When a terrorist dies, is it OK to gloat?

[MrJonno]

This will take care of any attempts to assuage Muslim sensitivities....

The maker of this t-shirt made $120,000 in two days.

All this martial imagery, of course, is decidedly lacking in "civility."

I just fucking LOVE capitalism.

Wish I'd thought of it.

I think its immoral to glorify death, however that doesnt mean I can't admire immoral people

[Gawdzilla Sama]

'zilla, you are being decidedly insensitive to Muslims....

Yep.

[sandinista]

[laklak]

This will take care of any attempts to assuage Muslim sensitivities....

The maker of this t-shirt made $120,000 in two days.

All this martial imagery, of course, is decidedly lacking in "civility."

I just fucking LOVE capitalism.

Wish I'd thought of it.

I think its immoral to glorify death, however that doesnt mean I can't admire immoral people

I've often admired immoral people. I've shagged a few of them too.

Not recently, of course, I'm a Happily Married Man tm.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

*pat, pat, pat*

[Ian]

This will take care of any attempts to assuage Muslim sensitivities....

The maker of this t-shirt made $120,000 in two days.

All this martial imagery, of course, is decidedly lacking in "civility."

The annoying price of free speech and a free market.
If those were being sold directly by Uncle Sam at the local post office, that'd be a much different matter.

And, it should be the annoying price of a free and open government that they publish the photos. This paternalistic "I decline to release them" bullshit is ridiculous. Release the fucking photos. We paid for them, and there is no national security issue at the moment. He's already dead, and no methods, etc., are being protected. The Islamic world, incidentally, generally doesn't distinguish between private publication and government publication. Hence the disconnect over Danish newspapers, when the Muslim world was incredulous that the Danes couldn't just force newspapers not to publish cartoons.

You gripe about the Obama administration having a paternalistic attitude, and two sentences later you declare that the Islamic world can't be counted on to know the difference between private and government-released information? That's paternalistic. I don't personally blame anyone here for looking down on Islam in general, but that's what you just did.

We elect people to make such decisions. This decision was made because the reverse probably would've done more harm than good. So big deal if some think it's paternalistic. That's government.

Strawman analogy: I can't just walk into the White House and hang around the lobby. Even though it's a government building paid for with my tax dollars, and I'd like to see some more transparency. And why not? Mostly because it's a security issue. That's why the White House isn't available to just anybody anytime. And releasing Bin Laden's photos is a security issue. Not releasing them isn't doing much harm.

And considering the good-vs-harm balance: would publishing them really do much good anyway? Bin Laden is dead. The pictures would do nothing but show visual proof of it. But everybody other than the tinfoil-hat brigade knows he's dead. Most of the rest will figure it out soon enough. Even Al Qaeda said so on their websites today. I think people are just spoiled, knowing that there's some graphic pictures out there that would put a cherry on top of a great big cake of a news story, and they don't have the cherry.

[sandinista]

*pat, pat, pat*

[Gawd]

It's idiotic to think releasing the photos of a dead man is a "security" issue, Ian. Unless......the Americans shot bin Laden in the back of the head at point blank range, which is very likely.

[MrJonno]

I've often admired immoral people. I've shagged a few of them too

The moral ones are far more fun through

[Ian]

It's idiotic to think releasing the photos of a dead man is a "security" issue, Ian. Unless......the Americans shot bin Laden in the back of the head at point blank range, which is very likely.

And the tinfoil-hat brigade weighs in...
If the SEALs summarily killed him even though he surrendered (which you think is very likely, whothefuckknowswhy), do you think they'd need to shoot him in the back of the head? Two dozen elite SEALs couldn't manage to shoot a captive in the face?

[Gawd]

It's idiotic to think releasing the photos of a dead man is a "security" issue, Ian. Unless......the Americans shot bin Laden in the back of the head at point blank range, which is very likely.

And the tinfoil-hat brigade weighs in...
If the SEALs summarily killed him even though he surrendered (which you think is very likely, whothefuckknowswhy), do you think they'd need to shoot him in the back of the head? Two dozen elite SEALs couldn't manage to shoot a captive in the face?

And no response to what I think of your idiotic "security" diversions.

[Coito ergo sum]

This will take care of any attempts to assuage Muslim sensitivities....

The maker of this t-shirt made $120,000 in two days.

All this martial imagery, of course, is decidedly lacking in "civility."

The annoying price of free speech and a free market.
If those were being sold directly by Uncle Sam at the local post office, that'd be a much different matter.

And, it should be the annoying price of a free and open government that they publish the photos. This paternalistic "I decline to release them" bullshit is ridiculous. Release the fucking photos. We paid for them, and there is no national security issue at the moment. He's already dead, and no methods, etc., are being protected. The Islamic world, incidentally, generally doesn't distinguish between private publication and government publication. Hence the disconnect over Danish newspapers, when the Muslim world was incredulous that the Danes couldn't just force newspapers not to publish cartoons.

You gripe about the Obama administration having a paternalistic attitude, and two sentences later you declare that the Islamic world can't be counted on to know the difference between private and government-released information? That's paternalistic. I don't personally blame anyone here for looking down on Islam in general, but that's what you just did.

It's not what I just did. It's what happened with the Danish newspaper cartoon crisis. Muslim "leaders" met with, I think it was the Danish ambassador or other Danish officials, and demanded that the government stop such outrages. They were incredulous when the Danes said that the government didn't have that power.

We elect people to make such decisions. This decision was made because the reverse probably would've done more harm than good. So big deal if some think it's paternalistic. That's government.

That's not the test applied to when information is released or not.

Strawman analogy: I can't just walk into the White House and hang around the lobby. Even though it's a government building paid for with my tax dollars, and I'd like to see some more transparency. And why not? Mostly because it's a security issue. That's why the White House isn't available to just anybody anytime. And releasing Bin Laden's photos is a security issue. Not releasing them isn't doing much harm.

Not releasing them does harm to our right to know. The point being, of course, that people walking into the white house willy-nilly is a security issue. Viewing a photo of bin Laden is not a security issue. No state secrets are implicated, no methods are disclosed. The event already happened. Saying the Osama picture is a security issue is like saying the Zapruder tape of the Kennedy shooting is a security issue.

And considering the good-vs-harm balance: would publishing them really do much good anyway? Bin Laden is dead. The pictures would do nothing but show visual proof of it. But everybody other than the tinfoil-hat brigade knows he's dead. Most of the rest will figure it out soon enough. Even Al Qaeda said so on their websites today. I think people are just spoiled, knowing that there's some graphic pictures out there that would put a cherry on top of a great big cake of a news story, and they don't have the cherry.

It would also show how he was shot, and where he was shot. It's not merely a question of whether we verify THAT he was dead. This is a newsworthy event.

[sandinista]

It's idiotic to think releasing the photos of a dead man is a "security" issue, Ian. Unless......the Americans shot bin Laden in the back of the head at point blank range, which is very likely.

And the tinfoil-hat brigade weighs in...
If the SEALs summarily killed him even though he surrendered (which you think is very likely, whothefuckknowswhy), do you think they'd need to shoot him in the back of the head? Two dozen elite SEALs couldn't manage to shoot a captive in the face?

What the fuck does a "tinfoil hat" have to do with anything said above? Cheap, useless hyperbole.

[Ian]

It's idiotic to think releasing the photos of a dead man is a "security" issue, Ian. Unless......the Americans shot bin Laden in the back of the head at point blank range, which is very likely.

And the tinfoil-hat brigade weighs in...
If the SEALs summarily killed him even though he surrendered (which you think is very likely, whothefuckknowswhy), do you think they'd need to shoot him in the back of the head? Two dozen elite SEALs couldn't manage to shoot a captive in the face?

And no response to what I think of your idiotic "security" diversions.

I went over that in talking to Coito. You really need the obvious spoon-fed to you, huh? Like why SEALs don't need to shoot a prisoner in the back of the head? I don't suppose you have a clear answer to that, because you probably didn't even think about it. In your mind, whatever sounds like the most sinister scenario = the most likely, as long as it involves Americans or Jews. Even if it makes no sense at all. I hereby invoke Occam's Razor.

If the photos were released already, you know darn well you'd be on here right now ranting about the grotesque insensitivity of the Americans, and how they're just delighting in their vengeance. So give it a rest.

You know perfectly well why the decision was made about the photos. And the world may yet see them at some point. If you think the Obama administration should have a "screw it, even though they don't do a whole lot of good let's just release the photos, get the Deathers to shut up, and see how muslims react" attitude, then I'd say you've never tasted a drop of real responsibility in your life.

[sandinista]

Henry Kissinger killed, buried at sea by joint Argentina-Vietnam-Chile military operation; nations honor millions of victims of US-instigated war, terrorism.

I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
- Martin Luther King Jr.