in the ocean.

Now, I've seen two dead people in my life. First one was my grandma. I was little and didn't know much about what was going on, and trusted my mom in that she was just 'in a deep sleep'. The second was my other grandmother– before her funeral, there was a seeing of her in the casket for everyone to say their last goodbyes, etc. Now, when I was there, everyone was dressed nicely, acting respectively, and (obviously) upset. In addition to everyone there, so was my grandmother. She was in her finest clothes before she was buried ready to take on what many people (dis-including myself) call the afterlife.

So I'm thinking that his cultural/traditional Muslim burial procedures were something a little like that. So how bad can the pictures be?

That's just one side of it, however. Sadly, there are those 'modern day anarchists' all over society that will dispute Bin Laden's death despite any amount of proof displayed. Controversy will be arise, arguments will come, and a lot of people won't be happy.

In addition to internal chaos, there's the external (possibly internal, but more/less not location, per say) disputes. People of AlQueda/Muslim heritage might take it extremely offensively (can't speak for anyone) and will try to rebel however they can against the U.S. government.

Any which way you go about it, someone won't be happy. In fact, the White House released the following statement, assuming it would be a national security threat:

Originally posted by Jay Carney
It is not in our national security interest ... to allow these images to become icons to rally opinion against the United States


My opinion is for them to remain to authorized personnel. As much as I'd love to see the pictures myself, I'd rather just let them turn into public domain in the next 100 years.

What do you think?
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The following 3 users say thank you to Lovol for this useful post:

CLM, Doodle-Bug, K5‎‎
01-12-2013, 11:22 AM #11
Jake
One Man Army
Originally posted by Clutch
With regards to the OP, I think anyone who really fears terrorists has been massively deceived by the media and what can only be described as propaganda. Barely anyone ever dies to terrorism in the first world, and this irrational fear of it is used as an excuse to pass draconian legislation all in the name of protection. With that being the case, for the sake of transparency the pictures should probably being released. Is that standard for these situations or not?


Terrorism exists, and people do die from it, I have a relative who was in 9/11. If your point is that you're more likely to do from an illness or whatever, that's irrelevant, there's no reason why we shouldn't be doing anything in our power to reduce terrorism as a nation.

Seems to me like you're suggesting because it's only a few hundred people we shouldn't be worried about it?
01-12-2013, 12:09 PM #12
Originally posted by Dave View Post
Terrorism exists, and people do die from it, I have a relative who was in 9/11. If your point is that you're more likely to do from an illness or whatever, that's irrelevant, there's no reason why we shouldn't be doing anything in our power to reduce terrorism as a nation.

Seems to me like you're suggesting because it's only a few hundred people we shouldn't be worried about it?


That's close to what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that the widespread fear and consequently draconian legislation which is inevitably drawn up is in no way proportionate to the small threat terrorism actually poses. It's in no way, for me, a valid excuse to be giving up civil liberties.

This page has some interesting statistics regarding how many people actually die due to terrorism here in the first world(Google cache as the page wasn't responding): You must login or register to view this content.

The following user thanked Clutch Hunterr for this useful post:

Lovol
01-12-2013, 01:25 PM #13
Jake
One Man Army
Originally posted by Clutch
That's close to what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that the widespread fear and consequently draconian legislation which is inevitably drawn up is in no way proportionate to the small threat terrorism actually poses. It's in no way, for me, a valid excuse to be giving up civil liberties.

This page has some interesting statistics regarding how many people actually die due to terrorism here in the first world(Google cache as the page wasn't responding): ->


Wouldn't it be worth having all of that legislation if only to save 1 person?
01-12-2013, 01:59 PM #14
Originally posted by Dave View Post
Wouldn't it be worth having all of that legislation if only to save 1 person?


I tend to be quite compassionate politically, but in this case no, I don't believe it would be. George Orwell's 1984 is relevant to this, as is the following quote, courtesy of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

You're giving up what makes life worth living just to minimally increase the chances of staying alive.
01-12-2013, 02:29 PM #15
Jake
One Man Army
Originally posted by Clutch
I tend to be quite compassionate politically, but in this case no, I don't believe it would be. George Orwell's 1984 is relevant to this, as is the following quote, courtesy of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

You're giving up what makes life worth living just to minimally increase the chances of staying alive.


What liberty are we giving up? What are we giving up what makes life worth living?
01-12-2013, 03:12 PM #16
Originally posted by Dave View Post
What liberty are we giving up? What are we giving up what makes life worth living?


Simplistically speaking, freedom is what we're giving up. We're being spied on constantly, we are treated like criminals if we protest, we are assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, those useless scanners in the airports that invade privacy and pump radiation into you... I could go on.

Do you really think the above is worth it? I don't think it is and that's under the assumption that it'd prevent future 'terrorist' attacks, which I equally doubt.

I distrust the government and I see terrorism as a card they can play to push through just about whatever crap they want. Just look at the NDAA over in the U.S.
01-12-2013, 05:39 PM #17
Jake
One Man Army
Originally posted by Clutch
Simplistically speaking, freedom is what we're giving up. We're being spied on constantly, we are treated like criminals if we protest, we are assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, those useless scanners in the airports that invade privacy and pump radiation into you... I could go on.

Do you really think the above is worth it? I don't think it is and that's under the assumption that it'd prevent future 'terrorist' attacks, which I equally doubt.

I distrust the government and I see terrorism as a card they can play to push through just about whatever crap they want. Just look at the NDAA over in the U.S.


In what way are we treated like criminals when we protest? If you're referring to the police brutality reports at protests, you've got to understand that the police have to deal with the thugs who turn up to these protests and to differentiate them from the others. Assumed guilty until proven innocent? How has terrorism encouraged this?

As for the 'useless scanners that invade privacy and pump radiation' is it really an invasion of privacy? It's consensual, you're choosing to go on holiday, does them looking at your clothes really bother you that much? As for pumping radiation into you, you're under it for less than a couple seconds so I really can't see it doing any harm, I'm sure the phones in your ear are much more likely to do that and even that is low.. So I don't see what your point is.

I'd let them look through my bags every day if it meant just one person surviving from an act of terrorism, as I said. If anything I think this just stems from our society finding it hard to empathise with events unless they directly affect themselves. I have a relative who was killed in 9/11 (baring in mind I'm English and so was my cousin), if a similar thing were to happen to you I think you'd look at it differently.
01-12-2013, 06:39 PM #18
Originally posted by Dave View Post
In what way are we treated like criminals when we protest? If you're referring to the police brutality reports at protests, you've got to understand that the police have to deal with the thugs who turn up to these protests and to differentiate them from the others.


Look at some of the videos on YouTube regarding the Occupy protests. They were good examples of peaceful protests where the police were ordered as if that wasn't the case.

Originally posted by another user
Assumed guilty until proven innocent? How has terrorism encouraged this?


NDAA for example.

Originally posted by another user
As for the 'useless scanners that invade privacy and pump radiation' is it really an invasion of privacy? It's consensual, you're choosing to go on holiday, does them looking at your clothes really bother you that much?


You can't enter or leave a country without doing this. It's wholly unreasonable and has been demonstrated not to work. In other words, it's not just an invasion of privacy, it's a pointless one at that.

Originally posted by another user
As for pumping radiation into you, you're under it for less than a couple seconds so I really can't see it doing any harm, I'm sure the phones in your ear are much more likely to do that and even that is low.. So I don't see what your point is.


The levels of radiation really aren't comparable. You must login or register to view this content..

Originally posted by another user
I'd let them look through my bags every day if it meant just one person surviving from an act of terrorism, as I said. If anything I think this just stems from our society finding it hard to empathise with events unless they directly affect themselves. I have a relative who was killed in 9/11 (baring in mind I'm English and so was my cousin), if a similar thing were to happen to you I think you'd look at it differently.


If I did look at it differently that would be my emotions ruling my head, which is never a good thing.

Hypothetical: You can stop 99% of murders by having armed guards outside every home, and you must be back by a certain time as a curfew. Do you wish to save all those lives just to live a sheltered, dictated life or not?
01-12-2013, 07:01 PM #19
Jake
One Man Army
Originally posted by Clutch
Hypothetical: You can stop 99% of murders by having armed guards outside every home, and you must be back by a certain time as a curfew. Do you wish to save all those lives just to live a sheltered, dictated life or not?


If you were offered an armed guard outside your home you wouldn't take it? The only reason we don't have that is because it wouldn't be feasible economically.

I'll get to the rest of your points later, I'm getting tired.

Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.

Gray NextGenUpdate Logo