Ummmm, Hello?
The only way this premise even comes close to being credible is if you believed that we were dealing with reasonable people in the first place.
Reasonable people don’t fly jetliners into skyscrapers. Reasonable people do not celebrate the deaths of 3000 whose only crime was being American and going to work that morning. Reasonable people do not demand that everyone always defers to their “unique” sensibilities, and utter about the peace of their world view. while raping and beheading those who don’t share it and issuing religious death warrants for those who criticise it.
In short, why do we fear enraging the perpetually enraged? Are they going to be more enraged? Will that make them more dangerous than they already are? This is more political correctness run amuck. It is the same kind of thinking that says the concept of a “hate crime” is a sound one…the idea that a crime is somehow more criminal based on the identity of a victim.
We scored a victory on Sunday. We showed that when you attack us and murder thousands of our citizens in an unprovoked attack, we will reach out and touch you, and time and subterfuge will not weaken our resolve. And this decision renders that moment of triumph to ash, because if we choose timidity when the moment calls for a clear deterrent, then these turds in the world’s punchbowl have won. It shows they have more committment than our leadership does when our leaders chose to defer to the bad guys’ sensibilities rather than treating them like the bad actors they are. It is a surrender to fear and lets the enemy know that they have control of the message.
I found your post through Nice Deb, thank you for saying so eloquently what so many of us are thinking! Well done. I shared your post at a right-minded page that I run at facebook & have added you to my blogroll. I am so sick of our so-caslled leaders grovelling to the perpetually offended islamorageboys, it is disgraceful, embarrassing and dangerous. Screw them.
I get your message and I can understand it. While I see no reason to go out of our way insult raving lunatics (like burning a Koran), I am curious WHY you want the photo released.
Do you think it will serve as a deterrent (you used that word in the post)? Why would it deter those you’ve already deemed terminally aggrieved? Nothing will deter them. They’re loons.
Do you want proof he’s dead? Apparently not even al Qaeda claims he is alive. In fact, no one from around the globe is accusing this of being a hoax … except maybe some obscure tin foil hat web sites.
So, again … why do YOU want the photo released?
Rutherford, as I said before, it isn’t about proof. While I’d have every reason to doubt the President’s veracity (and the every changing story of the last few days illustrates that point completely), the military said they got him, and I do believe them.
What it is about is showing the rest of the world we’re serious. It is about deterence. It isn’t about deterring Islamic Rage Boy, although I do believe in miracles and there is always the chance that a glimmer of sense will penetrate the jihadium surrounding his brain pan, and he might decide that settling down with a nice goat, or better yet, an actual girl, and one day having grandchildren is preferrable to following a “leader” who is so brave that he convinces others to take themselves out in blazes of glory here there and everywhere. And apparently, its already happening…so let’s nudge a few more out of the splodeydope column:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenvoy/20110504/ts_yblog_theenvoy/al-qaeda-member-surrenders-saudi-arabia-says
Its also about not making decisions based in the idiotic idea that if we don’t do something to offend these knuckledraggers, they will suddenly go against type and not be muderous bloody minded asshats. If you seccumb to that kind of thinking, they win. And if they win, then there is no future for any western civilization that you or anyone else I know wants to live in.
————————————————————
And if I were a member of the military, having joined KNOWING that these people are dangerous clowns, and my C-i-C decided not to release proof of my resolve and dedication on following through on a project that took years, and cost lives, on the idea that it would make this adversary MORE dangerous, I’d be pissed, because it implies that I didn’t understand what I was doing when I joined, and that I cannot handle myself when the only thing that changed from the day before was their reason du jour for trying to kill me.
To the assessment that the photo is just too graphic, I must point to the local New York papers that in 1987 ran a time lapse pictorial of PA politician Bud Dwyer blowing his brains out during a televised press conference. I can’t imagine the bin Laden photo is more graphic than that.
(Those curious can simply Google “Bud Dwyer suicide”. For the sake of BiW I won’t contaminate the thread with the video which is quite graphic.)
Well, publishing the pictures would only distress an already greiving family, R. That’s perfectly acceptable, since they wouldn’t threaten to cut anyone’s head off.
BTW, why do we care about muslim outrage on this is he wasn’t a muslim leader and perverted islam, and its peaceful ways?
Oh … two more things … nice to see you quote a Republican in your opening paragraph. I do respect a man who does bipartisan bashing.
And kudos to the Charles Martel reference. I must admit, I had to Google it and I learned something.
Stupid is stupid, R.
I consider him a coward and worthy of contempt for saying it, (R), or no (R).
And the fact that you’re older than I am and didn’t know who Charles Martel was is an indication of the failings of our educational system…even at Haaaaaaavvvvaaaard.
{Obama said release of UBL death photo would “Rally opinion against the United States”}
Isn’t this the same Senator that was adamant about release of prisoner abuse photos? The man’s hypocrisy and/or stupidity knows no bounds.
———-
Barack Obama to release up to 2,000 photographs of prisoner abuse
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5215068/Barack-Obama-to-release-up-to-2000-photographs-of-prisoner-abuse.html
Why is it Rutherford that the Americans who shared in this tragedy can’t see Osama dead again?
A few things in no particular order:
I don’t think offending bin Laden’s surviving family factored into this. I think two things were considered (besides the whole “don’t upset the Muslims” thing). First, it’s unseemly to wave around a trophy photo of our kill. Kinda takes a bit of the dignity out of what we did … and I do believe there is a certain dignity in a well executed military exercise. Second, gross photos can sicken even the most anti-Osama American. Again, having seen Bud Dwyer’s freshly self-shot corpse, I can imagine the average American would really rather not see the photo of Osama. By the way, if it were released, what news organization would run with it if it were that disgusting?
You make a good point (and actually echo Obama’s own words) when you say bin Laden was no Muslim leader. But when we talk about offending Muslims, we don’t mean mainstream modern Muslims … we mean nutjob Muslim radicals.
When it comes to Martel vis-a-vis Harvard, don’t blame the institution, blame the student. 8th century history just ain’t my specialty.
And to my buddy Tex … I will give you a kudo on your observation. There is an inconsistency to demand release of Abu Graib photos but then get squeamish about Osama. I think Obama the President has been more reticent about release of information than Obama the candidate (or Senator). I have always conceded that running for office and running the country are two different things and we are seeing that big time with Obama.
But when we talk about offending Muslims, we don’t mean mainstream modern Muslims … we mean nutjob Muslim radicals.
Thus buying into the circular thinking that says that by offending (again) the Assholes for Allah™ group, we risk making them reallyangry/dangerous, as if to say that they weren’t already.
I know the idea that this is a clash of civilizations makes people like you nervous, R, but I will say again: What is at stake when dealing with these people is only everything that you and I both hold dear-the very freedom of mankind. And to win a battle of that magnitude, you have to be willing to make a stand…as many times as it takes, and you never, ever defer to their “culture” or what it would require of you, or some day you wake up either with your throat cut, or worse, to find out that you are exactly the same as they are.
Although Tex, I don’t think the Abu Graib photo sessions included any corpses.
You can’t even be consistent from one board to another Rutherford. You chastise me on your board, play brotherly love on this one. The post was copied directly from your own board schmuck that I left you. You probably thought you were on Twitter talking to Keith Olbermann. I understand the confusion.
And for everyone else, can you believe Rutherford is so monumentally clueless that he thinks Obama’s appearing at the WTC tomorrow is going to provide unbridled joy and closure? I’m not kidding – read his board. That is what the man said. That’s so offensive, that it almost left me speechless.
This worship of Obama by Rutherford types is actually frightening. Rutherford is member of a cult – the Abomination of Desolation Cult.
Oh please … “everyone else” do indeed visit the board so you can witness Tex’s lack of reading comprehension. I NEVER said Obama would “provide unbridled joy …” to the WTC crowd. I said he would be sharing in a moment of celebration with people who have waited 10 years for justice to be done.
It’s a shame I spend so much time choosing my words carefully because regardless, Tex reads what he wants.
And Tex … no inconsistency between boards. I saw your Abu Graib comment here BEFORE I saw it on my board. I don’t recall even responding to it on my board.
P.S. Rutherford – Saddam was a corpse. Saddam’s sons were both corpses. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a corpse. Want me to go on about your double standards?
I’ve seen Kennedy’s head blown off countless times, in slow motion, up close, with and without commentary etc.
R asks, “do you think it will serve as a deterrent (you used that word in the post)? Why would it deter those you’ve already deemed terminally aggrieved? Nothing will deter them. They’re loons.”
There’s another purpose too. It’s the same as why we have open casket funerals and invite victim’s families to attend the execution of the convicted murderer.
No double standard at all. I’m not screaming from the roofs “don’t release the photo”. Quite frankly, on this one I’m on the fence. No great gains from releasing it, no real problems avoided by not releasing it.
A coin flip in my estimation.
BiW, I overlooked one of your comments. Are you really now saying that not releasing the photo is an insult to the troops? These guys are not in it for fame. From one story I heard, when the team was told the mission, they almost came in their pants with excitement to be the ones to finally put an end to that demon. My guess is the kill was reward enough. But I’m also quite sure there will be some military award given to the team privately for their achievement. I don’t imagine we will ever know their names, nor should we. It is special ops after all.
R, there are days when I’m not sure if you are really as slow as you pretend to be, or if you just say silly stuff like this to get a rise out of me.
I’ll reiterate, then break it down for you with Cliff’s Notes scrawled in crayon.
When our leaders make a decision like this, it doesn’t insult the men who did it because they are glory hounds. They are professionals who do their work with pride, but they aren’t stupid, either, and do not want their faces in front of cameras, because if people knew who they were, they couldn’t accomplish it.
However, this attitude of “we’ll enflame the crazy nutbars who are already enflamed and that will make things more dangerous for them” is insulting.
You don’t sign your name on the line without an understanding that danger is inherent in what you do. And given that 9/11 was almost 10 years ago, I don’t think you’ll find someone who doesn’t know that the object is to find and kill the splodeydopes before they can go all splodeydopey. But a decision based on this rationale says “You didn’t really understand what you were signing up for, and even if you did, this is even more incentive for the people trying to kill you to try to kill you, and since we don’t really think you can handle it…”
It also is insulting, because while it isn’t about fame, it is about sending a message, and recognizing the resolve of the people really responsible for this success. A decision based on this silly rationale pisses all over the sacrifices of the living and the dead, freely undertaken to achieve this kind of a victory.
“It also is insulting, because while it isn’t about fame, it is about sending a message, and recognizing the resolve of the people really responsible for this success. A decision based on this silly rationale pisses all over the sacrifices of the living and the dead, freely undertaken to achieve this kind of a victory.”
BiW, the more I read, the more I like you. Dead on.
You seem to think we’re not releasing the photo to protect troops abroad. If that is the reason, that is indeed absurd. It’s to protect embassy workers and other civilians abroad, not to mention possible reprisal from state-side radicals.
Now, again, I get the notion that these folks will be pissed regardless so I agree their reaction should be a secondary consideration.
To me, release the photos or don’t … it’s a coin flip.
Obama’s no Martel, more like Pétain. Islamic Rage Boy, will be inflamed by nothing and everything. Good luck appeasing him. Maybe Chamberlain is closer?
I wasn’t implying that Obama was Martel.
He IS a tool, but he ain’t The Hammer, IYKWIMAITTYD.
agreed .. funny how snippets of writing ( email and such ) fail to convey a message. It would probably help if I was a better writer.
Thought you were conveying sarcasm regarding Martel.