Osama Bin Laden Killed

Hmmmm.....Yeeeeessssss. (in a Paxman-esque manner). I am very much certain that 3500+ families would tell you that 9/11 was very far from like watching Hollywood pyro!

Mhmm. How many times have you heard people who watched those events unfold on TV say, "it was like watching a film", or words to that effect? We all know 3500 people died, which was terrible, but we're talking about the extent of what was shown on television and what was published in the press here. But I don't think there's any point continuing further.


It's like anyone was 'appointed' with me to begin with.

Yes but the issue is it was real life. When people refer to it being "like a film" they refer to the somewhat unreal imagery of the day.

Obv when you see a building go boom in a movie it's CGI or a model, this was actually a real building with real non-ficitonal people inside. Hence why people find your statement odd.

Look. Gavin's argument was that newspapers chose to publish images of a building on fire, therefore they would have no compunction about publishing photos of a horrifically disfigured dead man covered in blood with his brains hanging out on the front page. HELLO??? The two images are NOT comparable.

**** sake.

Was it? It's awfully tricky sometimes keeping up with threads on here given how unreliable the system that keeps your place in a thread is.

I shall have a trawl back shortly however if Gav did suggest that then your argument makes more sense.

What I said is on the previous page. But that's not the point I was making (quel surprise).

"And from an objective viewpoint, as best I can - we all witnessed some pretty harrowing stuff on 9/11, and much of it was repeatedly shown in the papers and television media thereafter. And we've ALL watched it. Again and again and again.

Seems peculiar to read comments now about these images being "unnecessarily graphic" now."

I gave a very different reason for the papers publishing the image - particularly that online versions had already carried a hoax image before doing their research.

I merely question the squeamishness of Chie, given he had watched more graphic imagery.

I'm afraid he misunderstood - or rather, misrepresented what I said.

You are comparing the broadcast video of 9/11: which was transmitted live throughout the world and repeated in numerous documentaries - with a decision not to deliberately release images of an assassinated person with part of their head missing and brain hanging out.

I'm not sure how you justify the comparison about images of 9/11, which were in the public domain from the time they happened, with the latter incident which can be subject to some degree of sensitivity and political influence.

*sigh*

No, I'm not.

Read carefully, but please don't bring me any follow up questions. You're consistently belligerent and combative and I have no time for you.

Good morning.

I have to agree with Gavin on this one. I recall being chilled to the bone when watching the footage of people jumping from the WTC towers to their death. For me, that's the definition of 'harrowing'. Yes, the photos of OBL are gruesome and apparently show his brains hanging out, but in my opinion that's no more harrowing than watching thousands of people plunge to their deaths in a matter of minutes.

The more graphic imagery being...two burning buildings and a few dozen people covered in dust.

Right.

Whatever.



No, he's talking about squeamishness and graphic imagery now. We saw people falling through the air. We did not see a close-up of their mangled bodies lying on the floor. There was nothing squeamish or graphic about any of it.

I can't believe you're seriously arguing this. Did you actually watch it unfold live? The sheer magnitude of it and seeing those towers fall with thousands of people inside was physically sickening. I can't see how a picture of a dead OBL, even if it does show brain matter, could be more harrowing than that.

9/11 photo in spoiler tags below of the falling man, how can anyone say that isn't harrowing or upsetting? If it doesn't evoke any kind of emotion then you can't be human imo.



It might be simple and it isn't graphic, but you can't even begin to think what that person was thinking at that moment in time. There is a complete lack of control and an inevitable death within seconds, something we just can't get our head around.

A photo of Bin Laden with his brains hanging out may be gruesome but not necessarily harrowing because there will be the mentality that he deserved it, something which I could imagine certain tabloids capitalising on, if not for shock value.