Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
I'll take three large. How about a ST Web Site shirt with that logo.
he's decided not to release death photos of terrorist Osama bin Laden
- Thread starter OLE442
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Don Pertz
Active Member
To hell with what everybody thinks. Obama is an idiot. It's okay to put the video of Daniel Pearl getting beheaded on the internet and other Islamist muders, but we don't dare offend them. Release the photo and if wimps don't want to see it, then don't look at it. The ionly balls this President ever had were Basketballs and Golf balls.
The video of Daniel Pearl never was ok. Was it only objectionable because it was a white American? Daniel Pearl was no less an enemy to those who executed him than bin Laden was to us.
If the definition of a wimp is a man who doesn't care to look at dead people, I guess I am. I never thought manly men were the kind that liked to see pictures of dead people on the internet.
Releasing the photos serves no purpose, militaristic, diplomatic or domestic. Just so a few people can get their rocks off from a bullet hole in the head of a despised man is not justification enough.
My dislike for our president's policies does not change this issue for me at all. Sadly, some people would criticize President Obama if he did something exactly right. As a political scientist, I think he has made the correct move on this issue. I can provide pages full of things he's done wrong, but I agree with him on this one. Don't let hatred for the president and hatred for terrorist activities cloud basic humanity.
If the definition of a wimp is a man who doesn't care to look at dead people, I guess I am. I never thought manly men were the kind that liked to see pictures of dead people on the internet.
Releasing the photos serves no purpose, militaristic, diplomatic or domestic. Just so a few people can get their rocks off from a bullet hole in the head of a despised man is not justification enough.
My dislike for our president's policies does not change this issue for me at all. Sadly, some people would criticize President Obama if he did something exactly right. As a political scientist, I think he has made the correct move on this issue. I can provide pages full of things he's done wrong, but I agree with him on this one. Don't let hatred for the president and hatred for terrorist activities cloud basic humanity.
EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
As a Christian myself. Im like Hugh. Im glad this is over. I dont rejoice in the death.
The Other side of me feels this was not an execution. This is war. I do believe God allows justified death by what would be the greater good against evil. It happened many times under Gods direction in the old testament. Despite the new testament covenant. I do believe God still allows it, but he doesnt rejoice in it. I also believe that the Lord Jesus forgives those involved, if they ask him.
Im confident he has forgiven me, for my part of killing in 'Nam...
The Other side of me feels this was not an execution. This is war. I do believe God allows justified death by what would be the greater good against evil. It happened many times under Gods direction in the old testament. Despite the new testament covenant. I do believe God still allows it, but he doesnt rejoice in it. I also believe that the Lord Jesus forgives those involved, if they ask him.
Im confident he has forgiven me, for my part of killing in 'Nam...
Bill V
Well-Known Member
While we're discussing the semantics of whether this is an execution, a war death, a murder, etc.--
I've heard some media members talk about the "assassination" of Bin Laden. I had to look it up, as I always presumed that the word "assassination" was a politcally-motivated killing which included an element of the act being unwarranted or, for lack of a better term, wrong. US presidents are "assassinated". MLK was "assassinated". People who die because of their wrong-doings, such as Bin Laden, are "executed", at least according to the way I'm used to thinking of it. Similarly, I thought that "murder" also contains an element of the act being unwarranted or wrong--the difference between an "assassination" and a "murder" being the political motivation behind an assassination.
But the dictionary I checked disagrees, and says that an assassination is basically a killing, especially of a public or political figure, which is done by surprise attack. No moral implication involved.
What do all of you think? Does "assassinate" imply wrongdoing, and therefore make it the wrong word to use here? Or does it bear no moral implication, and is applicable?
Reminds me a bit of a comedian I saw many years ago. I don't remember his name at all, but let's call him John Doe. He had a bit about how different headlines can be based on the context. Paraphrasing: "For example, imagine if someone were to break into my home and shoot me dead. Ideally, I'd like to be famous enough for the front page of the newspaper the next day to read in huge letters, 'Doe Assassinated!' But that's not likely. Next best would be for a headline to say, 'Doe Killed' on the front page, below the fold. But that, too, is unlikely. An option after that would be for it to say somewhere a few pages into the A section, 'John Doe Dies in his Home.' But realistically, the most likely thing to happen is for a small font headline in the Variety section to read, 'Self-Proclaimed Comedian Stains Carpet'."
I've heard some media members talk about the "assassination" of Bin Laden. I had to look it up, as I always presumed that the word "assassination" was a politcally-motivated killing which included an element of the act being unwarranted or, for lack of a better term, wrong. US presidents are "assassinated". MLK was "assassinated". People who die because of their wrong-doings, such as Bin Laden, are "executed", at least according to the way I'm used to thinking of it. Similarly, I thought that "murder" also contains an element of the act being unwarranted or wrong--the difference between an "assassination" and a "murder" being the political motivation behind an assassination.
But the dictionary I checked disagrees, and says that an assassination is basically a killing, especially of a public or political figure, which is done by surprise attack. No moral implication involved.
What do all of you think? Does "assassinate" imply wrongdoing, and therefore make it the wrong word to use here? Or does it bear no moral implication, and is applicable?
Reminds me a bit of a comedian I saw many years ago. I don't remember his name at all, but let's call him John Doe. He had a bit about how different headlines can be based on the context. Paraphrasing: "For example, imagine if someone were to break into my home and shoot me dead. Ideally, I'd like to be famous enough for the front page of the newspaper the next day to read in huge letters, 'Doe Assassinated!' But that's not likely. Next best would be for a headline to say, 'Doe Killed' on the front page, below the fold. But that, too, is unlikely. An option after that would be for it to say somewhere a few pages into the A section, 'John Doe Dies in his Home.' But realistically, the most likely thing to happen is for a small font headline in the Variety section to read, 'Self-Proclaimed Comedian Stains Carpet'."
Les
Well-Known Member
I like execute.
I don't care if it was an assasination, execution, or if he died of fright. He deserved to die, and he did. Had bin Laden immediately surrendered and raised his hands, he probably would be alive and well in a cell in Gitmo, being interrogated around the clock, and would have eventually been executed. I suspect he probably preferred quick death. I think it's better that he was killed than endure the media circus that would have gone on had he been captured. The sooner he was death the sooner life would return to normal. As previously stated, in 6 months to a year, bin Laden will have been just a fleeting memory to most people...much like Saddam is today.
As for Daniel Pearls beheading being published; The video was released to the media, not the US Government, so the were not involved in the decision, and even the media did not show the actual beheading, althought I understand that it was shown in full on the Internet.
I quess my question here is: Are you all feeling sorry for bin Laden, or are you just mad that he was captured on Obama's watch??? It sounds to me like many of you have more distrust for Obama than you did for bin Laden?
...Rich
As for Daniel Pearls beheading being published; The video was released to the media, not the US Government, so the were not involved in the decision, and even the media did not show the actual beheading, althought I understand that it was shown in full on the Internet.
I quess my question here is: Are you all feeling sorry for bin Laden, or are you just mad that he was captured on Obama's watch??? It sounds to me like many of you have more distrust for Obama than you did for bin Laden?
...Rich
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Bill V,
I think execution is more fitting because this is a man that was being killed for his war crimes. Though the dictionary definition of assinaation by disagree, I've always felt that assination applies mostly to poltical figures that by their beliefs or actions which though were not illegal, were used as the basis for their killing by someone who simply wanted them dead.
I suspect John Wilkes Booth felt that he was executing Lincoln due to war crimes. But we all call it an assination. It is all about one's POV at a certain point.
Though, it really doesn't matter.
What it most certainly was not was "The Death of Osama bin Laden"... that title which ticks me off a bit is too general. I'd rather the media use: "The Killing of...", or "The Execution of..."
TJR
I think execution is more fitting because this is a man that was being killed for his war crimes. Though the dictionary definition of assinaation by disagree, I've always felt that assination applies mostly to poltical figures that by their beliefs or actions which though were not illegal, were used as the basis for their killing by someone who simply wanted them dead.
I suspect John Wilkes Booth felt that he was executing Lincoln due to war crimes. But we all call it an assination. It is all about one's POV at a certain point.
Though, it really doesn't matter.
What it most certainly was not was "The Death of Osama bin Laden"... that title which ticks me off a bit is too general. I'd rather the media use: "The Killing of...", or "The Execution of..."
TJR
Surely this question wasn't posed toward me if my posts have been read. I'm not sure if anyone on here has shown any sympathy for bin Laden. If there has been, I've missed it. I have been defending Obama's handling of this situation. The only criticism of Obama has been of those wanting to see pictures of bin Laden with a bullet through his head. I've only criticized those that feel the need to see pictures that serve no diplomatic, security, or domestic purpose.
Hugh,
No my post was not directed to you since we seem to be in agreement. It was a general statement to those who seem to feel cheated because because bin Laden was killed while Obama was President, and now will not release the photos. Some of this also comes from the media who are concerned that bin Laden was unarmed (but fail to mention that it was reported that he had a pistol and an AK47 near his bed). If he made any false move that did not look like he was surrendering, I would have shot him too. It was also reported that one of his wives that was shot in the leg attempted to jump in from of him to shield him....that also may have blocked the SEAL's view of bin Laden, and he might have pulled out a weapon or grenade?? The SEAL's are trained in Millitary tactics not police tactics. Police have many restrictions on the use of Deadly Force. That's why you never see "Wanted, Dead or Alive" police warrants anymore. Thankfully, the Military does not have such restrictions on those kinds of missions... Bush said bin Laden was wanted "Dead or Alive" and proved that with all the missle strikes and bombs they dropped on suspected bin Laden hideouts, but was never lucky enought to get him.
I was only speaking to you in general terms about the Daniel Pearl video, and why that was handled differently from bin Laden's photos. Pearls execution video was sent to the media and they published it, or at least in part. Bin Laden's photos were the exclusive property of the Governement, and they chose not to release the photo.
We all know that photos of some of the dead terrorists and Saddam's son's were released by the Bush administration and that was his call. Obama does not want to do that, and as the President, he has that authority.
I don't think we disagree on those points??
...Rich
No my post was not directed to you since we seem to be in agreement. It was a general statement to those who seem to feel cheated because because bin Laden was killed while Obama was President, and now will not release the photos. Some of this also comes from the media who are concerned that bin Laden was unarmed (but fail to mention that it was reported that he had a pistol and an AK47 near his bed). If he made any false move that did not look like he was surrendering, I would have shot him too. It was also reported that one of his wives that was shot in the leg attempted to jump in from of him to shield him....that also may have blocked the SEAL's view of bin Laden, and he might have pulled out a weapon or grenade?? The SEAL's are trained in Millitary tactics not police tactics. Police have many restrictions on the use of Deadly Force. That's why you never see "Wanted, Dead or Alive" police warrants anymore. Thankfully, the Military does not have such restrictions on those kinds of missions... Bush said bin Laden was wanted "Dead or Alive" and proved that with all the missle strikes and bombs they dropped on suspected bin Laden hideouts, but was never lucky enought to get him.
I was only speaking to you in general terms about the Daniel Pearl video, and why that was handled differently from bin Laden's photos. Pearls execution video was sent to the media and they published it, or at least in part. Bin Laden's photos were the exclusive property of the Governement, and they chose not to release the photo.
We all know that photos of some of the dead terrorists and Saddam's son's were released by the Bush administration and that was his call. Obama does not want to do that, and as the President, he has that authority.
I don't think we disagree on those points??
...Rich
Regardless if Bin Laden was armed or not. I don't care. He needed done away with.
Persoanlly I do not care to see photos of Bin Laden, but unless some proof is given, the doubters will say this is a re-election ploy by Obama.
Even though Obama release his birth certificate, there are still birthers that claim it is a fake.
No matter what Obama does, he is wrong for doing it.
If Bin Laden was captured and put under trial, people would say they should have shot him and threw him into the ocean.
Since Bin Laden was shot and thrown into the ocean, they say he should have been captured and brought to trial.
No matter what he does, he is wrong.
Tom
Persoanlly I do not care to see photos of Bin Laden, but unless some proof is given, the doubters will say this is a re-election ploy by Obama.
Even though Obama release his birth certificate, there are still birthers that claim it is a fake.
No matter what Obama does, he is wrong for doing it.
If Bin Laden was captured and put under trial, people would say they should have shot him and threw him into the ocean.
Since Bin Laden was shot and thrown into the ocean, they say he should have been captured and brought to trial.
No matter what he does, he is wrong.
Tom
Ok, no we are definitely in agreement Richard.
I'd hardly be confused for an Obama apologist, but I support him entirely on this situation. I also support him on every strategic move he's made in the wars (because they're continuation of exactly what Bush was doing). I don't think we ever should have been in Iraq, but I was ok with Afghanistan. Obama spoke out against being in Pakistan, and look where we found the most wanted terrorist in the world. He spoke out against enhanced interrogation, but guess how we found bin Laden (btw, I am against these techniques). He also promised to close Guantanamo, but it's alive and torturing just as before (also against Gitmo).
Libya has been a disaster and Obama is once again showing his ignorance on foreign policy. Nevermind that it's nearly the same situation as with Iraq. Why not jump into Syria while we're at it? Bomb a few establishments, accomplish very little at a big expense and then sit back and watch. They have a murderous dictator as well.
Stop building crap we knocked down in Iraq. Promise to buy some of their oil and let them figure it out. Step back and completely ignore Libya. Finish whatever it is we're trying to accomplish in Afghanistan (I'm still not completely sure what that is now), and get out. Has Washington not realized that Americans are struggling in a very real way? Do they care?
I sure hope one of my three candidates can get into office next term. Herman Cain, Ron Paul, or Newt Gingrich better be our next president. You better hope so too.
But hey, Obama finally did something right. He didn't release photos of a dead guy.
I'd hardly be confused for an Obama apologist, but I support him entirely on this situation. I also support him on every strategic move he's made in the wars (because they're continuation of exactly what Bush was doing). I don't think we ever should have been in Iraq, but I was ok with Afghanistan. Obama spoke out against being in Pakistan, and look where we found the most wanted terrorist in the world. He spoke out against enhanced interrogation, but guess how we found bin Laden (btw, I am against these techniques). He also promised to close Guantanamo, but it's alive and torturing just as before (also against Gitmo).
Libya has been a disaster and Obama is once again showing his ignorance on foreign policy. Nevermind that it's nearly the same situation as with Iraq. Why not jump into Syria while we're at it? Bomb a few establishments, accomplish very little at a big expense and then sit back and watch. They have a murderous dictator as well.
Stop building crap we knocked down in Iraq. Promise to buy some of their oil and let them figure it out. Step back and completely ignore Libya. Finish whatever it is we're trying to accomplish in Afghanistan (I'm still not completely sure what that is now), and get out. Has Washington not realized that Americans are struggling in a very real way? Do they care?
I sure hope one of my three candidates can get into office next term. Herman Cain, Ron Paul, or Newt Gingrich better be our next president. You better hope so too.
But hey, Obama finally did something right. He didn't release photos of a dead guy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hugh,
I am also no big fan of Obama. As a retired military vet, he has increased the taxes we pay on our retirement, and with the DOD cut backs, they are talking about increasing the cost of Tricare medical insurance used by most active and retired military. In my case, I have just switched over to Medicare on May 1st (like it or not) and it now cost me about 6 times more than my Tricare coverage.:angry:
So my assesment is that Obama has not been sucessful in raising the tax rates on the average American taxpayer, so he has making the military pay more. I think they have over-paid for years and this is just another slap in the face!
...Rich
I am also no big fan of Obama. As a retired military vet, he has increased the taxes we pay on our retirement, and with the DOD cut backs, they are talking about increasing the cost of Tricare medical insurance used by most active and retired military. In my case, I have just switched over to Medicare on May 1st (like it or not) and it now cost me about 6 times more than my Tricare coverage.:angry:
So my assesment is that Obama has not been sucessful in raising the tax rates on the average American taxpayer, so he has making the military pay more. I think they have over-paid for years and this is just another slap in the face!
...Rich
