|
Post by Chesapeake on May 4, 2011 10:21:00 GMT -5
No.
The only reason to release them would be to satisfy conspiracy theorists - mainly in the Middle East - who think the whole thing was an American trick. That is far outweighed by the degree to which such an image would become a rallying point for Islamic radicals and America haters in general forevermore. As of now they have nothing: no photos, no body. Anyway, a photo could easily be faked, and, thus, releasing one wouldn't even serve the intended purpose.
A compromise would be to show some members of Congress under a strictly secure setting, including no cellphone cameras.
Panetta thinks they should be released publicly and probably will. Maybe someday, but not now.
It's up to Obama. He's made some good decisions about this up until now. I hope he continues.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on May 4, 2011 10:25:05 GMT -5
I'm not sure if good or bad will come of it but they will get out (government leaks like a strainer) So the best bet is to just do it now and then move on.
|
|
|
Post by John B on May 4, 2011 10:28:18 GMT -5
Doug, apparently your Facebook account thinks the fake should be released, as that's what you've been posting lately.
I agree with Chesapeake.
|
|
|
Post by Ann T on May 4, 2011 10:29:45 GMT -5
I agree with Chesapeake.
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 4, 2011 10:30:51 GMT -5
Doug, apparently your Facebook account thinks the fake should be released, as that's what you've been posting lately. Apparently, whoever clicked on a link got that link sent to their entire friend list.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on May 4, 2011 10:34:14 GMT -5
Yeah I saw that but I haven't ever done anything with my Facebook thing except sign up so I could see hte grandkids pictures. So I don't know what it does and I just move all Facebook related emails to a storage directory with out reading them.
I hate facebook. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on May 4, 2011 10:34:19 GMT -5
One more vote for Chesapeake.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on May 4, 2011 10:36:51 GMT -5
Krikey! The fake photo was just posted to my Facebook wall, supposedly by a friend at the Wall Street Journal. You really have to be careful what you click on. Btw, in case anyone hasn't seen it: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-photo-fakeEDIT: I just realized the irony of warning about clicking and then giving a clickable. It is genuinely the Guardian site, and I've clicked on it before with no ill effects.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on May 4, 2011 10:37:49 GMT -5
Not that I think it's a good idea but it will be released and better if it's a controlled release rather than a leak.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on May 4, 2011 10:38:12 GMT -5
Doug: You make a very wise observation. The histories of such things show that we will see the photo someday. I just think the longer it gets put off, the better.
|
|
|
Post by sekhmet on May 4, 2011 10:38:38 GMT -5
No. It's unseemly.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on May 4, 2011 10:44:04 GMT -5
Not sure if this is the right thread for this observation, but I was pretty disgusted by all the dancing in the streets after the announcement. I would have thought we were better than that. As Charles de Gaulle said, "The cemeteries are filled with indispensable men". Now the cemeteries (or at least the bottom of the Indian Ocean) have one more indispensable man to watch over. One of our leaders said (back in 2006) [E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done … is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer. Bin Laden's death does not mean the death of Bin Ladenism, or the death of radical Islam. I'm not sure it hurts, though. Its probably a step in the right direction, although it may have been the case that a perpetually compromised and impotent Bin Laden was more valuable to us than a dead one. A moot point now, to be sure. In any case, I'm leaning toward not releasing the photos. We are supposed to represent modernity and civilization, then we need to live by our own rules. And our rules are quite clear on this point.
|
|
|
Post by mccoyblues on May 4, 2011 10:46:39 GMT -5
I agree that the only real reason for the release is to calm down the conspiracy theorists. Let them wallow in their theories, it'll keep them occupied for a few decades.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on May 4, 2011 10:51:09 GMT -5
If I had been trying to get a guy "dead or alive" for five years and failed, I would be downplaying his significance too. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by Ann T on May 4, 2011 10:55:16 GMT -5
Wait until a sheet washes up on a shore somewhere--shroud of bin Laden, anyone?
There's no way to quiet the conspiracy theorists. Period. Everyone knows about Photoshop, and a picture is no longer the final word of any evidence.
Having seen my share of fatal gunshot wounds to the head (during training), I can pretty much visualize it. It likely would be a very disturbing picture, definitely not something for children to see, and likely would inflame the radicals rather than help anything.
I vote for showing it to the congressmen only, and letting them tell their constituents. The rest of the world got it straight from the U.S. President, and that's about as high a level as you can go, unless you want to involve the pope.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on May 4, 2011 10:58:48 GMT -5
Personally, I have no interest in seeing the pictures, and I would be fine with them never being released. But I think I'm with Doug on this. They will get out, and they will spread, and they will be available. It's impossible to keep them hidden, and it's wishful thinking to try. Putting them out is a better way to go. Conspiracy theorists will believe what they want no matter what (what birth certificate?) and jihadists will try to rally one way or the other. Releasing the pictures won't matter one way or the other in the long run, and it's better to have control over the timing. Better now than later in the middle of something else.
And I'm with Jeff on not liking the celebrations.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on May 4, 2011 11:01:33 GMT -5
I would have bypassed this whole business of photo/no photo by simply putting Bin Laden's head on a stake in the center of ground zero. Let the flies verify it.
|
|
|
Post by Don Clark on May 4, 2011 11:02:00 GMT -5
Doug, apparently your Facebook account thinks the fake should be released, as that's what you've been posting lately. Yep.....I got that from Doug. And twice from ChiliBill. All in one morning. There is a rash of that crap going around there, almost out of control. I don't necessarily celebrate his death or how he died. I'd hate to go like that. What I do celebrate is his absence. And the fact that his direct influence in this whole thing has been stopped. Not to say that his indirect influence played out by his underlings and copycats is anywhere near being over. I really don't think I'd care to carry around in my head a graphic image of some bearded ass with half his head blown off. But perhaps some other form of concrete evidence could be presented to confirm his death.....and hopefully minimize all the skepticism, speculation, and political BS. But that won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on May 4, 2011 11:07:34 GMT -5
One problem is the folks who are demanding proof aren't rational. They are also the ones screaming that Obama get no credit for the job and that all the credit go to the troops. Credit for what? If it didn't happen, there is no credit to give.
If, as they suggest, it is all a fake, then the people they are calling a liar are all the troops who took part in the attack.
But let's ignore the fact that Bin Laden's wife came out of the compound and told the Arab press that he was dead. What does she know?
|
|
|
Post by omaha on May 4, 2011 11:18:20 GMT -5
Tramp, that's nonsense. You're taking the anti-consipracy-nut position to ridiculous extremes.
In your formulation, everyone who's take on events is different from yours goes into the same, unitary, conspiratorial bucket. That's not rational.
|
|