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:
01-12-2013, 08:19 PM
#20
Originally posted by Dave
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.
I'll get to the rest of your points later, I'm getting tired.
The hypothetical was that the guards were at the order of the government, I should have been more clear.
01-12-2013, 10:21 PM
#21
Jake
One Man Army
Originally posted by Clutch
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.
Those were nothing compared to what has happened in the past with Bloody Sunday and such, I think the way police treat those who are protesting is now better than it has ever been before.
Originally posted by Clutch
NDAA for example.
What does that have to do with being innocent until proven guilty?
Originally posted by Clutch
The levels of radiation really aren't comparable. Example article.
One article which suggets a plausible link, but nothing conclusive? Sounds a bit like the mobile radiation to me, except that's been reported across various sources (some viable). Seems to contradict your earlier viewpoint as well about worrying about not doing small things to increase your chances of survival when the chances of them actually harming you are small at that. Besides, have you ever gone through one of those naked? I know I haven't been asked to.
Originally posted by Clutch
If I did look at it differently that would be my emotions ruling my head, which is never a good thing.
That's a crazy thing to say, so you're in favour of the government killing thousands say just for oil and wealth? Emotions have to play a part in politics or we are just animals.
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?
Back to your point about guards, seeing as you've replied saying they're sent from the government, if they were there to protect me - sure, why not, extra protection would be great. Most people would welcome that if it increased their security or helped them to sleep easy at night.
01-13-2013, 12:42 PM
#22
Originally posted by Dave
Those were nothing compared to what has happened in the past with Bloody Sunday and such, I think the way police treat those who are protesting is now better than it has ever been before.
Bloody Sunday took place in Ireland if I recall correctly, so that's not really relevant. I'm focusing primarily on the United States and the United Kingdom, as we are the two nations who have been most prevalent on this 'war on terror'. The way the entirely peaceful occupy protesters were treated at large really did hit a new low and in the aftermath all you had was the media falsely demonizing them. I know Fox News is like a somehow-even-worse-version-of-The-Daily-Mail-only-on-TV, but some of the propaganda they were spewing was unbelievable and directly conflicted with the video evidence.
Originally posted by another user
What does that have to do with being innocent until proven guilty?
You can be detained without trial according to the NDAA - all you have to do is pose a 'terror threat' or something along those lines. I won't even go into how easily abusable the loose terming is.
Originally posted by another user
One article which suggests a plausible link, but nothing conclusive? Sounds a bit like the mobile radiation to me, except that's been reported across various sources (some viable). Seems to contradict your earlier viewpoint as well about worrying about not doing small things to increase your chances of survival when the chances of them actually harming you are small at that. Besides, have you ever gone through one of those naked? I know I haven't been asked to.
The following line from the article sums it up nicely: "No, the real shocker in all this is the startling fact that people are lining up like cattle to go along with this. Your average American citizen, it seems, just can't wait to bow down to authority and subject their private body parts to a federal search in complete violation of their Constitutional rights."
There's a reason when you're having an x-ray the staff leave the room. Well these are x-ray machines... both violating privacy and injecting mass amounts of radiation, and for what? There are plenty of videos on YouTube demonstrating how easily cheated these machines are.
Originally posted by another user
That's a crazy thing to say, so you're in favour of the government killing thousands say just for oil and wealth? Emotions have to play a part in politics or we are just animals.
My head tells me that's wrong. Morality is in my head, not my emotions. I can go in depth on that if you'd like but for me morality is more than just feeling good or feeling bad.
Originally posted by another user
Back to your point about guards, seeing as you've replied saying they're sent from the government, if they were there to protect me - sure, why not, extra protection would be great. Most people would welcome that if it increased their security or helped them to sleep easy at night.
How many governments in history have been corrupt and only looked out for themselves? Practically all of them. I'd be beyond worried if the above hypothetical came into place as that would mean they'd have a ludicrous amount of control over our lives, and one call and the guards could turn. It would be like a parent - child relationship only more violent.
And once again "Big Brother" from 1984 comes to mind. As does the whole "thought-crimes" thing as well come to think of it. Thinking of terrorism? Detained. F*ck a trial, enjoy Guantanamo.
01-13-2013, 02:04 PM
#23
Jake
One Man Army
Originally posted by Clutch
Bloody Sunday took place in Ireland if I recall correctly, so that's not really relevant. I'm focusing primarily on the United States and the United Kingdom, as we are the two nations who have been most prevalent on this 'war on terror'. The way the entirely peaceful occupy protesters were treated at large really did hit a new low and in the aftermath all you had was the media falsely demonizing them. I know Fox News is like a somehow-even-worse-version-of-The-Daily-Mail-only-on-TV, but some of the propaganda they were spewing was unbelievable and directly conflicted with the video evidence.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom...
Originally posted by Clutch
You can be detained without trial according to the NDAA - all you have to do is pose a 'terror threat' or something along those lines. I won't even go into how easily abusable the loose terming is.
"the president has authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force to direct the armed forces to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war."
"[a] covered person [includes one] who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
Sounds pretty fair to me, if you're a known terrorist they can detain you. The media throws an uproar when we let these terrorists go, and then they equally do so when we don't. Can't win.
Originally posted by Clutch
The following line from the article sums it up nicely: "No, the real shocker in all this is the startling fact that people are lining up like cattle to go along with this. Your average American citizen, it seems, just can't wait to bow down to authority and subject their private body parts to a federal search in complete violation of their Constitutional rights."
There's a reason when you're having an x-ray the staff leave the room. Well these are x-ray machines... both violating privacy and injecting mass amounts of radiation, and for what? There are plenty of videos on YouTube demonstrating how easily cheated these machines are.
There's a reason when you're having an x-ray the staff leave the room. Well these are x-ray machines... both violating privacy and injecting mass amounts of radiation, and for what? There are plenty of videos on YouTube demonstrating how easily cheated these machines are.
The reason the staff leave the room is because they're being subjected to the radiation on a daily basis, that's why they have those copper badges (or whatever it is, I forget) that detect the levels of radiation they're being exposed to over a long period of time, so they can take breaks from it. Having the radiation projected onto you for about 3-10 minutes a year is not going to do any harm.
Originally posted by Clutch
My head tells me that's wrong. Morality is in my head, not my emotions. I can go in depth on that if you'd like but for me morality is more than just feeling good or feeling bad.
So your head doesn't tell you that people dying who don't need to be isn't wrong? I'd be worried about that head of yours..
01-13-2013, 02:58 PM
#24
Originally posted by Dave
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom...
Fair enough, I screwed up the terminology there. I meant England, although this is most specific to the United States.
Originally posted by another user
"the president has authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force to direct the armed forces to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war."
"[a] covered person [includes one] who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
"[a] covered person [includes one] who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
I read that as "do anything anti-US and you can be detained indefinitely without trial", and who gets to choose who is anti-US? The president. So as I said, f*ck court of law, enjoy Guantanamo.
Originally posted by another user
Sounds pretty fair to me, if you're a known terrorist they can detain you. The media throws an uproar when we let these terrorists go, and then they equally do so when we don't. Can't win.
'Terrorist' is a ludicrously broad term. If you're anti-protesters(which it would appear the U.S. government now are) you could view protesters as terrorists.
Originally posted by another user
The reason the staff leave the room is because they're being subjected to the radiation on a daily basis, that's why they have those copper badges (or whatever it is, I forget) that detect the levels of radiation they're being exposed to over a long period of time, so they can take breaks from it. Having the radiation projected onto you for about 3-10 minutes a year is not going to do any harm.
What about those who have to fly abroad at the very least weekly for work? Daily? Et cetera.
Originally posted by another user
So your head doesn't tell you that people dying who don't need to be isn't wrong? I'd be worried about that head of yours..
That's taking what I said out of context, don't do that.
Of course my head wants those people to live, but not at the cost of crucial personal freedoms that make life, for me, worth living.
01-13-2013, 06:16 PM
#25
Jake
One Man Army
Originally posted by Clutch
Fair enough, I screwed up the terminology there. I meant England, although this is most specific to the United States.
I still can't quite believe you think that violence against protesters has increased in recent years, it's gone dramatically down. Can't you remember in the London riots which had got so out of hand and yet we refused to use water cannons or plastic bullets?
Originally posted by Clutch
I read that as "do anything anti-US and you can be detained indefinitely without trial", and who gets to choose who is anti-US? The president. So as I said, f*ck court of law, enjoy Guantanamo.
Well then you read it wrong lol. "[a] covered person [includes one] who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States", quite clear to me that you have to be at war with the USA in order to come under this act. There's no point arguing belligerently, you can admit when you're wrong.
Originally posted by Clutch
'Terrorist' is a ludicrously broad term. If you're anti-protesters(which it would appear the U.S. government now are) you could view protesters as terrorists.
It doesn't mention the word 'terrorist' in the Act, did you read the quote? Terrorism was my terminology.
Originally posted by Clutch
What about those who have to fly abroad at the very least weekly for work? Daily? Et cetera.
You're still looking at about 5 seconds a week, so what, 4 minutes a year? I'm telling you that would have no effect on you, doctors and pilots incur far higher exposure to radiation.
Originally posted by Clutch
That's taking what I said out of context, don't do that.
Of course my head wants those people to live, but not at the cost of crucial personal freedoms that make life, for me, worth living.
Of course my head wants those people to live, but not at the cost of crucial personal freedoms that make life, for me, worth living.
It really isn't taking it out of context, as it's as simple as choosing whether you'd like to worry about having to go through some extra queues at airport security in order to same some lives.
Besides, the stats you showed about terrorism being very low since 9/11, why do you think that was? Security at airports etc. went up tenfold.
01-13-2013, 09:25 PM
#26
Originally posted by Dave
I still can't quite believe you think that violence against protesters has increased in recent years, it's gone dramatically down. Can't you remember in the London riots which had got so out of hand and yet we refused to use water cannons or plastic bullets?
There's a huge difference between the occupy protests and the London riots, both in message and the nature of the event. It's in the names - one was a protest, one was a riot.
Originally posted by another user
Well then you read it wrong lol. "[a] covered person [includes one] who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States", quite clear to me that you have to be at war with the USA in order to come under this act. There's no point arguing belligerently, you can admit when you're wrong.
"associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States" quite open to interpretation. Who decides who's associated? Who decides who is officially engaged in hostilities? And so on.
Originally posted by another user
It doesn't mention the word 'terrorist' in the Act, did you read the quote? Terrorism was my terminology.
Yeah, my bad. What it actually says is still open to interpretation which is the problem.
Originally posted by another user
You're still looking at about 5 seconds a week, so what, 4 minutes a year? I'm telling you that would have no effect on you, doctors and pilots incur far higher exposure to radiation.
I'm no scientist so I'll concede this point. What about the fact that they invade privacy and plain don't work?
Originally posted by another user
It really isn't taking it out of context, as it's as simple as choosing whether you'd like to worry about having to go through some extra queues at airport security in order to same some lives.
I said above it doesn't save lives. And even if it did that doesn't automatically make it right to me - see my guards hypothetical.
Originally posted by another user
Besides, the stats you showed about terrorism being very low since 9/11, why do you think that was? Security at airports etc. went up tenfold.
Terrorism before 9/11 was equally non-existent. All in all 9/11, 7/7 and one or two failed plots are all there's been. That doesn't justify the stuff we're discussing above. Millions more die in road accidents... I mean f*ck, more people die choking on food. You're conflating it to be this giant problem when it really isn't, that's just the false impression you get from the constant attention it gets from the media.
01-14-2013, 08:24 AM
#27
Jake
One Man Army
Originally posted by Clutch
There's a huge difference between the occupy protests and the London riots, both in message and the nature of the event. It's in the names - one was a protest, one was a riot.
Well thats the point, the protestors in London against the death of the young guy became so bad they were called 'riots', and yet the police still refused to use any sort of 'in response' tactics such as water guns and plastic bullets because of the age we live in. I can't quite believe you think protestors have been dealt with more violently in recent years than in the past.
Originally posted by Clutch
"associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States" quite open to interpretation. Who decides who's associated? Who decides who is officially engaged in hostilities? And so on.
It's not really, it's quite clear it's in reference to people who are at war with the USA. It's the same with any war, the government decides who we are at war with and it has been like that since societies were developed.
Originally posted by Clutch
What about the fact that they invade privacy and plain don't work?
I'm pretty sure you're allowed to opt out of it for a physical pat-down instead, but that's besides the point - how do they invade your privacy? The machines blur our faces, the results located in an outside room where the person viewing doesn't even know who they are viewing, and they're specifically designed to show only chalk outlines of us rather than reveal anything personal. As for not working, I've never heard this before, from what I've heard they're good at finding chemical explosives that pat-downs and metal detectors wouldn't find. Honestly I don't think the successfulness of the machine is really relevant.
Originally posted by Clutch
Terrorism before 9/11 was equally non-existent. All in all 9/11, 7/7 and one or two failed plots are all there's been. That doesn't justify the stuff we're discussing above. Millions more die in road accidents... I mean f*ck, more people die choking on food. You're conflating it to be this giant problem when it really isn't, that's just the false impression you get from the constant attention it gets from the media.
I'm not making it out to be any big problem; I'm saying that people do die from it and there's no reason why we can't put aside our hypersensitivity and put a couple seconds aside to go through a body detector if it will save any lives. Road accidents and people choking on food (which by the way I'm sure you don't actually know whether more people die from so I don't know why you brought up that fictional point) are unavoidable events, terrorism is avoidable.
Do you honestly think if we didn't have homeland security we wouldn't have far more terrorism attacks and more would die?
You must login or register to view this content.
01-14-2013, 09:23 AM
#28
Originally posted by Dave
Well thats the point, the protestors in London against the death of the young guy became so bad they were called 'riots', and yet the police still refused to use any sort of 'in response' tactics such as water guns and plastic bullets because of the age we live in. I can't quite believe you think protestors have been dealt with more violently in recent years than in the past.
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.
Originally posted by another user
It's not really, it's quite clear it's in reference to people who are at war with the USA. It's the same with any war, the government decides who we are at war with and it has been like that since societies were developed.
Most people tend to disagree with those wars. But we'll have to disagree on the wording as I still see it as vague at best.
Originally posted by another user
how do they invade your privacy? The machines blur our faces, the results located in an outside room where the person viewing doesn't even know who they are viewing, and they're specifically designed to show only chalk outlines of us rather than reveal anything personal.
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.
Originally posted by another user
As for not working, I've never heard this before, from what I've heard they're good at finding chemical explosives that pat-downs and metal detectors wouldn't find. Honestly I don't think the successfulness of the machine is really relevant.
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.
Originally posted by another user
I'm not making it out to be any big problem; I'm saying that people do die from it and there's no reason why we can't put aside our hypersensitivity and put a couple seconds aside to go through a body detector if it will save any lives. Road accidents and people choking on food (which by the way I'm sure you don't actually know whether more people die from so I don't know why you brought up that fictional point) are unavoidable events, terrorism is avoidable.
Road accidents are unavoidable? How did you come to that conclusion? And as I said above the body detector doesn't do a damn thing so our like or dislike of it is irrelevant at this point.
Don't accuse me of making things up. Example statistic off Google: "It is estimated that approximately 3000 adults and 66 children die from choking in one year in the US". That's more deaths to choking in one year than terrorism has gotten us in ten, 9/11 included.
Originally posted by another user
Do you honestly think if we didn't have homeland security we wouldn't have far more terrorism attacks and more would die?
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?
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.
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
