Osama Bin Laden Was Unarmed During Navy SEAL Raid, Says White House Some interesting excerpts from the article: But this obviously won't suppress what some people have to think. I'm going to try and remain neutral on the subject of Osama's death until I can see a picture.
ok even if they present these so called pictures there's no way you can be sure beyond the shadow of a doubt its him. its not like we know this guy personally. now getting this fucker alive and putting him on dancing with the stars would have convinced me
The moon landing in '69 was broadcasted live on national television and even that didn't stop the conspiracy theories. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and there's no "evidence" that the CIA can put out to convince them otherwise.
The timing is real funny, but people would most likely have said that at any point after 2003 I think.
I am no conspiracy theorist but they made it really damn easy to not believe this actually happened the way described. They said he wasn't armed, but still "resisted" so they shot him. Now I obviously dont want them to give the guy a fuckin' lolli-pop and hold his hand to bring him in but, what was he going to do? Fist fight a bunch of armed soldiers? Aside from that fact is the fact the timing is too good to be true. Elections are right around the corner there has been a shitstorm of negative press surrounding Obama, and now he is heralded as the hero that "killed Osama". Perhaps the biggest joke of this entire situation is how his body has already been sunk to the bottom of the Ocean. They did this so a mass-murderer could have a proper "Islamic Burial"? And that piece of shit deserves any respect what-so-ever why? I guess all I am trying to say with this whole thing is yes most of the time conspiracy theories may seem "out there" or completely ridiculous but for christs sakes, they are making it far too easy this time.
they should release them, and let the newspapers decide if they are too gory to print in their paper.. .02
Agreed. Although, it's pretty much a guarantee that the photo will be on the front page of every newspaper in America no matter how gory it is. It's actually a kind of interesting dilemma.
There's gore in every war. (rhyming skills) What's the problem with seeing what we're doing to people and what's being done to our people for a change? Maybe if the public sees what bodily consequences war brings, they'll change their minds about war itself.
On principle, I'm with you 100%. I'd say they should release all the photos. Maybe Obama could live up to his transparency award for once. On the other hand, I always find it interesting to look at this kind of thing from the administration's point of view. It's the only thing that keeps me sane and away from looney conspiracy theories. I have to realize that the way I think is not the way the government operates and that playing the game of politics successfully means walking a very fine line at all times. There are a lot of factors that play into every decision, and every choice has blowback. For example, if they release a photo with half of Osama's head blown off, and it ends up being the headline story of every major news outlet, both American and international, a lot of people in the Muslim world are going to be upset; not just the terrorists and extremists. On the other hand, if they don't release a photo that is recognizable enough, they're opening themselves up to speculation and conspiracy theories. It's a balancing act. Sometimes I take a step back and realize that American politics, for better or worse (okay, definitely worse), is usually not about doing what's right. It's about playing a game. People get too personal with this stuff (and really they have a right to, as it's supposed to be a democracy), but I've found it easier to just try to be objective about things.
People on the pro-life side of the abortion debate can show pictures of fetuses that have been aborted, but Osama's dead body is 'too gory'? Please.