The right way:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican member of the Armed Services Committee
“I respectfully disagree with President Obama’s decision not to release the photos. It’s a mistake. The whole purpose of sending our soldiers into the compound, rather than an aerial bombardment, was to obtain indisputable proof of Bin Laden’s death. I know Bin Laden is dead. But the best way to protect and defend our interests overseas is to prove that fact to the rest of the world. I’m afraid the decision made today by President Obama will unnecessarily prolong this debate.”
The wrong way:
Sarah Palin, on Twitter:
@SarahPalinUSA Show photo as warning to others seeking America's destruction. No *****-footing around, no politicking, no drama;it's part of the mission
Matter of opinion.
Why use 100 words when 10 will do?
(05-04-2011 04:09 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]The right way:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican member of the Armed Services Committee
“I respectfully disagree with President Obama’s decision not to release the photos. It’s a mistake. The whole purpose of sending our soldiers into the compound, rather than an aerial bombardment, was to obtain indisputable proof of Bin Laden’s death. I know Bin Laden is dead. But the best way to protect and defend our interests overseas is to prove that fact to the rest of the world. I’m afraid the decision made today by President Obama will unnecessarily prolong this debate.”
The wrong way:
Sarah Palin, on Twitter:
@SarahPalinUSA Show photo as warning to others seeking America's destruction. No *****-footing around, no politicking, no drama;it's part of the mission
I understand both statements.
Proof is a good thing.
And sometimes putting the head of a villain on a stake in the middle of the town square is a nice message to the next villain. And sometimes not even that is enough.
Personally I would have videotaped the dead Bin Laden being stuffed with bacon and then smeared from head to toe with the menstrual blood of prostitutes. Then I would have shown him being ground through a meat grinder and fed to pigs.
But honestly I see this whole thing as pretty personal at this point. These guys took the lives of thousands of innocenst. The idea that we are going to obey the necessary Muslim protocol to help them get to their afterlife is ridiculous.
IMO we should do the exact opposite.
Eastside I agree with you. So because we respected bin laden and followed Muslim protocols are we expecting terrorists to say maybe these Americans ain't so bad after all....let's stop killing them. Should have made sure Osama wasn't getting his 72 virgins and send message that if we get you there won't be any reward either.
(05-04-2011 04:19 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Matter of opinion.
Why use 100 words when 10 will do?
Graham's words beg for a legitimate response. He makes a very valid point and he does so in a manner that deserves an explanation.
Palin is a cartoon character telling the guy who just made an incredibly gutsy call to stop ***** footing around. What a "doosh" bag.
(05-04-2011 09:54 PM)50Cent Wrote: [ -> ]Eastside I agree with you. So because we respected bin laden and followed Muslim protocols are we expecting terrorists to say maybe these Americans ain't so bad after all....let's stop killing them. Should have made sure Osama wasn't getting his 72 virgins and send message that if we get you there won't be any reward either.
It wasn't done so that they would say, "these Americans ain't so bad after all....let's stop killing them". It was done to show the rest of the world that despite they way we have been treated by the terrorists, we will not stoop to their level. If we desecrate his body to show that we are not to be messed with, then we become the terrorists.
I personally would also like to see the photos released. As Jon Stewart pointed out last night (in his disagreement w/ Obama's decision not to release photos), our culture is inundated with gruesome photos and media already. It's not like we can't handle a blown apart skull. Plus, Muslim countries regularly see what we American's don't - the actual effects of war. Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya often show corpses of both terrorists and civilians blown apart in the streets by coalition forces. I don't think adding one more picture to the pile is going to inflame them much more than they already are.
Of course we don't have access to the chatter the CIA is monitoring - so may not know the full picture. Perhaps the middle ground is to wait for a couple of months for things to cool off before releasing them.
(05-05-2011 08:06 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]...telling the guy who just made an incredibly gutsy call...
Obama is the CIC so he deserves his credit for the capture of UBL. But can we stop this nonsense about what an "incredibly gutsy call" he made in a sad attempt to boost him politically? The Seals who conducted the operation were incredibly gutsy. Obama made a completely noncontroversial decision as President that well over 90% of the American public would have made had they been in his shoes. I'm not being political here - of course Bush or Cheney would have done it - but so would have Biden and both Clintons etc. It shouldn't be R v D. Obama wasn't in personal, political or professional danger with the decision. Let's save phrases like "incredibly gutsy" for those who do something incredibly gutsy so that it can retain some meaning.
(05-05-2011 01:16 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 08:06 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]...telling the guy who just made an incredibly gutsy call...
Obama is the CIC so he deserves his credit for the capture of UBL. But can we stop this nonsense about what an "incredibly gutsy call" he made in a sad attempt to boost him politically? The Seals who conducted the operation were incredibly gutsy. Obama made a completely noncontroversial decision as President that well over 90% of the American public would have made had they been in his shoes. I'm not being political here - of course Bush or Cheney would have done it - but so would have Biden and both Clintons etc. It shouldn't be R v D. Obama wasn't in personal, political or professional danger with the decision. Let's save phrases like "incredibly gutsy" for those who do something incredibly gutsy so that it can retain some meaning.
I felt the same way everytime I heard the phrase "He kept us safe" in regards to GWB. I guess it's like a game where a coach calls a TO and draws up a last second play. If it works, you can credit the coach or, you can credit the kids who executed it. It mostly depends on who's the most popular at the time. Huggs got most of the credit for the last second win over duke. If Mel was an AA, it would have been more about him and his talents. BO didn't draw up this plan i'm sure but you get my point. obama's in office so he's taking the praise the way any other prez would as you stated.
(05-05-2011 01:28 PM)b Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 01:16 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 08:06 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]...telling the guy who just made an incredibly gutsy call...
Obama is the CIC so he deserves his credit for the capture of UBL. But can we stop this nonsense about what an "incredibly gutsy call" he made in a sad attempt to boost him politically? The Seals who conducted the operation were incredibly gutsy. Obama made a completely noncontroversial decision as President that well over 90% of the American public would have made had they been in his shoes. I'm not being political here - of course Bush or Cheney would have done it - but so would have Biden and both Clintons etc. It shouldn't be R v D. Obama wasn't in personal, political or professional danger with the decision. Let's save phrases like "incredibly gutsy" for those who do something incredibly gutsy so that it can retain some meaning.
I felt the same way everytime I heard the phrase "He kept us safe" in regards to GWB.
They have some similarities as far as being exaggerations, but the scale is much different imo. Agree with them or not, Bush made active politically risky decisions (e.g. Guantanomo, interrogation methods, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) He had real political skin in the game and the results w/r/t to US soil during his terms are tough to argue with and something nobody would have predicted after 9/11. But of course, credit should go to all those involved in our defense and luck was probably a factor as well. I also think Bush knew that and I doubt you'll find many quotes from him about how "I kept America safe" (it's true others have though) . Contrast that with Obama's speech and his use of "I".
Quote:I guess it's like a game where a coach calls a TO and draws up a last second play. If it works, you can credit the coach or, you can credit the kids who executed it. It mostly depends on who's the most popular at the time. Huggs got most of the credit for the last second win over duke. If Mel was an AA, it would have been more about him and his talents.
Again there are similarities, but I see the analogy a little different. Obama is the CIC which is more like A.D./University Prez in this analogy or GM/Owner more generically. He deserves credit mostly in the sense of not screwing things up (and I don't mean that as negatively as it sounds). He hired or kept a capable staff and made sure they kept or had the resources to do that job. In your analogy, I'd compare Huggins more to Panetta and other military leaders who made the actual plan and the players to the Seals. Primarily crediting Obama and his "gutsiness" for UBL is more like primarily crediting the AD at the time (Goin?) for the Duke play and win (granted Huggs didn't have to get the play approved).
Quote: BO didn't draw up this plan i'm sure but you get my point. obama's in office so he's taking the praise the way any other prez would as you stated.
I do get your point and it has some validity. He deserves some credit and congratulations (just as the A.D. would for the Duke play/win in your analogy) as I've said all along. I think he sought it out a little too aggressively in his speech and comments, but my main point (per my original post) is the over-the-top glorification he is getting from those simply trying to boost him politically like BearcatsUC and many in the MSM.
(05-05-2011 08:15 AM)subflea Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2011 09:54 PM)50Cent Wrote: [ -> ]Eastside I agree with you. So because we respected bin laden and followed Muslim protocols are we expecting terrorists to say maybe these Americans ain't so bad after all....let's stop killing them. Should have made sure Osama wasn't getting his 72 virgins and send message that if we get you there won't be any reward either.
It wasn't done so that they would say, "these Americans ain't so bad after all....let's stop killing them". It was done to show the rest of the world that despite they way we have been treated by the terrorists, we will not stoop to their level. If we desecrate his body to show that we are not to be messed with, then we become the terrorists.
Desecrating the bodies of terrorists who are fighting a self proclaimed "holy war" is not anywhere close to my definition of terrorism. And this was the leader of the terrorist group who attacked the us, innocent civilians, without provocation. I was being somewhat sarcastic. But my point remains not showing pictures isn't going to do a damned thing in the pr world with anyone, terrorists included. People say they don't want to ignite jihadists. Yeah, them not seeing pics will stop potential attacks and their hatred.
Showing the pics won't stop the conspiracy theorists either... they will just say they are photoshops. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
(05-05-2011 01:16 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 08:06 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]...telling the guy who just made an incredibly gutsy call...
Obama is the CIC so he deserves his credit for the capture of UBL. But can we stop this nonsense about what an "incredibly gutsy call" he made in a sad attempt to boost him politically? The Seals who conducted the operation were incredibly gutsy. Obama made a completely noncontroversial decision as President that well over 90% of the American public would have made had they been in his shoes. I'm not being political here - of course Bush or Cheney would have done it - but so would have Biden and both Clintons etc. It shouldn't be R v D. Obama wasn't in personal, political or professional danger with the decision. Let's save phrases like "incredibly gutsy" for those who do something incredibly gutsy so that it can retain some meaning.
Hawk the reason people are calling it "gutsy" is because of manner in which decision was made. Obviously everybody agreed getting OBL was a priority once intelligence indicated his location. Obama consulted with his National Security staff and top aides and reportedly it was a 50/50 split about what to do. Some wanted an aerial strike which would have put no americans in danger but could have made ID'ing body difficult. Others wanted more time to gather more intelligence on whether Bin Laden was even there. Obama was reportedly told there was a 50-80% chance that Bin Laden was there. Obama then made the incredibly gutsy call to send in Navy Seals, which is what CIA director Leon Panetta wanted as well. This was maximum risk because Americans could have died, but also because if bungled or if he wasnt there we would basically have sent our forces in to "invade" a country for no reason and caused an international nightmare that would have been a huge embarrassment for administration and provided plenty of ammo for his critics. It was of course also the right decision and he deserves credit for making it. Definitely gutsy in my book
(05-05-2011 03:39 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 01:16 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 08:06 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]...telling the guy who just made an incredibly gutsy call...
Obama is the CIC so he deserves his credit for the capture of UBL. But can we stop this nonsense about what an "incredibly gutsy call" he made in a sad attempt to boost him politically? The Seals who conducted the operation were incredibly gutsy. Obama made a completely noncontroversial decision as President that well over 90% of the American public would have made had they been in his shoes. I'm not being political here - of course Bush or Cheney would have done it - but so would have Biden and both Clintons etc. It shouldn't be R v D. Obama wasn't in personal, political or professional danger with the decision. Let's save phrases like "incredibly gutsy" for those who do something incredibly gutsy so that it can retain some meaning.
Hawk the reason people are calling it "gutsy" is because of manner in which decision was made. Obviously everybody agreed getting OBL was a priority once intelligence indicated his location. Obama consulted with his National Security staff and top aides and reportedly it was a 50/50 split about what to do. Some wanted an aerial strike which would have put no americans in danger but could have made ID'ing body difficult. Others wanted more time to gather more intelligence on whether Bin Laden was even there. Obama was reportedly told there was a 50-80% chance that Bin Laden was there. Obama then made the incredibly gutsy call to send in Navy Seals, which is what CIA director Leon Panetta wanted as well. This was maximum risk because Americans could have died, but also because if bungled or if he wasnt there we would basically have sent our forces in to "invade" a country for no reason and caused an international nightmare that would have been a huge embarrassment for administration and provided plenty of ammo for his critics. It was of course also the right decision and he deserves credit for making it. Definitely gutsy in my book
What's your source for these "50/50" "50-80%" figures? Assuming you have them, I'll make you a wager without seeing them: I'll bet none of those who disagreed with the President are named - unlike Panetta who agreed of course. I don't doubt that the issues were raised, but I also strongly suspect the percentages who disagreed are made up. 50% really wanted to bomb instead knowing we'd likely never know for sure if we got Obama and destroy the expected "treasure trove" of information? I don't believe it without names on the record.
How would you have described the decision to bomb (had Obama done it) given the downside you cite? Would you have described it more as "cowardly" or "incredibly gutsy"? For Republicans in the MSM, it's usually "damned if you do; damned if you don't". For Obama, I'm guessing it's "praised if you do; praised if you don't" for you and the MSM.
Bottom line, answer me this: Do you think Bush would have made the same call? Bush Sr.?, Cheney? Rumsfeld? Bill Clinton? Hillary Clinton? Joe Biden? Ronald Reagan? I can go on: hell, Sarah Palin? You? Me? ...
In your opinion, who specifically wouldn't and why? If you think they all would, as I do, would you and others in the MSM have been so busy praising the decision-maker specifically for such an "incredibly gutsy call". Be honest.
(05-05-2011 01:16 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 08:06 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]...telling the guy who just made an incredibly gutsy call...
Obama is the CIC so he deserves his credit for the capture of UBL. But can we stop this nonsense about what an "incredibly gutsy call" he made in a sad attempt to boost him politically? The Seals who conducted the operation were incredibly gutsy. Obama made a completely noncontroversial decision as President that well over 90% of the American public would have made had they been in his shoes. I'm not being political here - of course Bush or Cheney would have done it - but so would have Biden and both Clintons etc. It shouldn't be R v D. Obama wasn't in personal, political or professional danger with the decision. Let's save phrases like "incredibly gutsy" for those who do something incredibly gutsy so that it can retain some meaning.
This was a high risk mission. It could just as easily have been a "Blackhawk Down" or Iranian hostage type debacle. It required going into the suburbs of another nation's capitol and acting with precision.
From Obama's standpoint, the downside was easily greater than the upside. The mission succeeded - the euphoria is already wearing off. If the mission failed, it would have been a deathblow to the Obama presidency, and a huge wound to the nation's psyche. Doing nothing would have been the easy thing, but that's not the direction Obama took. He deserves credit.
When people like Cheney and Limbaugh are offering praise to
Obama...you know this is something out of the ordinary.
(05-05-2011 04:22 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 03:39 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 01:16 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 08:06 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]...telling the guy who just made an incredibly gutsy call...
Obama is the CIC so he deserves his credit for the capture of UBL. But can we stop this nonsense about what an "incredibly gutsy call" he made in a sad attempt to boost him politically? The Seals who conducted the operation were incredibly gutsy. Obama made a completely noncontroversial decision as President that well over 90% of the American public would have made had they been in his shoes. I'm not being political here - of course Bush or Cheney would have done it - but so would have Biden and both Clintons etc. It shouldn't be R v D. Obama wasn't in personal, political or professional danger with the decision. Let's save phrases like "incredibly gutsy" for those who do something incredibly gutsy so that it can retain some meaning.
Hawk the reason people are calling it "gutsy" is because of manner in which decision was made. Obviously everybody agreed getting OBL was a priority once intelligence indicated his location. Obama consulted with his National Security staff and top aides and reportedly it was a 50/50 split about what to do. Some wanted an aerial strike which would have put no americans in danger but could have made ID'ing body difficult. Others wanted more time to gather more intelligence on whether Bin Laden was even there. Obama was reportedly told there was a 50-80% chance that Bin Laden was there. Obama then made the incredibly gutsy call to send in Navy Seals, which is what CIA director Leon Panetta wanted as well. This was maximum risk because Americans could have died, but also because if bungled or if he wasnt there we would basically have sent our forces in to "invade" a country for no reason and caused an international nightmare that would have been a huge embarrassment for administration and provided plenty of ammo for his critics. It was of course also the right decision and he deserves credit for making it. Definitely gutsy in my book
What's your source for these "50/50" "50-80%" figures? Assuming you have them, I'll make you a wager without seeing them: I'll bet none of those who disagreed with the President are named - unlike Panetta who agreed of course. I don't doubt that the issues were raised, but I also strongly suspect the percentages who disagreed are made up. 50% really wanted to bomb instead knowing we'd likely never know for sure if we got Obama and destroy the expected "treasure trove" of information? I don't believe it without names on the record.
How would you have described the decision to bomb (had Obama done it) given the downside you cite? Would you have described it more as "cowardly" or "incredibly gutsy"? For Republicans in the MSM, it's usually "damned if you do; damned if you don't". For Obama, I'm guessing it's "praised if you do; praised if you don't" for you and the MSM.
Bottom line, answer me this: Do you think Bush would have made the same call? Bush Sr.?, Cheney? Rumsfeld? Bill Clinton? Hillary Clinton? Joe Biden? Ronald Reagan? I can go on: hell, Sarah Palin? You? Me? ...
In your opinion, who specifically wouldn't and why? If you think they all would, as I do, would you and others in the MSM have been so busy praising the decision-maker specifically for such an "incredibly gutsy call". Be honest.
Source:
"Minutes later, more word came over the transom. “Visual on Geronimo,” said a disembodied voice, using the agreed-upon code name for America’s most wanted enemy, Osama bin Laden. Word then came that Geronimo had been killed. Only when the last helicopter lifted off some minutes later did the President know that his forces had sustained no casualties.
The decision to attack had been made days earlier by the President. He gathered his senior intelligence, military and diplomatic team together in the Situation Room on Thursday afternoon to hear his options. There were already concerns about operational security. At that point, hundreds of people had already been read into the potential whereabouts of bin Laden. Any leak would have ruined the entire mission.
The intelligence professionals said they did not know for sure that bin Laden was in the compound. The case was good, but circumstantial. The likelihood, officials told the President, was between 50% and 80%. No slam dunk. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenarios–the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President’s senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above.
Read more:
http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/02/ins...z1LW045WEM
Its quite obvious that the names of those who disagreed will not be released. If Obama had bombed Osama I would describe that decision as being neither cowardly nor gutsy but simply a fairly prudent decision balancing risk/reward to take out our #1 target without risking American lives and having several relatives who are active duty thats very important to me.
Finally I obviously would consider anyone who makes that decision as having made a gutsy call considering the situation and fact that CIC has final say, a great responsibility. Its ridiculous for me to assert my opinion on what other individuals would have done. I have no idea what the decision making process is within an individual like Bill Clinton or Sarah Palin. I can only speak for myself and can say that it would be a very, very tough decision and that I would want to see all the information available to President before I could tell you what I would have done in the same situation. I'm sure that there would've been at least a few others who if put in CIC chair would have either asked for more time to make sure Bin Laden was there or used a missile/bomb strike.
To circle back to my original post in this thread, I really thought Graham made a great point, and did so without making it an attack. One of my frustrations with Obama is that we are left without clear guidance about important matters. If he's such a great communicator, then he should communicate.
Graham offered up a legitimate concern that's on the top of nation's mind. Address it Obama.
Now if I were Prez and Palin pulled that crap on me, I'd be responding Dan Akroyd style, - "Sara you ignorant ----"
(05-05-2011 04:33 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 01:16 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 08:06 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]...telling the guy who just made an incredibly gutsy call...
Obama is the CIC so he deserves his credit for the capture of UBL. But can we stop this nonsense about what an "incredibly gutsy call" he made in a sad attempt to boost him politically? The Seals who conducted the operation were incredibly gutsy. Obama made a completely noncontroversial decision as President that well over 90% of the American public would have made had they been in his shoes. I'm not being political here - of course Bush or Cheney would have done it - but so would have Biden and both Clintons etc. It shouldn't be R v D. Obama wasn't in personal, political or professional danger with the decision. Let's save phrases like "incredibly gutsy" for those who do something incredibly gutsy so that it can retain some meaning.
This was a high risk mission. It could just as easily have been a "Blackhawk Down" or Iranian hostage type debacle. It required going into the suburbs of another nation's capitol and acting with precision.
From Obama's standpoint, the downside was easily greater than the upside. The mission succeeded - the euphoria is already wearing off. If the mission failed, it would have been a deathblow to the Obama presidency, and a huge wound to the nation's psyche. Doing nothing would have been the easy thing, but that's not the direction Obama took. He deserves credit.
When people like Cheney and Limbaugh are offering praise to Obama...you know this is something out of the ordinary.
They are right and I've said since the beginning he deserves credit. Will you admit that most Republican (and Dem btw) leaders would have done the same thing? Would you be singing the same praise if Bush had ordered it?
(05-05-2011 04:49 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 04:33 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 01:16 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2011 08:06 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]...telling the guy who just made an incredibly gutsy call...
Obama is the CIC so he deserves his credit for the capture of UBL. But can we stop this nonsense about what an "incredibly gutsy call" he made in a sad attempt to boost him politically? The Seals who conducted the operation were incredibly gutsy. Obama made a completely noncontroversial decision as President that well over 90% of the American public would have made had they been in his shoes. I'm not being political here - of course Bush or Cheney would have done it - but so would have Biden and both Clintons etc. It shouldn't be R v D. Obama wasn't in personal, political or professional danger with the decision. Let's save phrases like "incredibly gutsy" for those who do something incredibly gutsy so that it can retain some meaning.
This was a high risk mission. It could just as easily have been a "Blackhawk Down" or Iranian hostage type debacle. It required going into the suburbs of another nation's capitol and acting with precision.
From Obama's standpoint, the downside was easily greater than the upside. The mission succeeded - the euphoria is already wearing off. If the mission failed, it would have been a deathblow to the Obama presidency, and a huge wound to the nation's psyche. Doing nothing would have been the easy thing, but that's not the direction Obama took. He deserves credit.
When people like Cheney and Limbaugh are offering praise to Obama...you know this is something out of the ordinary.
They are right and I've said since the beginning he deserves credit. Will you admit that most Republican (and Dem btw) leaders would have done the same thing? Would you be singing the same praise if Bush had ordered it?
Crazy question. Of course everybody would be singing same praise if Bush had done this. The killing of Americas #1 enemy transcends party lines. Every liberal I know would be happy and proud. And as I noted in post above its impossible to know and ridiculous to assert that "most" leaders would have done same thing. For starters, were not even privy to all information that Obama was given regarding situation. Theres no way to tell which option any other leader might have chosen.
(05-05-2011 02:56 PM)50Cent Wrote: [ -> ]Desecrating the bodies of terrorists who are fighting a self proclaimed "holy war" is not anywhere close to my definition of terrorism. And this was the leader of the terrorist group who attacked the us, innocent civilians, without provocation. I was being somewhat sarcastic. But my point remains not showing pictures isn't going to do a damned thing in the pr world with anyone, terrorists included. People say they don't want to ignite jihadists. Yeah, them not seeing pics will stop potential attacks and their hatred.
I definitely agree that they should have released the photos. Even if you get some conspiracy theorists who say they are fake, I think a lot of people would still feel as though this really happened if they made the photos public.