- 5,485
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
Originally Posted by Mo Matik
Originally Posted by wawaweewa
Originally Posted by Mo Matik
The nature of the photos are said to be fairly graphic.
Graphic photos can have a tendency to bring out an emotional response.
Regardless, it comes down to opinion. And for Obama (and any other leader in his position), the risk of an attack outweighs the pros.
Call me a sheep, but I think he has a legitimate point.
How graphic are the images shown across Arab language channels everyday regarding death of Muslims against non Muslims ( Iraq, Afghanistan, West Bank/Gaza, and Chechnya in particular)? Pretty graphic, no?
They're withholding it for timing purposes. It's purely political.
Graphic pictures and video of the carnage in these war zones is used regularly for recruitment purposes and has been for years now. People who have been able to escape that ideology after having been exposed to it have repeatedly said it was the graphic video of the violence that made the most impact on them.
I don't need to explain this though. It's logical.
That's exactly it. How much more is 1one graphic image going to impact in the midst of millions of graphic images. Granted OBL has a greater impact than the average Muslim killed in conflict but there's a decreasing marginal rate of return for something like this.
It's not as if Muslims who are already incited don't see this everyday on their TV sets or online.
btw it's not only images. I've seen Americans get beheaded by Muslims om video and I've got no urge to go fight. Images have very little to do with it in the scheme of things.