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?
Steganography (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't believe it (Score:1, Interesting)
After the Obama administration clearly fabricated details most favorable to them immediately after the raid came to public knowledge, like there was a firefight and he refused to surrender, I don't believe this at all. I think it's mean to undermine his standing in the world among Muslims and probably isn't true.
Re:Too cynical? (Score:2, Interesting)
Worth mentioning? Probably not... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Only if you mention that even if he were around, he'd probably deny it regardless of whether or not it is true.
Then again, the story isn't unbelievable. Just take a look at some interesting Google Trends results:
I suppose, either way, we're going to have to judge for ourselves whether or not we believe the story, and to what extent. I, personally, feel that it's not unlikely or surprising, but also that I don't really case. Who'd have thought someone able to morally justify slaughtering thousands wouldn't also find a way around whatever porn-related barriers they face?
Wouldn't be shocking.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, look at "culture warrior" Bill O'Reilly. Remember the Andrea Mackris thing? She had transcripts of alleged phone conversations that are clear examples of sexual harassment (and the detailed nature of the transcripts lead people to believe she had recordings). Bill O paid her a bunch of money to shut up and never spoke of it again. Sexual harassment is wrong when anyone does it, but it seems doubly wrong when you preach day in and out about morals and the "dangers" of things like rap music.
I guess, essentially, the gist of my post here is that people are often hypocrites, so hypocritical behavior does not shock me at all. So a group of extremist Muslims who feel strongly enough about their religion to blow up thousands of innocent (including Muslim) Americans happen to enjoy porn when nobody is looking. Not surprised. In fact, it makes me wonder aloud here if the religion is just an excuse for the killings, and if what people like bin Laden were really upset about was Israel and our support of it, that it's more of a territorial dispute than a religious one, but it's just a lot easier to get people to fly planes into buildings if you tell them 72 virgins will greet them afterward. I mean, I tend to notice the folks at the top of these terrorist organizations aren't the ones blowing themselves up. Think maybe they have some doubts about whether or not they end up anywhere afterward?
But then again I shouldn't read too much into this one incident, it is after all just some porn. Just a thought though - maybe if bin Laden's wives didn't have to be covered head to toe, he wouldn't need a stash to get off.
Re:Too cynical? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because every bit of propaganda helps. Frankly, I would think they were idiots if they DIDN'T announce they had found porn, whether they did or not.
It has nothing to do with what "US people" think of porn. The idea is to show he was a hypocrite. People may be less willing to die for his cause, if it can be shown that he didn't follow his own words. Anything that went against his own supposed ideology would serve the purpose.
Re:Anyone else? (Score:4, Interesting)
Silly Americans, you really fucked yourself over twice, late Soviet style autocratic socialism would have been such a step up from the shit they are in now . But you had to spoil it by sponsoring OBL and other assorted Arab and Pakistani scum.
Now the Afghans are back to squire one in civilization building. OBL attacked your cities and you and NATO are stuck in that shithole.
Re:Human after all! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Too cynical? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll bet there are a lot of people in the US who don't even believe it. Just think about how many times they changed the story in the first 3 days after they got him. Then they don't even keep the body around long enough for anyone else to verify it. They just go dump it in the sea? Seriously? They are all pathological liars in my book.
Re:Human - and flawed (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, even if they didn't assume it was a plant, even if they assumed it really was Bin Laden's porn stash, they'd do what we humans always do in situations like this. They'd rationalize.
It's a universal fault in human nature that we condemn the actions of strangers but forgive those same acts if they're carried out by our idols, friends, family, countrymen, or what-have you. When your friend's SO cheats on them, you call them a bitch/bastard/horrible human being - when that same friend cheats on his/her SO, you assume there were extenuating circumstances. When your religion calls child molestation an unforgivable sin, you condemn all the kiddie-fiddlers to hell - except when the padre is caught with his hands up the altar-boy's skirt; then it's "he has a problem and needs help", and you look the other way while he's reassigned to a new position where he won't have the temptation. When another nation's soldiers kill civvies in a combat zone, it's a war crime - when your own soldiers do the same it's unavoidable collateral damage.
See the pattern? Guilt doesn't matter. Morals don't matter. Familiarity with the accused does. Basic human tribal behaviour.
So what will the supporters of Al-Qaeda think about dear leader's porn stash? They'll make allowances for it. They'll rationalize it, make excuses. Just like any other human being would were they put in that position. That doesn't even get into the fact that most of those same supporters will be adult men, who have their own well hidden porn stashes, and therefor may empathize.
Re:Too cynical? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's the muslim extremist that are so sexophobic....
Which I've always found very retarded given that their own sexual mores aren't that prude/hetero to begin with. It's been a long tradition in the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan to molest and rape little boys, to the point of having a tradition of selecting very cute boys to wear make-up and female dresses when dancing. The Taliban during their reign put a stop to that, to a point. Now that they have been on the run, they as well as those no longer under their yoke are doing the same shit again. In the countries with the most repressive religious regimes, there has always been a dont-ask-dont-tell habit of homosexualism among the young. Even with the death penalty hanging around, it is an open secret.
I don't think it really makes a difference if there was a stash of goat-to-camel porn in bin Laden's compound. I cannot believe the government would be that stupid to release *that* info if it is not true (it is always possible, but still). People will always doubt that it is true, after all, look how many idiots here and in the Muslim world truly believe 9/11 was a zionist/CIA plot!!!
But I wouldn't think this to be impossible. Whether that was directly owned and sanctioned by bin Laden, that's an open question (and a pretty irrelevant one). But it is plausible, and I would have a hard time to believe the Obama administration would release this if it weren't true. There has always been a precedent of quote-and-quote deviant sexuality among those who condemn them the most.
In the end, it is entirely plausible, most likely true... and ultimately irrelevant.
Re:Anyone else? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Human - and flawed (Score:3, Interesting)
Well the US has to try something after they accidentally demonstrated just how much of a devout Muslim he is. [cnn.com]
Re:Too cynical? (Score:5, Interesting)
So what would the US have to do to be thought of as NOT sexphobic by you?
Having a nipple accidentally show on TV not become a major national incident? Not have controversies over public breastfeeding? Maybe even consider women's breasts non-obscene like France and Canada among others? Legalize homosexuality in all states? Allow gay marriage?
Re:Human after all! (Score:5, Interesting)
Planted and/or Rationalized (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right that some will assume it was planted, some will assume that it wasn't his, some will rationalize it away, and so on.
But some won't. Some will realize that Osama wasn't the saint he made himself out to be, and will leave the network because of it.
And every one of those is a fighter lost who didn't have to be killed - a win for everyone.
A course of action need not have a 100% success rate to make it worth following.
DG
Re:Human after all! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
The tribunals only gave that to the Nazi's the Allies didn't kill during the war. If you forget, America is still at war (with Terror, not sure how we can battle and abstract concept, but hey). Therefore, Bin Laden was a war combatant, and assuming he didn't surrender (do you think he would have?), the American soldiers who shot him were under no obligation to read him his rights and take him, unharmed, into custody.
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.
Wait a minute, so you're saying it was wrong to shoot Bin Laden because he didn't get his day in court, but you're only saying this because you assume that Seal Team 6 went into that compound guns-a-blazing shooting everything in sight without cause? What about their day in court, what about assuming they are innocent until proven guilty? Sure, I bet Osama was just sitting at a desk, dutifully reciting the Quran from memory, probably knitting his mother a sweater when some mean ole American came in and double-tapped him in the forehead, just like all us gun-owning American's would do to anyone given the opportunity.
I know American's do a lot of shit to earn a bad reputation, but for your anti-American sentiment to be so strong that you would actually support Bin Laden rather than admit that America might have done the right thing in this instance is disgusting. And if you're an American, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Re:Too cynical? (Score:5, Interesting)
The essentials of the story didn't change:
Navy SEALs flew to Pakistan in helicopters to Bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad where they shot him dead, and one of his wives in the leg after she came between the SEALs and Bin Laden. The SEALs took Bin Laden's body and the US buried it at sea in accordance with Muslim custom. The rest is relatively minor detail.
They didn't just dump his body in the sea, they buried it at sea in accordance with Muslim tradtion (though there are disputes among Muslim scholars about when and how it is permitted). Muslim custom requires quick burial. Besides, DNA tests provide all the certainty needed. (How many other 6'4" Muslims that look exactly like Bin Laden are there in Pakistan living in million dollar compounds with vast quantities of communications with Al Qadea and Bin Laden's wives present? That many?)
Why is it so important for a Muslim to buried their dead in a day? [answers.com]
Islamic Scholars Split Over Sea Burial for Bin Laden [nytimes.com]
I don't think there is any serious reason to doubt a quick burial at sea, especially since the US is trying to account for Muslim sensitivities.
President Obama announced Bin Laden was killed by American forces:
Obama Announces Death of Osama bin Laden [voanews.com]
Al Qaeda has announced he is dead:
Text: Al Qaeda statement confirming bin Laden's death [reuters.com]
Iran says he is dead:
Iran's intelligence chief says bin Laden died long before the 'alleged raid' [usatoday.com]
Family members denounce his death:
My father's death was criminal and I may sue the U.S. [dailymail.co.uk]
Locals protest his death:
Pakistani tribesmen protest [upi.com]
So tell me, are all of these people with multiple and conflicting interests lying about Bin Laden being dead? Is it just to fool you? If so, why?
Re:Human after all! (Score:4, Interesting)
Ugh! More stupidity. He mean, "illegal combatant." Illegal combatants are specifically excluded from the protections provided by Geneva Convention. Period. Furthermore, these people can be summarily executed on the spot by order of the officer in charge. The simple fact is, Bin Laden's death is 100% legal around the world.
That's interesting. According to your logic, that would mean the murder of any active duty CIA personnel (remember, not part of the military) by foreign military personal, if he were to be declared a terrorist/enemy of a foreign state, would be 100% legal around the world.
Accordingly, he receives zero legal protection under US law unless he is captured and taken into US custody.
Then it seems that anytime you want to kill an individual, declare him a terrorist and kill him on non-US soil; then you'll have a lawful killing. Okay, got it. The $64,000 question is whether or not he could have been easily captured. The video would show - or at least suggest - if that was or wasn't the case.