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?
Human after all! (Score:2)
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,
But muslim porn is different ... (Score:3, Funny)
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)
Re:Human after all! (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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: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:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re:Human after all! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
most men have some porn stashed somewhere
... like under their wife's clothes?
Re:Human after all! (Score:4, Funny)
most men have some porn stashed somewhere
... like under their wife's clothes?
Very clever! She would never think to look for it hidden in her own dresser drawer.
Re:Human after all! (Score:5, Funny)
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???
Re:Human after all! (Score:5, Funny)
Now you know why all the convenience stores are owned my muslims.
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 - and flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Human - and flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't they usually appear before their followers blubbering, apologising, and begging for forgivness (that is never given).
In the history of televangelism, there's been plenty of scandal. It usually costs the subject in question money, marriages, followers and sometimes even their church. But remarkably, more than a few continue to maintain followers or later form new churches. And while they seem to rarely hit the same heights, those that bounce back seem to do fairly well. Remarkable considering the usually unforgiving nature of their message.
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: (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]
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
But given the world suffers from a severe overpopulation problem, every fighter not killed is actually a loss for everyone.
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:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Admitting guilt doesn't necessarily make you guilty. There are plenty of examples of false confessions being given, and it's not uncommon for terrorist groups to try to take credit for activities that they didn't actually do, to make themselves seem more powerful than they really are. Terror is about branding, after all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Proper procedures were followed.
Bin Laden, as leader of the international terrorist and insurgent group Al Qaeda, declared war on the United States in 1996 [pbs.org]. After the many attacks that killed thousands of people and treating it as a police problem, the US Congress issued the Authorization for Use of Military Force [findlaw.com] (equivalent to a declaration of war) following the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 Americans. Intelligence located Bin Laden, military leader of Al Qaeda, and he was killed by a commando raid. A
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3)
So bluntly, contrary to the massive stupidity run amok here, the killing was entirely lawful, even under US law. Period. End of discussion.
What about, umm, under Pakistani law? If a bunch of Pakistanis shot someone dead in the US it'd be quite legitimate for them to be tried in the US for murder, after extradition if necessary. Would this not apply to SEALs breaking Pakistani law? Would it not be just as big a breach of Pakistani sovereignty as if those hypothetical Pakistanis in the US were officially sanctioned and extradition was refused? Pakistani public opinion seems to think so and there's going to be a price to pay for the US.
Might I
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Too cynical? (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's the muslim extremist that are so sexophobic....
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:Too cynical? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
1. Page Three.
2. No significent outrage against it.
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: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: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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: (Score:3)
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!!
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Except without the "innocent" part.
Let the jokes begin... (Score:5, Funny)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
In light of this article, I guess the "splash" can refer to multiple things.
Bin Laden's last words: "Doesn't anybody knock anymore!?!"
Re:Let the jokes begin... (Score:5, Funny)
You can order that, but it'll take 9 years to deliver...
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.
It must be pretty good... (Score:2, Funny)
...since it took this long for the commandos to report it.
Steganography (Score:5, Interesting)
he had the women in the house (Score:2)
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.
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:he had the women in the house (Score:4, Insightful)
He hadn't bin laden how long? (Score:2, Funny)
He hadn't bin laden how long? Time for some porn and a little alone time!
Porn? (Score:5, Funny)
I heard one of the DVD's was "Monica does Bill".
Re: (Score:2)
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?
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Uh... (Score:2)
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)
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)
If you watch porn you're a perv? Ouch.
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:Anyone else? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't long too much for the Soviets. They were less predictable than you think. For one thing, they didn't buy into the whole Mutually Assured Destruction thing like everyone here assumed they did.
They also truly believed that the US was interested in attacking them first.
I'm just saying, we got luckier than anyone can even imagine that there wasn't a nuclear war. Even Reagan himself realized it after 1982 when he got word that the Soviets actually believed that they needed to defend themselves from NATO
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.
He didn't seem all that ba... wait,he had PORN!?!? (Score:3)
Denigrating porn as well? (Score:2)
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.
Jihadists Gone Wild? (Score:2)
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.
Probably knees, elbows, shoulders. (Score:2)
I believe It (Score:5, Informative)
Out of Curiosity (Score:2)
Was it legal retail copies, or should the RIAA get involved
Score for Censorship! (Score:2)
Now those groups that want to censor everything adults consume can assert that not only does pornography lead to rape, but terrorism!
Fallacy of loaded question (Score:2)
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)
I expect you'd find some in the White House, too (Score:2, Insightful)
Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cynical (Score:3, Informative)
Define porn (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe it was videos of Iranian women taking off their headwear and shaking their hair?
You may be a terrorist if.... (Score:3, Funny)
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
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It does?
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: (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 death
Re: (Score:3)
No, killing civilians makes you a war criminal, not a terrorist.
No, intentionally killing unarmed, noncombatant civilians makes you a war criminal. If I shell a building just to kill the civilian occupants, I'm a war criminal. If I have to shell the same building, killing all the occupants because I'm taking sniper fire from there... well, sucks to live in that building, but I gotta do what I gotta do to protect my troops. Collateral damage and civilian deaths during war are a fact of life. A sad and tragic fact of life, but a fact of life nonetheless.
Re: (Score:2)
Does teaching children to strap on bombs and blow themselves up count as molestation?
Re: (Score:3)
nope.. just several well used copies of Weapons of Ass Destruction
Re: (Score:3)
Read a book called Orientalism by Edward Said. Your perceptions of Islamic views on sex are greatly influenced by the desire for your (and to some degree my) own culture to create the other, something, through opposition, by which it can define itself.
The most striking thing is how different this other was one hundred to two hundred years ago - Western culture was prudish, while Asians (including Arabs) were the ones of wild sexuality (think about our misconceptions of the haram, geishas, etc.).