EJSG19 wrote:gyrfalcon wrote:goalie wrote:There is a huge difference between being afraid of something and thinking that, considering current world events in the middle east (especially the civil unrest throughout the region) that it would be stupid to give a lot of those people a common thing to be pissed off at........US. I personally like the average dude in the middle east being pissed off at his own oppressive dictator/government instead of us for a change. I think showing the pictures would be stupid and have a net negative effect, while only satisfying the curiosity of internet commandos and tough guys. As for the pacifism crap, reall???? I am now a pacifist because I think showing the pictures would be a dumbass move?!?!?! I guess it's hard to argue with that logic.
The US government sent a fairly large military force into foreign country (which happens to also be a nuclear power) without permission or notification. They then killed a number of people and admitted to it publicly. Yet you're of the belief that releasing photographs of OBL would have a negative effect over all, and would just make things worse.
Maybe you should bury your head in the sand so you don't get sunburn next time you're at the beach.
I have to admit I'm in agreement here. Why are we even worried about photo's at this point? You'd think the gigantic issue would be the fact that we just snuck in and offed this guy. I can only imagine how that makes a radical muslim terrorist feel. The fact that somebody might have a picture of it doesn't really make a hill of beans compared to the fact that he was just killed. I never meant to say that showing the photos would help anything, only that it should be a drop in the bucket compared to the real issue. If it brings unnecessary risk to special ops guys or anyone else, than screw it, burn the photo, who cares.
The emphasis is in the wrong place. If
killing him doesn't cause trouble, then I'd feel fairly safe saying that a perceived disrespect of his body or whatever the photo might be seen as, probably won't cause any more or less trouble than his
killing. The point is, these nutjobs attacked us before he was killed, and they likely keep up the effort afterward.
Beside the point, as a country, I don't quite understand the tip toeing about when terrorists are on the other side. Would we let aggression on our country slide if it was 1940's germany, or emperial Britain telling us they were going to run the show? If China one day decides "Hey we hate the U.S. lets invade them. Look how good it worked for the Terrorists! All they had to do was say "we hate the U.S. and if the U.S. fights back we'll just threaten more violence." Works like a charm.
Why does it matter? Enemies are enemies.
What you're suggesting sounds logical, and reasonable on the surface. But you're ignoring human behavior- particularly the response to visual stimuli, as well as media manipulation, and the power of propaganda.
First off, most people on this planet couldn't point out Pakistan on a globe if you gave them 3 tries. And to those who we worry about, the concept of a sovereign nation is non-existent.
Further, ask yourself what the name Daniel Pearl means to you.
Now, without turning to the gooogle: Name another journalist who was beheaded by al queda, whose murder wasn't broadcast around the world.
Similarly, the sight and sound of bodies landing on the streets of New York on 9/ 11 invokes a much more intense reaction than merely reading about the scene.
We did what we set out to do. We got #1; #2, and #3 know that, without seeing any pictures. Pissing off the middle-of-the-road acomplishes nothing- far from it. The radicals will remain radicals, regardless of our actions and will be dealt with as they stick their heads up.
