Should the pictures be released?

7 May, '11

I couldn’t have put it better myself. Thank you Jon.

Another thought: people in Bahrain should look in the mirror whenever they utter words such as “no forgiveness”, “retribution”, “traitor”, “them”, “enemy” and the like as Jon’s observation applies too; however in our situation, even though some gold coin might very well be left behind the corpses those words and pointed fingers create, the benefactors will never have a country nor community within which it could be enjoyed. What they will enjoy, is history’s mounting rubbish heap.

hat tip: daringfireball.net

Filed in: Politics
Tagged with:

Comments (32)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Robert says:

    In some ways I agree. But the real pornography of war is not the images of death and destruction that we see but what is left behind in the minds of living witnesses. I cannot see the humanity in distributing this to a wider audience.

  2. MadMike says:

    Not sure what world Jon has lived in the last 10 years, but photos of dead women, children, beheaded “prisoners”, maimed servicemen and abused prisoners have been, and continue to be released regularly. As far as living witnesses, they have the classic pose of the iconic OBL holding his AK47 that they can mount on the living room wall if they so choose.

  3. Dan says:

    First of all, and I speak as an American, Osama bin Laden has been dead for ten years. Second, even if some simple-minded dupe wants to believe that Osama bin Laden was recently killed in Pakistan, that story has been changed by the American government so many times in the week since it happened that it wouldn’t stand up in a conversation at an office water fountain much less in a court of law. Third, 9/11 was a false flag operation, just like always, of the Anglo-American New World Order and this is EASILY demonstrable. Fourth: The American government showing Abu-Graib pictures on television was all the rave back then so it is NOT a matter of concern for offending people. Still, the American government doesn’t want to offend Muslim sensitivities…like bombing them for ten years hasn’t.

    • Steve the American says:

      Dan, you’re quite an imbecile. Oddly enough, I believe the US military more than some nutcase ranting on the Internet.

      • Dan says:

        Steve the American:

        “None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.”

        —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

        Are you for real or are you just an AI propaganda program?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

        http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/

        Case closed!

        • Dan says:

          PS

          Much better link:

        • Schroedinger's Parakeet says:

          Dan;

          Time to buy up shares in the tin foil industry, I see.

        • Steve the American says:

          Dan,

          I’ve seen all the crazy ass truther nonsense, enough to know that you guys have a cartoon vision of the world and your brains simply can not process reality. Basically, truthers are a mixture of numbskulls and traitors drawn from the twenty percent of Americans who will fall for any crazy story if it is fantastic enough.

  4. Steve the American says:

    It is very satisfying to know Osama Bin Laden is dead and even better to know our finest men hunted him down like the murdering Muslim rat he was and put a bullet in his head. Now, let’s do the same to Zawahiri.

    I’m OK with Obama not publishing the death photos of Osama. Eventually, they’ll be released in calmer times, which is good enough for me.

    I didn’t see Jon Stewart call for the release of the photos of victims of Muslim terrorists, so his call to release photos of war’s gore seems partisan to me. He didn’t call for the photos of victims of leftist terrorism and crime in America to be released either.

    During his rally “to restore sanity,” he had Cat Stevens on stage, who supported the death fatwa on Salman Rushdie. I’m not persuaded Jon Stewart is on the side of sanity.

    • Robok says:

      Incidentally, I am persuaded that you are quite the successful troll.

    • Robok says:

      Oh and regarding Cat Stevens:

      “The Rushdie fatwa incident seems to be accepted as fact here, despite the fact that no one seems able to cite your endorsement of it. How did this rumor start?
      I’m very sad that this seems to be the No. 1 question people want to discuss. I had nothing to do with the issue other than what the media created. I was innocently drawn into the whole controversy. So, after many years, I’m glad at least now that I have been given the opportunity to explain to the public and fans my side of the story in my own words. At a lecture, back in 1989, I was asked a question about blasphemy according to Islamic Law, I simply repeated the legal view according to my limited knowledge of the Scriptural texts, based directly on historical commentaries of the Qur’an. The next day the newspaper headlines read, “Cat Says, Kill Rushdie.” I was abhorred, but what could I do? I was a new Muslim. If you ask a Bible student to quote the legal punishment of a person who commits blasphemy in the Bible, he would be dishonest if he didn’t mention Leviticus 24:16. ”
      http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/cat-stevens-breaks-his-silence-20000621

      • Steve the American says:

        Rushdie’s support of Khomeini’s death fatwa is accepted as true by so many people because he repeated it so many times, in print and on camera. It was not a one time, taken by surprise event as he dishonestly portrays in the quote above. For Pete’s sake, he went on a Britsh interview show and endorsed burning Rushdie in effigy, adding that he was sorry that they couldn’t burn Rushdie himself.

        Here it is in the New York Times:

        http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/04/18/specials/rushdie-cat.html

        Here he is on video endorsing the murder of Rushdie:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Oienjf0GK8

        And really, it’s not exactly unusual for Muslims to call for the deaths of people with whom they disagree nor for them to carry out those threats. Murder is a feature of Islam.

    • exclamation mark says:

      Unfortunately Steve,

      After more than ten years in Afganistan and Pakistan, and the crimes of your fine men, Osama is not a person, but an ideology. So you’ve just killed one, you need to kill the one million left of him.

      Good luck trying to stay in Iraq.

      • Steve the American says:

        EM,

        Osama Bin Laden represents all that is evil and backward about Islam. He didn’t think up anything new but was simply acting out Wahhabi doctrine.

        And really, who wants to stay in Iraq? We just need to post enough troops to ensure the Muslims go to war with each other. The last time we pulled out, Iran and Iraq went to war with each other and killed off a million people. Without America to stop the Muslims from butchering each other, the Middle East would paint the streets with its own blood for no reason at all but hate.

        • Steve the American says:

          I meant to say “to ensure the Muslims DON’T go to war with each other.”

    • Bernie says:

      Are you a genuine card carrying member of the NRA and a far right Christian republican extremist?
      I only ask because of the ridiculous misinformed turgid retoric of this particular post.

      • Steve the American says:

        Bernie,

        Are you a card carrying political bigot who never argues the facts but merely hurls nonsensical insults at those who depart from your politically correct dogma?

        • Bernie says:

          Oooh, sharp reply there Steve.

          Naah, just a card carrying idealist that gets tetchy.
          I know there’s no place for idealism in this world when religion and politics go around trying to kill every bugger that doesn’t agree with them but then opinions are like assholes, everbody has one.

          I have been accused on naivety as well occasionally but every time a person is killed that at least ten other people get pissed off about it like family etc.

          War a no win situation.

          • Steve the American says:

            If ten people get pissed off for every one killed, then Muslims should have run that arithmetic before they butchered three thousand Americans on Sep 11.

            If war is a no win situation, how did Nazi Germany and Hirohito’s Japan fare in WWII? Would you say they won or lost or neither?

            You’re quite a purveyor of platitudes that sound true but aren’t, Bernie.

  5. billT says:

    Dan speaks as an American. Steve speaks as an American. Who’s playing Abbott and who’s playing Costello this week.

  6. Cathy says:

    Mahmood, you are a good man. Always posting thought-provoking material. I don’t want to see the pictures. I just want to know that that predator is no longer a problem. Now we can move on to dealing with the next creep who will step up to take his place. And the whole thing will start all over again. War is evil. Death is horrible. Let’s do all e can to avoid it.

  7. Cathy says:

    Mahmood, you are a good man. Always posting thought-provoking material. I don’t want to see the pictures. I just want to know that that predator is no longer a problem. Now we can move on to dealing with the next creep who will step up to take his place. And the whole thing will start all over again. War is evil. Death is horrible. Let’s do all we can to avoid it.

    • Cathy says:

      Oops sorry for the double post. But there was a typo in the first anyhow!

  8. Dan says:

    “Dropping below the level of a savage, who believes that the magic words he utters have the power to alter reality, they believe that reality can be altered by the power of the words they do not utter—and their magic tool is the blank-out, the pretense that nothing can come into existence past the voodoo of their refusal to identify it.”

    —Ayn Rand

    “10 Facts That Prove The Bin Laden Fable Is a Contrived Hoax:” http://www.infowars.com/10-facts-that-prove-the-bin-laden-fable-is-a-contrived-hoax/

  9. Dan says:

    “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

    Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

    —American President Dwight David Eisenhower, January 17, 1961

    “The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.”

    “…For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

    American President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, April 27, 1961

  10. Dan says:

    Bernie:

    Thanks. I have already posted those links in a comment to a previous post here. I am also a member of AE911Truth. However, with my knowledge of electrical engineering, I am inclined to agree with Dr. Judy Wood concerning the towers.

    • Bernie says:

      Awfully sorry Dan, I must have missed that particular post.
      I shall have a read of Dr. Judy Wood, she seems a most interesting and knowlegeable individual.

  11. ajax says:

    Wahhabi this ,Wahhabi that.

    keep running after imginary ghost i da say steve.

    • Steve the American says:

      So Wahhabis don’t exist now, ajax? Don’t I wish. Doesn’t the world wish it were true.

  12. anonny says:

    Dear Ajax,

    Wahhabi this,
    Wahhabi that,
    Wahhabi Taif,
    Wahhabi siege of Mecca,
    Wahhabi ghosts I wish.

Back to Top