Porn Reportedly Found At Bin Laden Compound 537
Hugh Pickens writes "Reuters reports that a stash of pornography was found in the hideout of Osama bin Laden by the US commandos who killed him. The pornography consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity. Officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials and it is unclear how compound residents would have acquired the pornography but a video released by the Obama administration confiscated from the compound showed bin Laden watching pictures of himself on a TV screen, indicating that the compound was equipped with video playback equipment. Officials familiar with evidence gathered during investigations of other Islamic militants said the discovery of pornography is not uncommon in such cases." Is it too cynical to mention that the US government has a vested interest in denigrating Bin Laden, and that he's no longer around to deny this claim?
Too cynical? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it too cynical to mention that the US government has a vested interest in denigrating Bin Laden, and that he's no longer around to deny this claim?
No, probably not. I'm not sure why they would release this detail if it's true. It's not like people's opinion is going to change. "Well, I sort of liked bin Laden until I found out there was PORNOGRAPHY in his compound." Also, it's not like Muslims are going to believe the US government anyway, whether they were bin Laden supporters or not.
Not too cynical (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it's not too cynical to mention that. It's also not too cynical to mention that such behavior is also fairly predictable among religious extremists of any stripe.
The things they want to deprive others of on religious reasons are usually the things they are most guilty of.
Re:Human after all! (Score:5, Insightful)
Doe anyone really find this strange, since my own personal made-up statistics show that most men have some porn stashed somewhere....?
It would be more discomforting if they couldn't find his porn....
cheers,
Re:he had the women in the house (Score:5, Insightful)
You must not be married if you think having a wife around means someone will usually fulfill your desires :)
Re:So? (Score:1, Insightful)
The Koran expressly forbids pornography of any kind. Hell, all the women have to be covered from head to toe... literally!
Since Bin Laden was an extremist, finding that he has porn which is totally against the Koran IS pretty big news.
Re:Too cynical? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad USA (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, kill him if you want, but digging into his porn collection and going public with it is beyond good manners. Boo on you, USA!
Cynical or Typical? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it too cynical to mention that the US government has a vested interest in denigrating Bin Laden, and that he's no longer around to deny this claim?
That level of "cynicism" does pass over any rational line, sounding more like Les Nesman finding a conspiracy under every rock. Who else don't you trust? Just a general paranoia or specific techie-anarchist? The submission would have been better without cheapening yourself that way.
Re:Too cynical? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether it's true or not, I don't know, but disclosing this does have propaganda value. Most Americans (and people in general) have made up their minds that Bin Laden was a horrible human being. And there's a population of bitter and persecuted-feeling Muslims who believe that Osama could do no wrong. But there are some who fall in between: such as Muslims who agree with his criticisms of the US, but are uncomfortable with some of his tactics, or people who shared his hatred for the West but don't buy his theology. Those people might be swayed away from him (and al-Qaeda) by news that (seemingly) exposes him as a porn-watching fundie hypocrite. They may not be convinced that it's true... but the seed of doubt has been sown, and that can grow.
The First Report Is Never Right (Score:5, Insightful)
I have worked in a variety of military operations centres.
What you are seeing is likely not willful deception, but rather a common phenomenon that "The first report is never right".
When people are under stress, they report the details wrong, or they mis-hear, or they make assumptions to fill in gaps in knowledge, or there or misunderstandings, etc etc.
So the details in an initial report are almost always wrong. You learn to not leap into action based on an initial report, but to be patient and wait for follow-up reports, because they tend to be more accurate. As time goes by and people calm down, the true details start to resolve.
So for example, if the operative on the ground reported that Osama was "resisting" (by which, he meant that he did not immediately surrender) the next guy up the chain may have interpreted "resisting" to mean "armed and shooting" - and that's what he reported. Later debriefs would reveal what actually happened, and the story would change.
That's nothing nefarious; that's just the nature of crisis reporting.
If you are old enough to remember 9/11, for the first few hours of the attacks, all kinds of crazy crap was being reported. It wasn't until later in the day the the actual nature of what had happened had resolved itself.
By the way, Bin Laden's standing amongst the world's Muslims is not very high, and never was. His standing amongst the worlds Jihadist Terrorists was much higher. Please don't confuse the two.
DG
Re:Anyone else? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you watch porn you're a perv? Ouch.
Re:Too cynical? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, the execution of an old man in front of his family. You've phrased it that way to encourage sympathy.
I can't help thinking he had a quick, easy death. Compared to those people who had to choose between jumping to theirs, or getting burned alive in one of the Towers. What do you imagine their last moments were like?
Human - and flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the things that made Osama so dangerous was that he had set himself up as a kind of religious aesthete who, to his followers, had claimed the moral high ground and was thus an example to be emulated.
He was claiming to be more pious than Islamic religious leaders who were preaching a more moderate course of action.
If his claims of piety can be shown to be demonstrably false; if he can be shown to be as flawed and "sinful" as every other man, much of the righteous indignation that mobilizes his followers can be neutralized.
Having disillusioned former terrorists and jihadists renounce their former ways and return to the Muslim mainstream is a win for everybody - it's a win for Islam, a win for the West - and a win for the former jihadists, who will get to live more normal lives that won't have to end violently.
Killing one's enemy is never the ideal course of action. Sometimes it is necessary. But far better for everyone if they become your friends - or at the very least, renounce being your sworn enemy.
DG
Re:Human after all! (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is incredibly stupid. Sex is a natural and good act. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing it, watching it or just rubbing one out when you feel tense.
Re:Too cynical? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, it's not like Muslims are going to believe the US government anyway
You don't have to believe something, it doesn't have to be true, for it to have significant propaganda value. There was a study done...I don't remember the exact details...where people who had been told terrible things about a person were more likely to have a negative reaction toward that person, even after they'd been told later that they'd been lied to.
That's really the deal with, say, the whole Obama-Socialist-Commie-Muslim-Terrorist-Foreigner thing. It's been consciously played up by right-wing propagandists, not because they think that people will consciously change their minds because they are actually convinced: the people who are out calling for birth certificates were already voting Republican. It's because even if you recognize it as lies and manipulation, it's still an effective tactic for shifting (not necessarily changing) attitudes.
Richard Gere stuck a gerbil up his asshole as a gay sex thing. It's not true, but it's certainly one of the first things I think of when I see Richard Gere. Or was it a hamster? I don't know, it's a totally made-up story anyway. That pervert.
I expect you'd find some in the White House, too (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a textbook example of the selection bias.
In countries like Afghanistan, the segment of the population that have Internet access and are capable of search in English terms, probably have little in common with the rest of the population.
Re:Human - and flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Human after all! (Score:1, Insightful)
He admitted his guilt for a great many things, enough to get him executed, so there is no innocence.
Ah, so you've seen the entire trail? You wouldn't last five seconds on any legitimate forensics team.. In fact if you would have done what the government did, like withholding or destroying evidence, you would face some serious charges... That kool-aid tastes mighty fine, doesn't it?
Re:Don't believe it (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Invasion of a country is an act of war, often an unjustified one, but no act of terrorism.
Lies are not an act of terrorism (otherwise we would have to arrest all politicians as terrorists ;-))
The number of deaths also does not define terrorism.
Now if Bush had given the explicit command to intentionally kill random civilians in Iraq (as opposed to "just" accepting their death as collateral damage), then the term "terrorist" would be justified. But I don't think he did.
Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Human - and flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:he had the women in the house (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Human after all! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sex is natural and quite some great thing, and I don't think, biblical views saw it ever different (just think about it, what did adam and eve do? they had a lot of children according to the story). In fact, the bible does address pervertion, it never adresses sex.
However, you will notice, porn is not about real sex. It is about sex, no doubt, it shows people enjoying an almost ritualic show, accessing the viewers lust for sex simply by depicting it, and we males are dominantly visually adressable, so it works. Real sex however includes intimacy, relationship, trust.
Condemning sex is actually based on the personal shame of Augustin, who himself quite a ladiesman, later felt bad about his past life. Augustin, like many great christian teachers, did have a lot to say, most of which is considerable good - but to accept his whole teachings, some people felt the need to accept every aspect of it.
You see a lot of religious teachers suffer from personal affairs in their life, including those personal pains in their teachings. I take them as a warning, as for being addicted to porn, or losing touch with sexuality in terms of relationship can damage people in great effect.
But to go so far as saying: its not bad at all to be sexually centered and have no self control - thats just ridiculous.
I would not feel worse after a cigarette, than after watching porn, but I dont have to accept addictive behaviour as something benevolent towards my life.
Modern christianity is often considered antisexual.
At the same time, non-christian westernism is very much concentrated on this topic, maybe fighting for a freedom, which was never really taken away.
Not by having faith at least.
Just because boundaries make you suffer, breaking them does not make you heal nor free. Christianity is more about peaceful stopping at boundaries, because they were taken away, or stop feeling ashamed if you can't otherwise than cross them.
The antisexual tendism of some christian lines just damages our respect of people who really suffer from addictions, like porn, lies, drugs, anger, fear, and so on. But they are not strict about sex, because they don't like sex.
Everybody likes sex. It's weird if you don't. But is it so important, that it dictates your daily actions?
Re:Human after all! (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not really the point or what he's arguing. The presumption of innocence is something we give to our worst, our very, very, very worst, most obviously guilty criminals. It was also something tribunals gave to the Nazis, some of the very worst criminals in all of world history. It is a bedrock prinicple of Western society. But we didn't give it here. Why? Well, we still don't know all the details. But if he resisted in a way where he couldn't be subdued, they sure haven't told us. It looks, from the information we do have, that he was simply assassinated, without due process of any kind.
Look, almost every single one of us thinks Osama bin Laden was responsible to murdering 3,000 people on 9/11. But the court of public opinion doesn't have legal standing. Someone isn't exempt from due process simply because we all think he's very, very, very bad as opposed to merely very, very bad. The only legal way that we have for establishing Osama bin Laden's guilt as a legal fact is through a trial. And we didn't do that.
How is he different from any government official? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to me that government officials and religious officials have one major thing in common.
They are more than willing to demand that you live your life a certain way but tend to shy away from doing so themselves.
Both will have ardent followers who will defend their leaders infractions. Royalty simply assumed a new title.
Re:Human - and flawed (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone knows he did what he was accused of. He admitted it on video tapes and audio tapes. He was planning to do more.
Sure, if he clearly surrendered, he should have been bound, incarcerated and tried, but honestly, sending troops into the compound of the leader of a group that uses suicide bombers regularly and not taking every precaution to prevent him from killing your people is stupid. We're not talking about your run of the mill criminal here. Although a lot of these guys tend to be less committed to their beliefs than they would have you believe, there was no reason to believe that bin Laden was not a true believer. He could easily have been going for the button to blow his compound and everyone in it sky high.
And his "home" as you put it, was a high security compound with walls and guards. It's not like they headed out to the suburbs, smashed in the picture window to his ranch and shot him in his living room while he was watching The Price Is Right in reruns. They didn't assault it with helicopters because they like fast roping out of them for fun.
There's plenty of reason to not be happy with the US, considering all of the various shady endeavors that have happened in the past. This is not one of them. He was a combatant commander who had indicated on more than one occasion that he had no intention of surrendering. Sending the SEALs in with the orders to capture if possible, kill if necessary is hardly strange, nor particularly brutal in the annals of history. The only thing that is strange is that you consider *this* to be the point where you are disillusioned with the US. Not CIA overthrows of other governments, not the Iraq War, not Guantanamo Bay, but arguably the closest thing to a just action that has happened in the last decade. Please excuse me if I believe that perhaps you might have been harboring your resentment a bit longer.
Re:Human after all! (Score:2, Insightful)
If his followers - i.e. muslims - don't think that being a mass murderer denigrates him, then perhaps we should just scrap the pretense about the war on terror and go all out with the war on ass-lifting moon-worshipping dune-coons?