Post: Diveration of the US's Most Hated Terrorist's Pictures
Options
01-11-2013, 04:04 AM
#1
Lovol
Guest
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?
The following 3 users say thank you to Lovol for this useful post:
01-14-2013, 10:00 AM
#29
Jake
One Man Army
Originally posted by Clutch
The mess that riot created sums up the difference between the two events, not in response by the police but by intention of those involved. The occupy protests were peaceful protests, and that was in-spite of the only response being willful ignorance or even police brutality. The riots on the other hand... most people were only there as opportunistic thieves. The two events aren't even close to comparable.
Some of the protestors at Occupy Wall Street were peaceful, You must login or register to view this content. weren't. It's hard to gauge just how peaceful they were unless you were there day in day out - as each of the newspapers have their own agenda they're trying to put across.. but regardless of this fact, it's clear that there are going to be some peaceful protestors and some not so much; so the police deal in the only way they can and that's treating everyone the same. I don't see how terrorism has affected how the police deal with it at all, as I said our new society deals with protestors far better than it has in the past.
Originally posted by Clutch
We've a basic right to the privacy of our own bodies and our own homes. In this instance the former is being abused, regardless of whether faces are blurred or not.
But how is it abusing your body? It's a chalk outline.
Originally posted by Clutch
What the f*ck? What's the point of it when it doesn't work? Even if you like it as a security measure it's no longer security if it doesn't work.
I said that I thought it did work.. the onus is on you to show me it doesn't.
Originally posted by Clutch
Perhaps we would, but I don't care if it means having my privacy violated. What's the point of having rights at all if they hinder security, hmm?
So does this all stem down to the airport security machines then if it's a privacy issue?
Originally posted by Clutch
Deeply unfair chart as it's global. This debate is centered on the U.S. and to a lesser extent Europe where it's not nearly as bad as it is elsewhere. If it were then I may well view this differently, but alas I still don't see terrorism as a threat anymore than I do choking. And the latter funnily enough is statistically ten times more likely to get me.
Have you considered that the reason it is far lower is because the USA and UK invest millions in homeland security?
The government can't do anything about you choking on your food, but they can do something about terrorism.
01-14-2013, 11:14 AM
#30
Originally posted by Dave
Some of the protestors at Occupy Wall Street were peaceful, You must login or register to view this content. weren't. It's hard to gauge just how peaceful they were unless you were there day in day out - as each of the newspapers have their own agenda they're trying to put across.. but regardless of this fact, it's clear that there are going to be some peaceful protestors and some not so much; so the police deal in the only way they can and that's treating everyone the same. I don't see how terrorism has affected how the police deal with it at all, as I said our new society deals with protestors far better than it has in the past.
I go by what I see on raw capture videos on YouTube, not what the tabloids tell me or pictures taken out of context(from Daily Mail, funny).
Originally posted by another user
But how is it abusing your body? It's a chalk outline.
No it isn't. I'm going to add this picture. Either remove it and concede the point or leave it and continue onward. My guess is it needs removing(that is if I recall the age restricted material thing on here, I may have remembered wrong).
You must login or register to view this content.
This scan can be inverted by the way.
Originally posted by another user
I said that I thought it did work.. the onus is on you to show me it doesn't.
Example.
Originally posted by another user
So does this all stem down to the airport security machines then if it's a privacy issue?
Nope. There are increasing levels of CCTV practically everywhere, although that isn't necessarily related to terrorism, just generic crime prevention. Elections in the U.S. can be bought, meaning your right to vote doesn't count for as much as it should. Eh... get the picture I'm portraying? I have sources for the last thing as with everything else if you're interested.
Originally posted by another user
Have you considered that the reason it is far lower is because the USA and UK invest millions in homeland security?
No, it's because we're not countries with overthrown governments and religious and ideological extremists(at least, not nearly as many). Other countries in Europe tend to do fine without excessive levels of homeland security.
Originally posted by another user
The government can't do anything about you choking on your food, but they can do something about terrorism.
Can't they? Debatable. It's also debatable whether they can do anything about a determined terrorist. Both things are preventable to an extent yet the extra focus is put on the lesser threat. How curious.
01-14-2013, 03:40 PM
#31
Jake
One Man Army
Originally posted by Clutch
I go by what I see on raw capture videos on YouTube, not what the tabloids tell me or pictures taken out of context(from Daily Mail, funny).
Who do you think the raw captures are by? They're by protestors, of course they've got a slant. Do you think they'll film other protestors behaving violently or inciting the police?
Originally posted by Clutch
This scan can be inverted by the way.
Does that really bother you? Your face is blurred (so you're a nobody to them), the people looking at the pictures are not allowed to bring phones or cameras into the room where they are displayed, and they're not allowed to be recorded.
It's nothing worse than a consensual visit to the doctor where you let him look at X part of your body in order to find out if you have a problem; except this consultation is completely anonymous and is only a chalk outline of your body. If you'd rather let people die than put up with a tiny bit of over-sensitive embarrassment then I think frankly that's pathetic.
Originally posted by Clutch
Example.
Again, whether they built something that works is beside the point - obviously I'm not in favour of wasted money but they're not trying to fight terrorism with equipment that doesn't work, they're trying to build equipment that does work. If it doesn't work that is part of this debate, that's a comment more on the inadequacy of the engineers they hired to build it.
I don't know why we're even debating this but even so one guy on YouTube to me does not qualify as proof it doesn't work. I'd like to see a terrorist who is shaking at the knees try and get through one without notice.
Originally posted by Clutch
Nope. There are increasing levels of CCTV practically everywhere, although that isn't necessarily related to terrorism, just generic crime prevention. Elections in the U.S. can be bought, meaning your right to vote doesn't count for as much as it should. Eh... get the picture I'm portraying? I have sources for the last thing as with everything else if you're interested.
How do either of these relate to terrorism? You said yourself that's for general crime prevention.
Originally posted by Clutch
No, it's because we're not countries with overthrown governments and religious and ideological extremists(at least, not nearly as many). Other countries in Europe tend to do fine without excessive levels of homeland security.
Haha, you can't flatly say 'no' because you don't know it's true. Neither of us are expects in homeland security and neither of us know how many threats we get a day/month/year that they defuse. The USA may not have as many extremists as say Jerusalem, but it's also one hell of a controversial country hated by certain extremists countries who would like to do it harm. Those who brainwash their kids into thinking the western world despise them.
Originally posted by Clutch
Can't they? Debatable. It's also debatable whether they can do anything about a determined terrorist. Both things are preventable to an extent yet the extra focus is put on the lesser threat. How curious.
What is your proposition for them to stop people choking on their food? Launch an add campaign that says 'make sure you cut your food into tiny pieces when you eat it'? lmao
The following user thanked Jake for this useful post:
01-14-2013, 03:48 PM
#32
xXGRIM_REAPERXx
Splicer
Originally posted by Millz59
You do make a good argument, however I personally feel that these pictures being released or not being released is going to have a very similar outcome.
There are those people who still believe 9/11 was an inside job, the Kennedy assassination, the moon landing, Area 51, aliens, diet (aspartame and cancer, creation of diseases for depopulation, Obama isn't an American, the holocaust never happened, and let's not forget the ending of the world.
I could go on, there are going to be idiots who always choose to believe that their government is evil, and yet still vote to keep more big government in place. Anyways.
To be entirely honest, I feel as if though a very large amount of people who suffer from critical thinking, would realize what this would do the the United States of America. I have no problem with transparency, the thing is that a large majority of people who view these pictures in the middle east are only going to increase tensions with the USA. I've stood very firm when it comes to the withdrawal of the troops from the middle east. They can kill each other for centuries if they want, they refuse to listen, and it is not OUR job to get the people overseas educated about the real world. They choose to kill each other, then that's what they will get. Leaving troops there is just going to cause more American lives to be lost. America has huge problems to worry about at home, before deciding that they should be going out and helping other countries around the world.
If we finally adopt a non-interventionist policy when it comes to war, then I could see these photos being released without any problems. There is always going to be lash-back when it comes to things like this, but it is the right of the people. What happened to transparency? It's still as thick as fog from where I sit. The elected officials in the United States were elected for the task of being transparent with the general public, and they have not. They have passed laws allowing for the imprisonment of American citizens without the right to trail, and they can target American citizens for assassinations now? It's time these people started living up to their promises, and even though I am willing to bet my entire life savings that they won't, I still hope they do.
Tldr:
America withdraws troops, builds national defense = nothing wrong with photos
Americans continue invading countries = no dice.
There are those people who still believe 9/11 was an inside job, the Kennedy assassination, the moon landing, Area 51, aliens, diet (aspartame and cancer, creation of diseases for depopulation, Obama isn't an American, the holocaust never happened, and let's not forget the ending of the world.
I could go on, there are going to be idiots who always choose to believe that their government is evil, and yet still vote to keep more big government in place. Anyways.
To be entirely honest, I feel as if though a very large amount of people who suffer from critical thinking, would realize what this would do the the United States of America. I have no problem with transparency, the thing is that a large majority of people who view these pictures in the middle east are only going to increase tensions with the USA. I've stood very firm when it comes to the withdrawal of the troops from the middle east. They can kill each other for centuries if they want, they refuse to listen, and it is not OUR job to get the people overseas educated about the real world. They choose to kill each other, then that's what they will get. Leaving troops there is just going to cause more American lives to be lost. America has huge problems to worry about at home, before deciding that they should be going out and helping other countries around the world.
If we finally adopt a non-interventionist policy when it comes to war, then I could see these photos being released without any problems. There is always going to be lash-back when it comes to things like this, but it is the right of the people. What happened to transparency? It's still as thick as fog from where I sit. The elected officials in the United States were elected for the task of being transparent with the general public, and they have not. They have passed laws allowing for the imprisonment of American citizens without the right to trail, and they can target American citizens for assassinations now? It's time these people started living up to their promises, and even though I am willing to bet my entire life savings that they won't, I still hope they do.
Tldr:
America withdraws troops, builds national defense = nothing wrong with photos
Americans continue invading countries = no dice.
very well said i couldn't agree with you more. We need to worry about home before we worry about some other country that wants to stay in the stone age.
01-14-2013, 05:41 PM
#33
Originally posted by Dave
Who do you think the raw captures are by? They're by protestors, of course they've got a slant. Do you think they'll film other protestors behaving violently or inciting the police?
There's plenty from impartial bystanders as well.
Originally posted by another user
Does that really bother you? Your face is blurred (so you're a nobody to them), the people looking at the pictures are not allowed to bring phones or cameras into the room where they are displayed, and they're not allowed to be recorded.
Missing the point. That is my body and nobody else has the right to see that. Legally and ethically given the society we're in (always clothed, nudity frowned upon et cetera).
Originally posted by another user
It's nothing worse than a consensual visit to the doctor where you let him look at X part of your body in order to find out if you have a problem; except this consultation is completely anonymous and is only a chalk outline of your body. If you'd rather let people die than put up with a tiny bit of over-sensitive embarrassment then I think frankly that's pathetic.
This isn't consensual if you so much as want to leave the country. It's mandatory. It's like the doctor choosing to shove his wrist up your ass whenever you want your prescription.
Originally posted by another user
Again, whether they built something that works is beside the point - obviously I'm not in favour of wasted money but they're not trying to fight terrorism with equipment that doesn't work, they're trying to build equipment that does work. If it doesn't work that is part of this debate, that's a comment more on the inadequacy of the engineers they hired to build it.
No. No level of idiocy would have let this sort of flaw slip through testing. I can't prove this but I'm just throwing it out there anyway - in my opinion it's getting people normalised to the mentality of proving innocence instead of the other way around.
Originally posted by another user
I don't know why we're even debating this but even so one guy on YouTube to me does not qualify as proof it doesn't work. I'd like to see a terrorist who is shaking at the knees try and get through one without notice.
The kind of terrorists we're thinking of (the 9/11 & 7/7 kind) don't shake at the knees. You shake when you're nervous. They're not. They think they're blowing themselves up into an afterlife where they'll be treated as demigods. Fortunately it's so rare I don't fear these people.
Originally posted by another user
How do either of these relate to terrorism? You said yourself that's for general crime prevention.
It's the slow erosion of rights. Terrorism is often used as a boogeyman to scare people into parting with them.
Originally posted by another user
Haha, you can't flatly say 'no' because you don't know it's true. Neither of us are expects in homeland security and neither of us know how many threats we get a day/month/year that they defuse. The USA may not have as many extremists as say Jerusalem, but it's also one hell of a controversial country hated by certain extremists countries who would like to do it harm. Those who brainwash their kids into thinking the western world despise them.
Countries? Countries don't hate us, factions of religious extremists do. There's a big difference. The only others who hate us do so on a political level (understandable given the war) and these aren't the kind of people to strap a bomb to their chest.
Perhaps we're the ones brainwashed into thinking they (as in ordinary citizens) hate us. Food for thought.
Originally posted by another user
What is your proposition for them to stop people choking on their food? Launch an add campaign that says 'make sure you cut your food into tiny pieces when you eat it'? lmao
It's about as difficult to solve as terrorism, except it's a terribly worse threat to lives and probably wouldn't need the removal of certain privacy rights to better contain.
I get the impression that you think terrorism is about a thousand times more threatening than it really is. As I said, it's just a boogeyman.
01-16-2013, 05:49 PM
#34
Jake
One Man Army
Delayed response as for some reason I got the impression I was waiting on you to reply.
You honestly think you got the whole picture from watching a couple videos?
'Given the society we're in' seems to suggest that you think we're a bit hyper-sensitive about these things, and yet you are too. You're letting people die over the sake of a bit of embarrassment (which by the way, is completely crazy considering these are chalk outlines with your face blurred). I get the impression you're over-doing this point despite agreeing with me in actuality.
You can opt for a physical pat down instead. If you're against that then dear me, you won't have a very good life. All the best places in life require a pat down!
No point responding to completely unsubstantiated opinions..
What rights have you lost with terrorism then (that benefit the government in some way seeing as they're so desperate to take your rights according to you)?
Don't patronise me. Where have I said or implied that?
Originally posted by Clutch
There's plenty from impartial bystanders as well.
You honestly think you got the whole picture from watching a couple videos?
Originally posted by Clutch
Missing the point. That is my body and nobody else has the right to see that. Legally and ethically given the society we're in (always clothed, nudity frowned upon et cetera).
'Given the society we're in' seems to suggest that you think we're a bit hyper-sensitive about these things, and yet you are too. You're letting people die over the sake of a bit of embarrassment (which by the way, is completely crazy considering these are chalk outlines with your face blurred). I get the impression you're over-doing this point despite agreeing with me in actuality.
Originally posted by Clutch
This isn't consensual if you so much as want to leave the country. It's mandatory. It's like the doctor choosing to shove his wrist up your ass whenever you want your prescription.
You can opt for a physical pat down instead. If you're against that then dear me, you won't have a very good life. All the best places in life require a pat down!
Originally posted by Clutch
No. No level of idiocy would have let this sort of flaw slip through testing. I can't prove this but I'm just throwing it out there anyway - in my opinion it's getting people normalised to the mentality of proving innocence instead of the other way around.
No point responding to completely unsubstantiated opinions..
Originally posted by Clutch
It's the slow erosion of rights. Terrorism is often used as a boogeyman to scare people into parting with them.
What rights have you lost with terrorism then (that benefit the government in some way seeing as they're so desperate to take your rights according to you)?
Originally posted by Clutch
It's about as difficult to solve as terrorism, except it's a terribly worse threat to lives and probably wouldn't need the removal of certain privacy rights to better contain.
I get the impression that you think terrorism is about a thousand times more threatening than it really is. As I said, it's just a boogeyman.
I get the impression that you think terrorism is about a thousand times more threatening than it really is. As I said, it's just a boogeyman.
Don't patronise me. Where have I said or implied that?
01-16-2013, 09:36 PM
#35
Originally posted by Dave
You honestly think you got the whole picture from watching a couple videos?
You think you got the whole picture by assuming that whatever the media tells you is true and unbiased? I'm sure you're aware that the media has an agenda to push and that was quite evident here.
Originally posted by another user
'Given the society we're in' seems to suggest that you think we're a bit hyper-sensitive about these things, and yet you are too. You're letting people die over the sake of a bit of embarrassment (which by the way, is completely crazy considering these are chalk outlines with your face blurred). I get the impression you're over-doing this point despite agreeing with me in actuality. You can opt for a physical pat down instead. If you're against that then dear me, you won't have a very good life. All the best places in life require a pat down!
I don't though. Honestly I think we just have our priorities set out differently and we draw the line in different places in regards to the value of freedoms versus security. Agreed?
Originally posted by another user
No point responding to completely unsubstantiated opinions..
Sure, but I'm just giving you an idea of where I'm coming from. My distrust for the government is very low. A look through history perhaps proves that wise.
Originally posted by another user
What rights have you lost with terrorism then (that benefit the government in some way seeing as they're so desperate to take your rights according to you)?
Three words. Protest, guns, privacy. The second of those you can argue should be criminalised. The protest thing we're talking about above. The privacy thing... there's constantly legislation being pushed through for more wire-tapping abilities without the use of a warrant. Happy to provide plenty of sources.
Originally posted by another user
Don't patronise me. Where have I said or implied that?
Your defence of anti-terrorism measures is all that implies that for me. What about the other bit in that quote block?
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
