Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military United States Politics

Porn Reportedly Found At Bin Laden Compound 537

Posted by timothy
from the these-drives-hold-what-we-say-they-hold dept.
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?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Porn Reportedly Found At Bin Laden Compound

Comments Filter:
  • Ok, I guess this makes him human again...
    • by mrclisdue (1321513) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @08:39AM (#36125998)

      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,

      • Obviously nobody actually read the article. It was stuff that is offensive to muslim beliefs. Here's the top 12 videos:

        1. "Miss Piggy does Dallas"
        2. "Makin' Bacon"
        3. "2 Pigs in a Blanket"
        4. "Porky Pig Got Fingered"
        5. "Ham and Cheezy"
        6. "Doing the 'Flying Pig'"
        7. "3 Little Pigs, One Cup"
        8. "Hogzilla Attacks"
        9. "Pearls Before Swine"
        10. "Squeal Like a Pig!"
        11. "The Adventures of Peter Porker, Spider-Ham"
        12. "Swine Flew Epidemic - Attack of the Killer Hogs"

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by JavaBear (9872)
          Naah, it was Pornography where actors dressed as "Mooh-Ham-Mad" were literally porking the pigs.
      • Re:Human after all! (Score:5, Informative)

        by binkzz (779594) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @09:09AM (#36126162) Journal

        Yeah, but very strict religiously Islamic or Christians shouldn't have porn according to their respective teachings. Especially if they're in a position of leadership and example.

        Saying that, I consider myself pretty devout Christian, and I watch porn even though I feel I really shouldn't.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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.

          • by g4b (956118) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @11:19AM (#36126936) Homepage

            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:5, Informative)

              by ultranova (717540) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @11:35AM (#36127026)

              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.

              Nobody cares what you do with your own life. Except the religious, who decide something, then decide it's God's will, and soon are either burning people at stake or posting Youtube videos, depending on the era. And, of course, are utterly convinced that causing completely unnecessary grief makes them extra holy.

              Or flying airplanes into buildings, to get back on topic.

              • It upsets me that yesterday I had mod points, and today I have none. You both have made very good points.

                I suspect you intended to contradict g4b's statement, but I believe that what you say and what he says are complimentary to eachother. G4b points out that otherwise good teachers often speak out against their own vices, and that their irrationality on that subject tends to be the result of a disastrous addiction. You remind us that those irrational preachings tend to be swallowed whole by their followers

            • While I love it when a believer is able to rise above what's in their holy books, and I really hesitate to make an issue out of it -- it's not like I want you to be more puritanical, let alone start stoning your children -- I'm not sure you can really say this honestly:

              I don't think, biblical views saw it ever different (just think about it, what did adam and eve do?

              It's not clear what they did before knowledge of good and evil, but once they ate the fruit and gained such knowledge, they immediately covered their nakedness out of shame. If sex is natural and a great thing, why would they cover their nake

        • Re:Human after all! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by JavaBear (9872) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @09:48AM (#36126398)
          Haggard's Law: "The likelihood of a person harboring secret desires to engage in sexual and/or romantic activities with members of the same sex is directly proportional to the frequency and volume of said person's vocalized objections to homosexuality." Basically, it is often the case that the more religious people rant about a vice, the more likely it is that they are really harbouring a strong desire for it, and probably hate themselves for doing so. That is not to say that everybody fighting for a cause or against something fall into this category.
      • by jamesh (87723)

        most men have some porn stashed somewhere

        ... like under their wife's clothes?

    • by jamesh (87723) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @09:11AM (#36126182)

      I think this will backfire against the US... it will actually make him appear super-human. He had porn _without_ internet access... I mean how does that happen???

    • Human - and flawed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DG (989) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @09:19AM (#36126226) Homepage Journal

      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

      • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @09:30AM (#36126296)
        Except that won't happen. His followers are just going to assume the porn is a plant by the US. Maybe they are even right - it doesn't matter where the porn came from, either way followers wouldn't believe it.
        • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @10:23AM (#36126550)
          We only need to look at religious fundamentalists and associated scandals (usually involving sex) in the US to have an idea how this plays out. Granted - it's not exactly the same thing and there are additional factors (geopolitical, racial / tribal, etc.) in this case. Yet fundamentalism has some commonality no matter what the exact brand of religion is involved.
        • by RsG (809189) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @10:39AM (#36126666)

          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: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by GameboyRMH (1153867)

          Well the US has to try something after they accidentally demonstrated just how much of a devout Muslim he is. [cnn.com]

        • by DG (989) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @12:46PM (#36127448) Homepage Journal

          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

          • by capnkr (1153623)
            DG - Please stop it with the sensible replies. Could you not tell by the editorializing in the summary:

            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 this story/thread is here for a pile-on of illogical and unreasoned anti-US sentiment for the largish segment of the population of /.'ers who love this sort of thing, and so will produce ad views while contributing their own version of the same rhetoric to the thread?

            In short, there is no room here for comments like yours. Please post elsewhere if you wish to be unbiased and thoughtful in what you

          • by Surt (22457)

            But given the world suffers from a severe overpopulation problem, every fighter not killed is actually a loss for everyone.

      • by Shivetya (243324) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @01:02PM (#36127516) Homepage Journal

        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.

  • Too cynical? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XxtraLarGe (551297) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @08:33AM (#36125958) Journal

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by hamvil (1186283)
      I do not get it. How owning some video with pornographic content qualifies as "denigrating"? Are you US people so sexophobic that watching pornos is equavalent to be some kind of sex offender or pedophile? I you discovered that Obame and michelle actually watched porn together would that make him less qualified to run your country?
      • Re:Too cynical? (Score:4, Informative)

        by the_one(2) (1117139) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @08:42AM (#36126016)

        No, it's the muslim extremist that are so sexophobic....

        • Re:Too cynical? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by luis_a_espinal (1810296) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @11:04AM (#36126836) Homepage

          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:Too cynical? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Xeranar (2029624) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @08:46AM (#36126044)
        He would be less revered by muslims if he was found with pornography which is what our imbecilic author is implying. Because the US government has to resort to this sort of denigration after executing him. The odds are it's true, most of the extremist leaders use the religion as a draw to their personal egomaniac ideals. We're finding now most "terrorists" are really disillusioned young men in third world countries with a moderate amount of education, essentially the same men who in the US would have become part of the counterculture are being drawn into a cycle of violence by angry leaders who tout religious ideals but just want to wage a personal war because of their own self-loathing. Back on the pornography note, numerous times they've found porn in the various raids, they're men with access to the internet and markets. Regardless of how "religious" they may be (which it seems very little) they tend to just be massive hypocrites.
        • Because the US government has to resort to this sort of denigration after executing him. The odds are it's true, ....

          Not at all . The USA government knows that killing him just kills the man, not the organisation. They need to turn as many supporters of al Qaeda away from it as they can; causing disillusionment with the last leader is a good way of doing this. As regards the odds of this, I just don't know. If it were not true I would not be surprised if the USA were to ''find'' some.

      • Re:Too cynical? (Score:4, Informative)

        by tverbeek (457094) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @09:01AM (#36126114) Homepage

        The US is not the only (or even most) sexphobic society in the world. This news is intended for the one that is.

      • Re:Too cynical? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ccandreva (409807) <chris@westnet.com> on Saturday May 14, 2011 @09:17AM (#36126214) Homepage

        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.

        • The sad part is, it's irrelevant whether porn was actually found there or not. The people who want to believe it will and the ones that don't won't. With a few exceptions, it does not matter how much evidence you show one way or the other as people tend not to allow facts to interfere with their preexisting beliefs.

    • Keep in mind, they aren't even trying to claim he watched it. You have hundreds of sneakernet couriers moving messages around, you'll end up with some porn on your USB sticks. I don't know (or care) whether Bin Laden himself watched it.
      • He didn't have hundreds of sneakernet couriers. He had one trusted courier. At least that's what I have heard. Maybe there were several. Definitely not hundreds. His having a large number of couriers would mean his location was well known, which we know he did not want.

    • Re:Too cynical? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tverbeek (457094) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @08:59AM (#36126106) Homepage

      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.

    • Really? So you think potential AlQuaida members are not going to reconsider their membership if it was true that Bin Laden had pornography?
      This is an obvious PR stunt, I mean, it's the most basic of the basics. I'm astonished that everyone believes this.
    • Re:Too cynical? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by guyminuslife (1349809) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @09:23AM (#36126252)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by darjen (879890)

        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:Too cynical? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by cold fjord (826450) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @05:16PM (#36128978)

          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.

          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 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]

          Muslims strive to bury the deceased as soon as possible after death, avoiding the need for embalming or otherwise disturbing the body of the deceased.

          Islamic Scholars Split Over Sea Burial for Bin Laden [nytimes.com]

          ... Mr. Brennan said that appealing to other countries would have exceeded the time frame that Islamic custom requires, of burial within 24 hours of death.

          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.

          They are all pathological liars in my book.

          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?

    • I know, right? I mean, before he was just the world's most notorious terrorist. But now, not only is he a pervert but he's a PIRATE! I knew there was a link between illegal downloading and terrorism!!

  • by emailandthings (844006) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @08:34AM (#36125962)

    Guy walks into a bar and orders a "bin laden"

    What's that? replies the bar tender

    "Two shots in the head and a splash"

  • Not too cynical (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...since it took this long for the commandos to report it.

  • Steganography (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shoppa (464619) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @08:35AM (#36125976)
    If I wanted to distribute hidden terrorist messages broadly around the world, leveraging willing dupes who would use their PC's to host the filesharing/torrents, for sure I would embed it in porn using steganography. It's really the obvious choice.
  • I doubt Osama needed to have wank movies in his house - after all, he hed enough women who wanted to be together with a terror czar. And if one remembers where most traffic came from (until blocked) - it was arab and muslim countries.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    He hadn't bin laden how long? Time for some porn and a little alone time!

  • Porn? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Wowsers (1151731) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @08:43AM (#36126030) Journal

    I heard one of the DVD's was "Monica does Bill".

  • by Jahava (946858) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @08:43AM (#36126032)

    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?

  • 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?

    Is it too hard to believe that people at the top of fanatical religious organizations like Al-Qaeda might consider themselves above the rules they preach to the desperate men that give their lives for him/their cause blindly?

  • Anyone else? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Ender_Wiggin (180793) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @08:48AM (#36126056)

    Seems like a dozen people lived in the compound, and porn was found on one of the PCs there. People are hoping it's Bin Laden's, since it fits with the idea he's a bad person, and a perv on top of it. Maybe it was his son's.

    I'm skeptical it's Bin Laden's. I can't find the story now, but there were recordings of Al Qaeda leaders watching Al Jazeera, and then covering over the screen whenever an "immodestly-dressed" woman anchor came on.

    • Re:Anyone else? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mr2cents (323101) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @09:07AM (#36126144)

      If you watch porn you're a perv? Ouch.

  • Bad USA (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fluor2 (242824)

    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!

  • by Fringe (6096) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @08:59AM (#36126100)

    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.

  • I don't know why they even bother mentioning this... it's not like the whole world was on the fence about the guy and looking for some reason to love him or hate him. The only people who this would possible impact are those who do think he's a hero. And guess what, they're not going to believe a word of it.
  • 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?

    It's not just finding more bad stuff about bin Laden. It also goes well with their mentality that porn leads to terrorism. I wouldn't be surprised if they also found pirated music, movies and software, and use the findings to promote the **AA agenda.

  • or was it "Rear Cave Entrance Sluts 9"?
  • by feidaykin (158035) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @09:11AM (#36126180) Journal
    Is anyone shocked when one of those "family values" politicians, preaching about the sanctity of marriage and the evilness of a culture that glamorizes homosexuality comes out of the closet? Or in the case of Larry Craig, gets busted trying to have sex in a men's room? It doesn't shock me anymore, since it seems the most passionate moral crusaders are really crusading against their own personal desires.

    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.
  • I hear that ballerina costumes offend the prophet.
  • I believe It (Score:5, Informative)

    by jesseck (942036) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @09:19AM (#36126228)
    When I was in Iraq, we found porn in a few houses on raids. Videos (arab and French), Playboy, and a few other things.
  • Was it legal retail copies, or should the RIAA get involved

  • Now those groups that want to censor everything adults consume can assert that not only does pornography lead to rape, but terrorism!

  • He doesn't have to deny anything, there's nothing wrong with having pornography. The fact that they're pointing out that he's not around to "deny" the accusation makes it sound like the old "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" fallacy (not that I'm surprised. a poor summary, in my slashdot? it's more likely than you think)

  • There were (apparently) lots of people at OBLs compound and a steady flow in & out, too. Just like any large residence with "staff" I would expect there would be some porn somewhere. It's not exactly a surprise and if it hadn't been there before the kill-squad arrived, I'm sure it was after they'd all been through the place.
  • Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Heliologue (883808) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @10:19AM (#36126540)
    I'm a little surprised that (a) this surprises _anybody_, and (b) that there are plenty of Slashdotters who are convinced it's lies and propaganda. You're making the mistake that because Bin Laden subscribed to an ideology that was sexually repressive, he must also have been sexually repressed. This isn't the case. The sexual mores of the conservative (read: fundamentalist) Islamic world are pretty twisted; the reason burqas are mandated for women is because the men supposedly can't help themselves if shown a bit of ladyflesh, even a bare ankle. The onus for sexual purity is placed almost _entirely_ on women (which sounds a little like the US, come to think of it); it's no surprise, then, if Bin Laden is a total pervert. Honestly, I'd be surprised if there _wasn't_ porn in the compound.
  • Cynical (Score:3, Informative)

    by DaMattster (977781) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @10:43AM (#36126696)
    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, it is not too cynical at all. I believe that there is a nugget of truth to OBL having pornography because we have seen religious zealots and conservative politicians here in the US having closet sexual perversions. However, the Obama Administration wants to parade OBL's faults and make his hypocrisy well-known thereby lessening his martyrdom. By denigrating him, Obama et al hope to further weaken the resolve to potentially avenge Bin Laden's death.
  • Define porn (Score:4, Funny)

    by metacell (523607) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @12:04PM (#36127208)

    Maybe it was videos of Iranian women taking off their headwear and shaking their hair?

  • by Memroid (898199) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @12:11PM (#36127242)
    1. You may be a terrorist if... You wear a Casio watch
    2. You may be a terrorist if... You use large amounts of shampoo and like to travel
    3. You may be a terrorist if... You dislike low-tech fondling by strangers
    4. You may be a terrorist if... You refuse maid service
    5. You may be a terrorist if... You pay for a hotel in cash
    6. You may be a terrorist if... You use a video camera in a non-designated video recording area
    7. You may be a terrorist if... Your car has boxes or bags in it
    8. You may be a terrorist if... You own a GPS unit
    9. You may be a terrorist if... You take pictures of buildings and landmarks
    10. You may be a terrorist if... You are unemployed and in possession of cash
    11 You may be a terrorist if... You are a pregnant women and carry around bulky diaper bags
    12. You may be a terrorist if... You or somebody you live with is in possession of pornography
  • by reboot246 (623534) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @05:37PM (#36129144) Homepage
    Some of the movie titles were:
    Deep Goat
    Hairy Popper and the Prisoner of Guantanamo
    Roadside Bombshells
    Debbie Does Darfur
    Behind the Green Tent Flap
    Her Mouth is Like a IED and She Will Blow You Away

Are we running light with overbyte?

Working...