Slashdot Mirror


Porn Reportedly Found At Bin Laden Compound

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?

537 comments

  1. Human after all! by j35ter · · Score: 1

    Ok, I guess this makes him human again...

    --
    Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    1. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and like Bin Ladin's record for, say mass murder, suggests some need to be further "denigrated" by the U.S. Government? Come on!

    2. Re:Human after all! by mrclisdue · · Score: 4, 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,

    3. Re:Human after all! by binkzz · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    4. Re:Human after all! by jamesh · · 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???

    5. Re:Human after all! by jamesh · · Score: 1

      most men have some porn stashed somewhere

      ... like under their wife's clothes?

    6. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "...and like Bin Ladin's record for, say mass murder, suggests some need to be further "denigrated" by the U.S. Government? Come on!"

      You are clearly a self absorbed U.S. citizen. The denigration isn't aimed at you, it's aimed at his followers.

    7. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    8. Re:Human after all! by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it must have been embarrassing to ask his couriers to fill the flash drives with pr0n on the way back.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    9. Re:Human after all! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      He had porn _without_ internet access... I mean how does that happen???

      Now you know why all the convenience stores are owned my muslims.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Human after all! by JavaBear · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    11. Re:Human after all! by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      He admitted his guilt for a great many things, enough to get him executed, so there is no innocence.

      Frankly I don't find the porn finding at all strange - this is typical. High mucky-muck leaders tell their followers to do as they say but not as they do. They are hypocrites. SOP.

    12. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's goat porn! Living in caves for several years does take a toll for a man's sex life.

    13. Re:Human after all! by countertrolling · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He admitted his guilt for a great many things, enough to get him executed, so there is no innocence.

      Ah, so you've seen the entire trail? You wouldn't last five seconds on any legitimate forensics team.. In fact if you would have done what the government did, like withholding or destroying evidence, you would face some serious charges... That kool-aid tastes mighty fine, doesn't it?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    14. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude got junk,dude spank junk,dude holed up w/only two wives,dude run outa scenarios and his dinky drop,dude find cornholedoggy.com,dude happy again,dude spank junk.
      Dude!...

    15. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're what is known as an idiot!

      Bin Laden claimed responsibility for both the planning and monetary support for 9/11. There is video evidence of him discussing the plan both before and after the attack. He clearly stated, at best, he hoped the top floors would collapse and that total collapse exceeded his wildest hopes. There is also tons of evidence of those involved in the planning and discussion of the early planning (brainstorming) of attacks on American which ultimately lead to the 9/11 plans. Basically, the only people who doubt Bin Laden isn't behind the attacks are uninformed idiots.

      Before you starting claiming he's innocent, perhaps you, and all others like you, should pull your head from your ass and bother to look at the overwhelming evidence available; most of which directly involves Bin Laden himself in video and first hand testimony of those involved.

    16. Re:Human after all! by tclgeek · · Score: 1
      *presumed* innocent. In the United States.

      Being presumed innocent and actually _being_ innocent are two different things entirely.

    17. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If we're trying to denigrated Bin Laden to his followers then I also heard they found some beer and bacon there too because Muslims can't have alcohol or pork

    18. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    19. Re:Human after all! by g4b · · Score: 4, 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?

    20. Re:Human after all! by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      Mattresses, of some type or another, are in use by most cultures worldwide and only get lumpy if you're trying to stash VHS under them. I'm guessing OBL had enough duckets for DVD.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    21. Re:Human after all! by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Informative

      One can admit guilt in a venue other than court, say a video recording. He did some admitting there, for instance.

    22. Re:Human after all! by ultranova · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    23. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

      Hmmm..... lets see how that theory works in general......

      If someone strongly opposes arson, they most likely have strong secret desires to burn down buildings and hate themselves for it.

      If someone strongly opposed murder, they most likely have strong secret desires to murder and hate themselves for it.

      If someone strongly opposed rape, they most likely have strong secret desires to rape and hate themselves for it.

      If someone strongly opposes assault, they mostly likely have strong secret desires to shoot and beat people and hate themselves for it

      If someone strongly opposes lynching, they most likely have strong secret desires to lynch someone and hate themselves for it.

      If someone strongly opposes torture, they most likely have strong secret desires to torture someone and hate themselves for it.

      If someone strongly opposes mass murder, they most likely have strong secret desires to mass murder and hate themselves for it.

      If someone strongly opposes mutilation, they most likely have a strong desire to mutilate someone and hate themselves for it.

      If someone strongly opposes child abuse, they most likely have a strong desire to abuse children and hate themselves for it.

      If someone strongly opposes war crimes, they most likely have a strong desire to commit war crimes and hate themselves for it.

      If someone strongly opposes racism, they most likely have strong racist feelings and hate themselves for it.

      If someone strongly opposes anti-Semitism, they most likely have strong anti-Semitic feelings and hate themselves for it.

      If someone strongly opposes gay bashing, they most likely have strong secret desires to gay bash and hate themselves for it.

      If someone strongly opposes eating broccoli, they most likely have a secret desire to gorge themselves on broccoli, and hate themselves for it.

      You know, I don't think that really works in general for any case, otherwise we should automatically be investigating every activist for their criminal activities.

      I think you've fallen prey to a clever piece of mental ju-jitsu by homosexual activists trying to suppress opposition to their goals.

      In short, isn't the so called "Haggard's Law" not merely nonsense, but in essence a devious lie, Java....bear?

    24. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bin Laden's house is starting to sound like great place! Why did America -yet again- have to spoil the fun for the rest of us?

    25. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I consider myself pretty devout Christian...I watch...even though I feel I really shouldn't."

      Then your considerations are ILL-considered, and you've lost your integrity. As a result, your beliefs and incomplete, and you'll suffer as a result of not having a complete world-view that guides you.

      Have some integrity, think it all through, and either:

      a) Mend your ways and stop watching porn
      b) Study the texts and come to terms with the idea that your religion might allow you to watch porn after all.
      c) Study your options and choose a religion you ACTUALLY agree with

      I'm serious. When you're in conflict, don't just be in conflict: think it through, resolve it, reach a higher level of understanding, and become stronger (and more whole) in the process. It's called integrity for a reason -- you become whole, integrated, complete, like a whole number (integer) instead of a fraction. What do you hear all the time in church? That god wants you to be WHOLE, the best you can be -- to have confidence and faith. You can't do that, in ANY religion, while you're in conflict with it.

    26. Re:Human after all! by m.ducharme · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    27. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree when it comes to religious figures of power. The 911 attackers were reported to have tried to get hookers before they killed 3000 people. Not very muslim of them. But then again there is a typo in Koran its in the section that mentions 72 virgins. Its not really 72 virgins its 72 Virginians, " Hey Boy you gotta perty mouth."

    28. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to quote the urban dictionary without citation. I should point out that there is no empirical evidence for this assertion, or "Law", which is why it is only found in the urban dictionary; it is an urban legend.

      For those who don't know, Ted Haggard was a prominent pastor in the United States with virulent anti-homosexual rhetoric who was paying young men for sex while campaigning in favor of overtly bigoted anti-homosexual legislation. However, in his case there is no evidence that he hates himself for his bisexuality. Rather, he is probably just that special kind of douche that combines charisma and a willingness do or say anything for money, but who has no actual skills beyond oratory.

    29. Re:Human after all! by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2

      Well, in this case, there is probably really no room for doubt. Still should have kept up the procedure. That's what *should* distinguish us from random barbarians.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    30. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem with your argument is all of the examples of people who support the GP's statement. Yes, is a serious over-generalization, but there's a lot more to support it than there is to support the examples you gave.

    31. Re:Human after all! by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Let's get theological here. On what part of scripture would you base a porn prohibition? Just curious, I don't recall anything that would lend itself to a sex=immoral interpretation without using a lot of good old puritan, non-scriptural background.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    32. Re:Human after all! by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      And what is wrong with porn? It makes plenty of employment in places that it is recognised as a proper job - same argument given by so many execs from other industries.

      As to Bin Laden I am still curious as to why the US assinated him instead of capturing him. Surely they have now made a martyr out of him in some circles?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    33. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my dealings with Indian cell phone operators I've been told that the amount of porn that is browsed is proportional to the amount of muslims in the region. Correlation does not state causality though.

    34. Re:Human after all! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Well, in this case, there is probably really no room for doubt.

      That's insane... What makes this any different?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    35. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She'd definitely find it in one of her drawers, that is unless you put it in the lingerie drawer. You know, the drawer that hasn't been opened since you got married.

    36. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porn without Internet access? That's not that hard. I remember riding around on my bike with my friend as a teenager and we came across an entire garbage bag full of magazines just sitting on top of some closed dumpster somewhere. And we're not talking airbrushed Playboys here. I'm guessing someone either did a routine guilt purge or their wife found them and he was kicked out until he disposed of them.

      Since then, I just assume that porn rains from the sky and the Internet sure isn't causing me to change my mind.

    37. Re:Human after all! by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly. Some of Freud's ideas haven't aged well, but when it comes to vices, he really nailed one aspect of human nature with what he called Reaction Formation.

      --
      Ask me about my sig!
    38. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      IOW, you think that sex is only "real" if the motivation and actions involved agree with what you personally believe they should?

      In reality, sex is any stimulation of genitalia involving two or more people. The only inherent connection it has is to pleasure, not intimacy, relationship or trust.

    39. Re:Human after all! by monoqlith · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's not really the point or what he's arguing. The presumption of innocence is something we give to our worst, our very, very, very worst, most obviously guilty criminals. It was also something tribunals gave to the Nazis, some of the very worst criminals in all of world history. It is a bedrock prinicple of Western society. But we didn't give it here. Why? Well, we still don't know all the details. But if he resisted in a way where he couldn't be subdued, they sure haven't told us. It looks, from the information we do have, that he was simply assassinated, without due process of any kind.

      Look, almost every single one of us thinks Osama bin Laden was responsible to murdering 3,000 people on 9/11. But the court of public opinion doesn't have legal standing. Someone isn't exempt from due process simply because we all think he's very, very, very bad as opposed to merely very, very bad. The only legal way that we have for establishing Osama bin Laden's guilt as a legal fact is through a trial. And we didn't do that.

    40. Re:Human after all! by hellwig · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Eggs
      Milk
      Bread
      Cat Litter
      Soda
      ...
    41. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a devout Christian, I agree, sex is a natural, good, and God ordained act - between a husband and wife. As the previous poster mentioned, it is there to strengthen the bonds of marriage between husband and wife. Pornography makes light of and perverses this special and sacred act. Sacred because it is also the process of being like God - creating life.

    42. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words:

      a) Mend your ways and stop watching porn: Bring yourself to God and follow Him
      b) Study the texts and come to terms with the idea that your religion might allow you to watch porn after all: Twist the words of God to suit yourself
      c) Study your options and choose a religion you ACTUALLY agree with: Attempt to make God come to you

      You are correct, that is what people must do. Find what is truth and follow it or ignore it and make up your own truth.

    43. Re:Human after all! by Moryath · · Score: 0

      There's nothing wrong with porn (well, until you get into the realm of doing something that is illegal anyways and filming it). If you want to take the pseudo-feminist pseudo-right-wing-neanderthal position (how the hell did those two wind up on the same side for something, given that feminists are all about empowering women and the rightwing cro-magnons are all about keeping them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?) that it is "destructive to society and denigrates women", we'll have that argument another day.

      There is, however, something incredibly ironic about a massive porn collection owned by people who among other things, murder porn stars for fun because they believe porn is "evil."

    44. Re:Human after all! by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Everybody likes sex. It's weird if you don't. But is it so important, that it dictates your daily actions?

      You tell me the answer to that after you reconsider doing something because if your wife found out she'd make you sleep on the couch for a month.

    45. Re:Human after all! by PwnzerDragoon · · Score: 1
      Matthew 5:27-28:

      You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

      Seems pretty clear to me. Note that it says nothing about sex per se, just adultery - nowhere in the bible does it say sex is automatically immoral.

    46. Re:Human after all! by kubernet3s · · Score: 1

      I thought he was an enemy combatant. That makes him a soldier, not a murderer

    47. Re:Human after all! by bluemonq · · Score: 1, Troll

      If Bin Laden really was a "war combatant", as well as the rest of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, then they should have been treated as such under the Geneva Convention. Now, I don't know about needing to read him his rights, pretty sure you don't Miranda a war combatant, but it certainly raises the issue of Guantanamo and whether or not allegations of "detainees" being tortured in Iraq and the intentional killing unarmed Afghan/Iraqi civilians (which have been documented on multiple occasions) should be investigated and tried as war crimes.

      And according to the latest revision of what happened (which I guess is subject to further change depending on what the White House/Congress wants to tell us), there was no firefight in the main building. DEVGRU isn't a bunch of groundpounders, so they're not going to be going in on a turkey hunt. That being said, bin Laden was shot in the chest and either once or twice in the head after that. He was not holding a weapon, but may/may not have been able to grab a gun, depending on who's telling the story. Here's the thing, though: can you honestly say you wouldn't shoot him even if he was unarmed and had his hands in the air? And can you say a SEAL wouldn't? Unless a helmetcam video ever comes out, we'll never know for sure.

      Wait a minute, so you're saying it was wrong to shoot Bin Laden because he didn't get his day in court...? ...if you're an American, you should be ashamed of yourself.

      The greatest thing about America - what makes the United States the greatest nation on the planet - at least according to what I was taught when I was growing up, was that nobody is above the law, that nobody is beneath the law, and that the Constitution and the court are the Great Equalizers. If the case against bin Laden was such a slam dunk, then make the case. Show the world why we remain the greatest nation on earth: that even for our most hated enemy we will follow our set laws and rules, that we will not abandon our beliefs and ideals because of some deranged lunatic of an old man, and that in a time of crisis we'll stand firm. That you think that an American should be ashamed to believe that - no, NO sir, you are the one who should be ashamed.

    48. Re:Human after all! by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      As a devout Christian, I agree, sex is a natural, good, and God ordained act - between a husband and wife. As the previous poster mentioned, it is there to strengthen the bonds of marriage between husband and wife. Pornography makes light of and perverses this special and sacred act. Sacred because it is also the process of being like God - creating life.

      As a practical Catholic, I feel compelled to point out that your explanation about strengthening bonds is complete crap. The only reason the church espouses sex is because it produces more Christian children. That is why the church is against pornography, contraception, masturbation, sodomy, and homosexuality... all of those hinder the production of more Christians. Such a pro-reproductive theme is common among all religions in order to grow the religion.

      Pushing for as many children as possible in the past was an important concept when mortality rates were high due to poor medical practices, poor hygiene, and high conflict rates. However today it is irresponsible to both your existing children and to the world population. Having more children than you can afford to raise properly decreases their quality of life and sucks up excess resources.

      There's nothing wrong with being devout, but couple it with some realism. God gave you a brain so you could think for yourself. And he gave you a name so you could stop posting anonymously.

    49. Re:Human after all! by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2

      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 nakedness?

      I'm not suggesting that nudism makes sense now (or that it doesn't), but who, exactly, were they trying to cover themselves from? Each other? God? I wonder which is more absurd -- trying to hide from an all-knowing being, or trying to hide from someone you've been perfectly comfortable with naked (and perhaps more) for as long as the two of you have existed.

      The subtext is pretty clear, however: Your bodies are inherently shameful. The only reason you would think otherwise is if you were naive enough not to know any better.

      In fact, the bible does address pervertion,

      According to the Bible, homosexuality is perversion, on par with bestiality, and quite a bit worse than rape.

      it never adresses sex.

      Of course it does. Aside from the above, we see all sorts of fuss made about virgins (keep only the virgin girls of the Midianites, kill those who've lain with a man), we also have the Story of Onan -- when God tells you to get someone pregnant, you do not pull out, and this is where the Catholics get their ideas about birth control, though they are, of course, missing the point. There are also pages and pages of laws about how a wet dream will make certain things unclean, and you can't enter the sanctuary if your junk is damaged, and oh, the foreskins...

      Reading the Bible, it almost seems like God is obsessed with sex.

      However, you will notice, porn is not about real sex... Real sex however includes intimacy, relationship, trust.

      These aren't mutually exclusive, though they are fantastically rare. And I'm not sure I agree with you about "real sex" -- that sounds almost exactly like a No True Scotsman -- but that's really just bickering about your terms, and you can have the terms if you like.

      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.

      I'm not sure being "addicted to porn" or "losing touch with sexuality" is what was happening with, say, Ted Haggard. I think what was happening is his religion had taught him to be ashamed of his sexual identity.

      But to go so far as saying: its not bad at all to be sexually centered and have no self control - thats just ridiculous.

      That's the problem -- lack of self-control. I see no problem at all with being "sexually centered" -- as Wash says, "Some people juggle geese!" There are all kinds of things you could live for.

      I would not feel worse after a cigarette, than after watching porn,

      I would. The cigarette is actually unhealthy, physically -- I would actually be damaging my body, even if it wasn't physically addictive. There's nothing about porn itself which could be physically addictive, certainly nothing that you wouldn't find in actual intercourse -- do you feel similarly bad after sex?

      I don't know if you get this idea from religion, but it doesn't seem far off from the kind of pattern that we see with, say, Ted Haggard -- ashamed of his homosexuality, vocally and publicly working against gay rights in between se

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    50. Re:Human after all! by tyrione · · Score: 1

      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.

      The guilt is a byproduct of your ideological enslavement.

    51. Re:Human after all! by tyrione · · Score: 1

      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.

      Har! Har! The reference of course was her own cave of wonderment.

    52. Re:Human after all! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I thought he was an enemy combatant. That makes him a soldier, not a murderer

      He was an enemy combatant, but not a soldier. He waged war unlawfully and played a direct role in the deaths of many thousands of people by directly attacking protected persons and cultural artifacts - he was a mass murderer and war criminal. Most of his “attacks” were in fact massacres.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    53. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Bin Laden really was a "war combatant", as well as the rest of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, then they should have been treated as such under the Geneva Convention.

      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.

      Furthermore, contrary to the clan and massive stupidity, which is slashdot these days, combatants, legal or otherwise, are not protected by the US Constitution. Bin Laden was on foreign soil, and enemy of the state, and an illegal combatant. Accordingly, he receives zero legal protection under US law unless he is captured and taken into US custody.

      So bluntly, contrary to the massive stupidity run amok here, the killing was entirely lawful, even under US law. Period. End of discussion.

    54. Re:Human after all! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      He said he was a devout christian. Their religion tells them not to care whether something is natural or good by its own. What matter is what the scriptures say, or what they can read them to say in the case of evangelists, or what the pope-...-priest/tradition says, in the case of catholics.

      That's not Christianity. That's control of the masses that power hungry, holier-than-thou jerks frequently try to portray as Christianity. And since most people get everything they know - weather, politics, celebrity gossip, religion - from 30 second sound bites, they get away with it, because the vast majority don't know any better.

      The Bible doesn't condemn sex. It celebrates it. Even oral sex, which most of those power hungry, holier-than-thou jerks say is straight from the devil himself.

      There are certainly limitations on it, but they're meant to prevent the cheapening of the act, rather than as random control freakery.
      Car analogy time: That limited edition Porsche 996 GT3 RS is a fantastic car, which would be a great gift to receive from your parents for your graduation/wedding/promotion/divorce/death/whatever. But if they gave one out to everybody, and your entire street had one parked in every driveway, along with every other neighbourhood you visited, it wouldn't be as cool, would it? Your car would be the exact same as if you were the only one to have one, but it would be run of the mill boring, because you could never win a drag race against your neighbour anymore.

      That's pretty much how the Bible treats sex. It's not something to be handed out to every Tom, Dick and Harry (Harriet?) because it's an incredible gift, meant to help build relationships.

      ...<sudden revelation>

      That's actually where a lot of people screw up in what they think the Bible says about a subject. They get all hung up on the act itself; do this, don't do that, (can't you read the sign?). The Bible doesn't care about individual acts, for the most part. There's even a scripture that states everything is permissible. It then goes on, however, to say that not everything is beneficial.
      The Bible doesn't concentrate on acts, because it's more about relationships. If some act, sexual or otherwise, will build your relationships with your spouse, or those around you, then it's good. If it will harm or destroy those relationships, then it's bad. The exact same act can fall into either one of these categories, depending on the people in those relationships, and interconnections between them.

      (Yes, this is very general, and there are more issues than just this oversimplification, but for the most part, that's it.)

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    55. Re:Human after all! by VanGarrett · · Score: 2

      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, who then use that information for their own gratification-- a vice in and of itself, which is seldom called out for being just that.

      What g4b speaks of, leads directly to what you speak of. These things go hand in hand. Religion speaks to man's sense of superstition, and some men would use that to control others; sometimes knowingly, other times, obliviously.

      This is not a reason to throw out religion, though. Scriptures tend to be remarkably pure in this regard, not having the rabid mark of the zealots who would wield them as weapons. Regardless of how you view the origins of religion, the writers of the scriptures usually had a pretty good idea in mind. I can't really speak for the scriptures of Islam or Buddhism, but the Christian scriptures in particular express that peace and personal satisfaction are best achieved by benevolence and self-control, rather than violence and the control of others. We see how quickly that's corrupted, though-- it is as you both say.

    56. Re:Human after all! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "...and like Bin Ladin's record for, say mass murder, suggests some need to be further "denigrated" by the U.S. Government? Come on!"

      You are clearly a self absorbed U.S. citizen. The denigration isn't aimed at you, it's aimed at his followers.

      If his followers - i.e. muslims - don't think that being a mass murderer denigrates him, then perhaps we should just scrap the pretense about the war on terror and go all out with the war on ass-lifting moon-worshipping dune-coons?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    57. Re:Human after all! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      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.

      Did Goering and the like post videos on teh intartubes bragging about how they pwnt die j00d3n or to2lA b0mbt teh w4r5aw?

      I don't know whether to find your naivety amusingly cute or very very frightening.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    58. Re:Human after all! by Outtascope · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, contrary to the clan and massive stupidity, which is slashdot these days, combatants, legal or otherwise, are not protected by the US Constitution. Bin Laden was on foreign soil, and enemy of the state, and an illegal combatant. Accordingly, he receives zero legal protection under US law unless he is captured and taken into US custody.

      You are correct, with the exception that the foreign soil part does not matter. Everyone is afforded the rights of the U.S. Constitution regardless of nationality or locality (with only a couple of exceptions relating to elected offices and those machinations).

      But, as you said, he was a combatant. I don't believe the "illegal combatant" BS. He was a combatant. He had declared war on the United States. He engaged in acts of war against the United States (and the world for that matter). THAT is the reason that he had no constitutional rights. He deserved to die and he died in a manner far more honorable than I think he deserved. There is no question of the legality here, unless some video surfaces that shows him waving a white flag or putting his hands up, which would change the nature of the rights that he could claim. I doubt that such video exists because it is inconsistent with everything that he has portrayed himself to be.

      He was not taken into custody and then summarily executed (which I believe WOULD be illegal, whether combatant status is illegal or otherwise). He was not knelt down in front of a video camera with a bunch of cowards covering their faces, hands tied behind his back while his head was removed with a machete. He had ten years in which to attempt a diplomatic resolution via foreign courts if he had been so inclined. That boat sailed a long time ago.

    59. Re:Human after all! by Outtascope · · Score: 0

      b) Study the texts and come to terms with the idea that your religion might allow you to watch porn after all: Twist the words of God to suit yourself

      Because one's plain reading of the Bible (or any other text) does not meet your twisted interpretation, does not mean that they are doing the twisting.

    60. Re:Human after all! by xelah · · Score: 2

      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 also suggest that this will be remember the next time some Polonium 210 turns up in some sushi, too? Not everyone in the world agrees on what 'terrorist' means.

    61. Re:Human after all! by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      Nobody cares what you do with your own life.

      I hope someone does--after all, this is part of what relationships are about. If you've ever had the chance to parent / teach / etc., you'll know that molding the next generation is a significant draw... and a good one. It is not limited to the "religious" (as you note). People who care influence each of us, and they should--no one's perfect. Not only that, those who mold, if they truly care, are also molded themselves by those they teach (so it isn't just some insidious plot by the old to manipulate the young).

    62. Re:Human after all! by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      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. 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 (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 similar fate occurred to Admiral Yamamoto in World War 2. All perfectly legitimate, and legal under the Law of War.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    63. Re:Human after all! by rohan972 · · Score: 2

      Reading the Bible, it almost seems like God is obsessed with sex.

      God made man in his own image?

    64. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Wow man, way to insist that everyone is the same. Here's this one guy just saying addictions aren't always good just because they part of being human, and being completely reasonable and tolerant of the way people live their lives. And then here comes you say the religious are all psychopaths bent on either burning people at the stake or posting Youtube videos? Bizarre.

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

      Religion doesn't make people crazy. It does, however, occasionally function as an excuse for the crazy (or stupid).

    65. Re:Human after all! by bluemonq · · Score: 3, 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.

    66. Re:Human after all! by bluemonq · · Score: 1

      He deserved to die and he died in a manner far more honorable than I think he deserved. There is no question of the legality here, unless some video surfaces that shows him waving a white flag or putting his hands up, which would change the nature of the rights that he could claim. I doubt that such video exists because it is inconsistent with everything that he has portrayed himself to be.

      Lest my previous comment suggest otherwise, I shed no tears at that individual's death; I want to make that clear. However, we didn't expect Saddam Hussein to be found in a ditch outside a hut either, now did we?

    67. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a shame there isn't a -100 Nazi moderation option.

    68. Re:Human after all! by akh · · Score: 1

      Apart from the straw man at the end all your examples involved opposing violence or hatred in some form. I think what the previous poster was alluding to was hating people who are causing no harm to anyone simply because their existence reminds you of something that you hate about yourself. Some better examples:

      Hating asians because you have three black grandparents and one asian one and you think that fact goes against your black identity.

      Hating muslims because one of your grandparents was muslim and the other three jewish and you feel this goes against your jewish identity.

      Hating women because you are a man who is secretly transgendered and feel your culture won't let you express your identity.

      And, of course, hating all queer folk because you are secretly a lesbian and your church won't let you express your identity.

      It all boils down to hating oneself. Some people face the fact that they are a certain way and choose to love themselves for who they are. Others try to externalize their self-hatred by attacking others like themselves.

      --
      Accept Eris as your Fnord and personally sate her
    69. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazis? Like, those people in the SS who recruited Balkan Muslims during World War 2 to assist them in maintaining concentration camps?

    70. Re:Human after all! by cavebison · · Score: 1

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

      Without things to feel guilty about in the world, is there point being religious? It would seem healthier though, to keep it down to murder, theft, etc. and not ridiculous things like enjoying being a sexually active human being and accepting that science is the best way to find out stuff.

      There's real evil enough in the world to denounce. The rest is trivial and a distraction.

    71. Re:Human after all! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      IANAP, but I don't think he quoted the *whole*
        Bible there.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    72. Re:Human after all! by AlanS2002 · · Score: 1

      It's been a long time since I read any of that book, but I don't remember the bit that said "Thy shall not touch thyself".

      --
      Not all conservatives are stupid,
      but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
      - Hume
    73. Re:Human after all! by bjourne · · Score: 1

      This is what is called PSYOPs. Is it important news if ObL had porn or not? No, it isn't and the only use for it is to smear his name in the Arab world. There is no reason not to believe that the story is completely made up by US authorities to serve a political purpose.

    74. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my own personal made-up statistics show that most men have some porn stashed somewhere

      You mean, you only surveyed yourself and found that 100% of the people asked had some porn stashed somewhere?

    75. Re:Human after all! by dlgeek · · Score: 1

      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.

      Murder? No. Execution? Yes.

      The Geneva Convention states:

      Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be treated as a spy.

      A spy is:

      [A person] acting clandestinely or on false pretences, he obtains or endeavours to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.

      Spies are not protected by international law and are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they are caught. Many of these jurisdictions, including the US, treat espionage as a capital offense. CIA operatives are treated no differently. That's why it's a dangerous job.

    76. Re:Human after all! by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Nothing. That's why I added the part that you did not quote - the part about proper legal procedure distinguishing us from the barbarians. I am on your side here.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    77. Re:Human after all! by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      So, as you acknowledge a state of war between the US and the finely defined entity of "terror" - if an Al Quaida operative were to shoot your president, or a member of congress or perhaps one of the chiefs of staff - that would be an legitimate act also? I guess you'd scream bloody murder then.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    78. Re:Human after all! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but very strict religiously Islamic or Christians shouldn't have porn according to their respective teachings.

      Some septs ("churches" for Christians) may have that interpretation. But all? Come off it - we're talking about religions! For every single "deeply held belief" there is certain to be some sept elsewhere who takes the precisely opposite point of view. And to an outsider there is going to be no way to distinguish which one is any more right than the other. That's part of the fun of religions - you can pick anything you want to to believe and you'll no longer be alone.

      But I also carefully note the wording of TFS : porn has allegedly been found in the compound. Not "under Osama's bed". Not "porn with Osama's fingerprints on it". Not "jazz mag with Osama's jizz sticking the pages together". There were other people living in the compound too.

      Hell, it could even (if it exists) be one Osama's wife's porn stash. There are Islamic prohibitions on men looking at other men's women ; there may be Islamic prohibitions on women looking at men other than their owners ; but I haven't heard of a prohibition on Islamic women looking at other women. So who's to say that the porn isn't Osama's hotter younger wife's stash of girl-on-girl action?

      Does anyone know what the Islamic position is on beastiality porn? The Arab non-joke about "a boy for pleasure, a woman for children and a goat for warmth" raises even more questions.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    79. Re:Human after all! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Yes, well, you still said the part I did quote.. That's what stands out. That's why I asked the question.. You advocate following procedure, but you're going into it with the preconception that '..in this case, there is probably really no room for doubt'.. That, I believe would, and should get you thrown off the jury. And since it appears that finding an unbiased jury would be damn near impossible, there is probably really no room for a fair trial.. Eh, whatever, the argument is moot now.. but we do have a clear case of obstruction..and nobody cares, because we all 'know' he's guilty, and as it turns out, we really are 'random barbarians', which will lead us into another dark age of utter savagery.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    80. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make a statement without backing it up with any sort of proof. The idea that people who object to 'something' are more likely to do/be 'something' is ridiculous and poorly conceived. If I strongly object to driving foreign cars, then most likely I won't be driving one. Of coarse there will always be hypocrites, but they are usually the outliers and they don't represent the rest of the defined population.

    81. Re:Human after all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion doesn't make people crazy.

      Most religions encourage people to see things only one way. They encourage you to interpret everything you see in a way that is compatible with their beliefs. It's pretty much the opposite of critical thinking, and it creates the kind of blindness that allows for irrational beliefs to flourish and be held as sacred.

    82. Re:Human after all! by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      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.

      I tend to think, unless he had a suicide vest or a gun or another potentially lethal weapon (knife), that if it was possible to subdue him without being seriously injured or killed he should have been subdued. Interestingly, the President announced that bin Laden had been "captured and killed." Well, that's a problem - if he had been captured, he should have been tried, and then killed. If he was killed because he resisted or because he might have had a suicide vest on, that's another story altogether. Since we don't know all the details of this mission and we might never know them, I can't really evaluate what happened. Until I hear more details about how bin Laden resisted, I'm inclined to believe he should have been subdued and arrested as a POW or international criminal.

      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.

      Where did I say I support bin Laden? Because I said he was a war criminal and murderer who deserves a trial? I support a rapist's right to a trial, too, but I do not support rape. These are the critical distinctions made by the bill of rights. We can be civil and just at the same time. People should be able to have reasonable disagreements about issues of law and constitutional protections without calling each other un-American or anti-American. In fact,I'm arguing this because I believe the U.S. Constitution derives its power from being universalizable. So it's because I believe in America and the U.S. that I'm arguing bin Laden should have had his day in court before being executed, if he was in fact captured before he was killed.

    83. Re:Human after all! by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      That is such a manipulative lie. That started to get floated around the time that homosexuals were coming out of the closet so as to shut up opposition as 'real' men who had whatthey felt real and valid objections didn't want to be labelled as the enemy. If that old maxim is true that must make me a black homosexual jewish trombone player. Feel free to mod me down especially when you don't really know why you are doing it

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    84. Re:Human after all! by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, we are wired to obey the need, very firmly. Oh, and as someone coming from the other way - yes I think that being sexually indiscriminant is a good thing - you wouldn't believe the torture I'm going through trying to find a meaningful relationship. I'd much rather be like Charlie Sheen - knows what he wants, knows how to get it, and won't take any shit about it. But it's not up to me. I'm a sensitive, caring romantic, in touch with his emotions, seeking acceptance - and I fucking hate my self for it. Why? I'm 17 - I have many years of such torture awaiting me.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  2. Too cynical? by XxtraLarGe · · 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.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Too cynical? by hamvil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

    2. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only makes him more human.

    3. Re:Too cynical? by the_one(2) · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    4. Re:Too cynical? by Xeranar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fuck you and your "US people" comment. We are a country of 300 million people and are not all the same. Stop it already.

    6. Re:Too cynical? by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    7. Re:Too cynical? by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ... which is what our imbecilic author is implying.

      Are you implying that Timothy has a less-than-perfect IQ score?

    8. Re:Too cynical? by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 0, Troll

      I find the whole celebrating the execution of an old man in front of his family thing pretty distasteful.
      Maybe the execution was necessary, the gloating is just sad.

    9. Re:Too cynical? by tverbeek · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    10. Re:Too cynical? by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    11. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the fucked-up thing is that you are more right than you think.

      Only because the amount of hypocrites in the US/Iran (and UK/Australia/Pakistan/Afghanistan to some extend) is so very high, and those types (who have a zero percent overlap with Slashdotters ;) actually act, like it would be something weird, unusual or even bad, for a grown man, to have/watch porn.
      (The ones who feel so extremely ashamed after it, that they repress their instincts, until it bursts out, and the rape someone^Wanyone^Wanything really.;)

      Which is severely sick and on the brink of mental illness, as you will agree. But "It's a Jersey^Wreligion thing.", so we assumed that anyway. ;)

      P.S.: I told a friend from the middle east yesterday: Why can't the US just go back to when they got a man on the moon after only 10 years of work!? Now that was awesome! Every child on the planet wanted to wear that (US-flagged) space suit!

    12. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, it's not like anyone that doesn't believe FAUX news is going to believe the US government anyway, whether they were bin Laden supporters or not.

      Fixed it for you.

    13. Re:Too cynical? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      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.

    14. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, it's not like Muslims are going to believe the US government anyway, whether they were bin Laden supporters or not.

      So everyone who is Muslim, wherever they may be, whatever their nationality, never believes the US government?

    15. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    16. Re:Too cynical? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 0

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

      It's intended for the catholic church? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    17. Re:Too cynical? by ccandreva · · Score: 3, 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.

    18. Re:Too cynical? by Bing+Tsher+E · · 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.

    19. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is not the only (or even most) sexphobic society in the world

      Have any of you describing the US as "sexphobic" actually watched any US TV, movies, etc? Just about all mainstream media is saturated with examples of sexuality, some of it borders on pornography.

      So what would the US have to do to be thought of as NOT sexphobic by you? Have a picture-in-picture on every channel of hardcore intercourse? People having sex openly in the streets? There is a difference between sexphobic and civilized.

      As to Bin Laden--when you have a man preaching his religion, which vilifies those who do things like watch pornography, it's a very useful tool against him to say "Hey, this jackass does exactly what he tells you not to do" ... that kind of a thing happens all the time in the world, but in this case the roll model is promoting suicide missions to kill others, so anything that can be done to expose what a hypocrite he is is worthwhile... and as someone pointed out, the man is dead, but his mission and mantra are not. He must be 100% exposed as the cruel and insane genocidal maniac he was, he is a cult leader, and it's now time to make sure that his former cultists can break from his spell.

    20. Re:Too cynical? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It's almost like we have become the same as the millions in the 'Arab Street' who gloated when thousands of innocent people were killed on 11 September.

      Maybe there's just human nature at play.

    21. Re:Too cynical? by aBaldrich · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
    22. Re:Too cynical? by guyminuslife · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, it's not like Muslims are going to believe the US government anyway

      You don't have to believe something, it doesn't have to be true, for it to have significant propaganda value. There was a study done...I don't remember the exact details...where people who had been told terrible things about a person were more likely to have a negative reaction toward that person, even after they'd been told later that they'd been lied to.

      That's really the deal with, say, the whole Obama-Socialist-Commie-Muslim-Terrorist-Foreigner thing. It's been consciously played up by right-wing propagandists, not because they think that people will consciously change their minds because they are actually convinced: the people who are out calling for birth certificates were already voting Republican. It's because even if you recognize it as lies and manipulation, it's still an effective tactic for shifting (not necessarily changing) attitudes.

      Richard Gere stuck a gerbil up his asshole as a gay sex thing. It's not true, but it's certainly one of the first things I think of when I see Richard Gere. Or was it a hamster? I don't know, it's a totally made-up story anyway. That pervert.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    23. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Talk about an overreaction, man you Americans are a touchy lot.

    24. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please name a state where pornographic movies are rated for lower ages than violent movies.

    25. Re:Too cynical? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3

      "So what would the US have to do to be thought of as NOT sexphobic by you?"

      1. Page Three.
      2. No significent outrage against it.

    26. Re:Too cynical? by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    27. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree . I have always felt that given the chance I would have shot the man with no hesitation or remorse, but to dance and cheer at the death of another is in pretty poor taste. Is this any worse than when jihadists cheer at bombings?

      We are supposed to be better, civilized, and more respectful of human life. How about we act like it and show some gravitas when we are required to end one.

    28. Re:Too cynical? by Fnord666 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      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.

      Also known as the Fox News' mission statement.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    29. Re:Too cynical? by Hultis · · Score: 1

      I wonder how long it will take them to find pork and drugs in his house. Maybe even get creative and throw in some controversial literature as well?

    30. Re:Too cynical? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Have any of you describing the US as "sexphobic" actually watched any US TV, movies, etc? Just about all mainstream media is saturated with examples of sexuality, some of it borders on pornography.

      Seriously? It's obvious to me whenever I'm watching US TV shows, because the scene ends as soon as there's more than the suggestion of nudity. This doesn't happen in UK TV shows (except the ones aimed at children), and we're considered pretty sexually repressed by the rest of Europe...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    31. Re:Too cynical? by CheshireFerk-o · · Score: 0

      You are not thinking republican enough than! Just like a stance against/for abortion nets them a few thousand votes, if in 50 years from now this was proven to be made up by media/gov, I for one would not be surprised at all.

    32. Re:Too cynical? by Jiro · · Score: 2

      Except without the "innocent" part.

    33. Re:Too cynical? by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      ...have been for at least 50 years.

      More like since the whiskey rebellion... resistance is not only futile, it's fatal. You WILL comply, and groupthink says you WILL believe!

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    34. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so funny when the word "US" and some negative comment are in the same sentence, it's always get modded troll or flamebait.

      Hey, US people, if you deliberately deny everything people say to you, you just become more moron every time.


      Posting as AC to preserve karma.

    35. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the more anti US people in the world will say that this makes the US-claims less trustworthy and it encourages many people to think that the USA is throwing dirt. You don't do this. Not even on dead criminals. You shouldn't do it when people life, but on dead it is even more disturbing (to say the least). In the end it is another thing on the list of immoral behavior from the USA. So publishing this is contra productive.

    36. Re:Too cynical? by darjen · · Score: 2, 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.

    37. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the allegations were true it would be one instance showing the hypocrisy of bin Laden. it would show him to be a man who succumbs to private feelings of lust even while he publicly denounces the depravity and corruption of the West.

    38. Re:Too cynical? by belthize · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm sure he got a 100 on the test and only missed the extra credit question.

    39. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please name a state where pornographic movies are rated for lower ages than violent movies.

      Euphoria.

    40. Re:Too cynical? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Uh... it's "role model", not "roll model".

      And yes, my mom believes Rhianna performances qualify as pornography. Like many pop stars, she makes a better stripper than singer.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    41. Re:Too cynical? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      99% of bin Laden's fans watch porn too, so I doubt that it will have much of an effect. While any detail about his personal life makes him seem less mythical, most religions seem to coexist quite well with prostitution, pederasty, etc.; and Islam can't condemn masturbation too much since it makes accessing women difficult at times.

    42. Re:Too cynical? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it is justifiable to commit a harm to prevent a greater harm. Bin Laden had publicly announced his desire to kill thousands more people; if his death in any way helps to prevent future acts of terrorism, it is justifiable. It is NOT justified as vengeance for past acts. While we may be relieved that people are somehow safer now, it is never appropriate to "celebrate" the violent death of another human being.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    43. Re:Too cynical? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I made a journal about it.. for a basic idea of what it's about,, read up on the Standford Prison Experiment... I show how easy it is to confirm the results without having to actually lock people up

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    44. Re:Too cynical? by Jessified · · Score: 2

      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!!

    45. Re:Too cynical? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 4, 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.

    46. Re:Too cynical? by popeye44 · · Score: 1

      I work in a place where we have a large percentage of people from the middle east. Most of these people are Muslim. The day after this happened there was groups between 4-6 each all over the building having quiet discussions in a foreign language. Now I'm not a racist. I believe we're all of a single race. But it made me very nervous. Because whether it was the weather or the killing of this guy.. I have no way of knowing. I have no way of knowing if there was some secret plan being put into operation. I fear they upheld this man secretly while publicly denying his actions.. But other than some whispers in another language I really have no idea what was being said.

      --
      Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
    47. Re:Too cynical? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, 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?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    48. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the first part of your comment. However, I don't know why the first part being true would automatically make the last two parts true. Yes, it is embarrassing for these materials to be found. Yes, the US has a vested interest in revealing this information. That doesn't automatically mean the information is false.

    49. Re:Too cynical? by metacell · · Score: 1

      Have any of you describing the US as "sexphobic" actually watched any US TV, movies, etc? Just about all mainstream media is saturated with examples of sexuality, some of it borders on pornography.

      I wouldn't call the USA sexophobic, but yes, I've watched lots of american shows and tv series, and yes, I think the attitude towards sex is a little more tense than, for example, Europe.

      To understand this, I think we need to make clear the difference between sexuality and pornography. For example, lots of shows show girls in bikinis on the beach, or strippers dancing with a pole - that's pornography. But few shows show sexual acts, and even fewer show sexuality as something everyday and normal - like two ordinary parents having sex under a blanket while their infant sleeps.

      Sex And The City broke a barrier in American TV - it showed nipples, sexually aggressive females talking about sex in a vulgar fashion, and parts of sexual acts. But it also emphasized that freely enjoying sex was something extraordinary, something for big-city career women with multiple partners. I think it would have been even more provoking to the American public to show four ordinary small-town moms sit down at a diner and talk about sex with their husbands, because that's closer to the reality most Americans live in.

      So what would the US have to do to be thought of as NOT sexphobic by you? Have a picture-in-picture on every channel of hardcore intercourse?

      People talking about sex in casual conversation without making a joke of it or intending it to be titillating.

      As to Bin Laden--when you have a man preaching his religion, which vilifies those who do things like watch pornography, it's a very useful tool against him to say "Hey, this jackass does exactly what he tells you not to do" ...

      Makes sense to me.

    50. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn the language, or STFU.

    51. Re:Too cynical? by metacell · · Score: 1

      P.S. If the attitude towards sex becomes more relaxed, I think the amount of sexual innuendo and partial nudity in TV shows and movies will actually go down. The need to live out one's sexual desires vicariously through the actors becomes less.

      And one more thing: my SO and I have noticed that when couples in American sitcoms are shown after sex, the female is always wearing a bra, so they can sit up in the bed and talk without risking that the TV audience sees part of a breast. My SO and I joke that American women must always be wearing their bras during sex :)

    52. Re:Too cynical? by hamvil · · Score: 1

      So what would the US have to do to be thought of as NOT sexphobic by you? Have a picture-in-picture on every channel of hardcore intercourse? People having sex openly in the streets? There is a difference between sexphobic and civilized.

      No, it would be enough NOT to consider pornography as something you can use to reduce the credibility of someone. The (in your opinion) extremes that your are citing just show how uncomfortable you are with the idea of making love to someone in a public place you even go so far as making this discomfort a driving force behind your definition of "civilized".

    53. Re:Too cynical? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      They probably were discussing whether they should get the fuck out before getting rounded up and put in some concentration camp, no? All a matter of perception, when you don't understand a word. That "I am no racist" disclaimer, well...think about it.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    54. Re:Too cynical? by funkelectric · · Score: 2
      Here is some very interesting coverage regarding one of the incidents that you mention:

      "Mommy has dirty chest bumps," said a 5-year-old boy quoted in one of the thousands of case studies compiled by the FCC. "She's like the bad lady on TV. I'm afraid Mommy will take off her shirt and scare everyone. I hate Mommy." Girls were traumatized as well, often expressing apprehensions about sexual development. According to Wasserbaum, one 8-year-old girl told her parents that she didn't "want to get evil breasts."

      This publication is a welcome voice of reason.

    55. Re:Too cynical? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      As to Bin Laden--when you have a man preaching his religion, which vilifies those who do things like watch pornography, it's a very useful tool against him to say "Hey, this jackass does exactly what he tells you not to do" ...

      Only if said followers have some reason to believe you. As it is, all this will do is make Osama seem like a martyr: "they killed him, and now they are spreading lies about him!"

      Truth is a weapon you can wield only if you have a reputation for truthfulness, and, well, this is US Government we are talking about.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    56. Re:Too cynical? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that fake, a replay of a celebration after a football game IIRC?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    57. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quote-and-quote deviant sexuality

      You don't have to do air quotes when you can actually type the quotes. An the phrase is actually "quote, unquote"

    58. Re:Too cynical? by artor3 · · Score: 1

      There are only tern countries in the world that meet that standard, according to Wikipedia.

    59. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ^W thing is cute and clever maybe once. More than that makes your post annoying and unreadable.

    60. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, last night I'm just surfing the channels looking for a movie to watch on HBO and I end up seeing two guys barebacking on my TV screen for some sex special. I'll grant you, it's a pay station and they only seem to show these sex specials at certain times, but HBO isn't exactly the Playboy Channel. In fact, I'm guessing they don't show gay sex on the Playboy Channel at all.

      The US pretty much is the capital of porn. Sure there exist porn-phobic people in the US, but I'm pretty sure than instead of being incarcerated, the director of that special was instead attending the Adult Video Awards in Sunny Las Vegas.

      Comparing the US to even a run of the mill semi-secular Muslim country in terms of sexual "freedom" is probably just evidence that the person making that statement has no idea what they are talking about.

    61. Re:Too cynical? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Or it could be that spending time interrupting plot to watch people getting laid in unconvincing ways is a waste. We all know what happens when you have sex, I'm not entirely sure how the plot is moved forward by depicting it. Unless you are watching some sort of romance movie, anyway.

      Now if only they could trim down on the gratuitous violence, which is our particular vice, we could actually make a stab at making good movies.

      I'm not against sex, incidentally, but you can get that on the Internet any time you want, in full choreographed splendour. If I am going to spend 8-10 dollars on a movie, it's not going to be to watch two overpaid actors swapping spit or other fluids.

    62. Re:Too cynical? by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 1

      There may be few countries that meet all proposals, but there are scores of countries that meet at least one of them.

    63. Re:Too cynical? by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should consider that these people all realized what this meant for them. That folks such as yourself would now cast an uneasy eye their way and begin doing things like kicking them off of airplane flights because of the way they look or dress. Do you recall the man who was killed shortly after 9-11 for no other reason than the fact that he wore a turban? Perhaps it was acts such as that on their minds. Realize that Bin Laden used their religion to justify a truly horrible act of aggression, it's quite possible that these people were discussing it much like we might if Billy Graham or Jesse Jackson did something equally stupid and claimed responsibility for having killed many people of another faith in their homeland. If you lived in that same homeland wouldn't YOU feel uneasy about it? If you were of that faith and devout wouldn't YOU feel uneasy about what a supposed leader had done?

      I work with Muslims too and when this occurred they were horrified and aggrieved just like the rest of us. What you saw was their humanity, not some secret plot. That they discussed it on a language you didn't understand had less to do with you and more to do with the fact that it was likely a language they knew better and could express feelings in more easily. Maybe they didn't want you to hear them discussing the very serious religious implications of what this man had just done in their name. He called them to holy war and while certainly many answered quite a few more did NOT and I'm sure that there was discussion abut this...

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    64. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Perhaps the intended target for this particular information is not Bin Ladens supporters at all, but the average US and/or European citizen. Keeping your horses in the stable, so to speak.

    65. Re:Too cynical? by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 1

      To understand this, I think we need to make clear the difference between sexuality and pornography. For example, lots of shows show girls in bikinis on the beach, or strippers dancing with a pole - that's pornography.

      Your definition of pornography is quite different then my definition. If the girl (or boy, for that matter) is clothed, it is not pornography. As an example for a even stricter definition of pornography, in Germany, for anything to count as pornography, it has at least to show penetration, or depict genitals in a "provoking" manner (e.g. an erect penis, or a slose-up shout of a vagina.)

    66. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quote-and-quote deviant sexuality

      You don't have to do air quotes when you can actually type the quotes. An the phrase is actually "quote, unquote"

      Its "quote, endquote" in the US

      http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/quote,+end+quote

    67. Re:Too cynical? by feynmanfan1 · · Score: 1

      I would like to point out that it is possible this was used for steganography, hiding messages inside common images so that they would not attract attention. Basically pornography is really common on the internet. It does make for good U.S. propaganda though. A note about steganography should be prominent on a tech sight like slashdot, just goes to show how how crappy slashdot has gotten. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography#Digital_steganography

    68. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it does make sense that the most repressed sexually act out in such unhealthy ways. We can't just become asexual because of some arbitrary "because god said so" nonsense.

    69. Re:Too cynical? by poliscipirate · · Score: 2

      If we're thinking of the same study, I think the subject had to believe the information was true before being told it was a lie for it to have an effect. If the subject dismissed the information outright, then telling them that it was a lie afterward actually increased their attachment to the subject of the propaganda. The interesting thing is that many of the tests subjects who initially believed it, were then told it was a lie, then later completely forgot about the propaganda still had substantially negative opinions about the propaganda target. The emotional meaning of the information was retained, but the factual information was discarded.

      This raises the possibility that this propaganda isn't aimed at Muslims, but at us. Since we're more likely to believe it initially even if it's false, this could be an attempt to further solidify our dislike of OBL. It could have something to do with the increasing calls for an investigation into the legality of his killing by the left.

    70. Re:Too cynical? by Americano · · Score: 1

      It has less to do with "ZOMG SEX" than it does with painting him as a hypocrite, who was happy to tell his followers to follow strict muslim laws, and then flout them in his own private life. Much like you'd roll your eyes and say "Yeah whatever," if a man with a plate full of bacon was sitting there telling you how horrible and filthy pork is, and how nobody should ever eat it, or even be allowed to smell it.

      But don't let the obviousness of that derail your attempt at bashing Americans as if 300+ million people all hew to the same cultural norms. Get your hate on, brah!

    71. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Did we seriously not know this before? I don't know what you're definition of we is, so I won't assume, but did you really buy into the whole "they're trying to take over the world" shit?

    72. Re:Too cynical? by hamvil · · Score: 1

      E Pluribus Unum

    73. Re:Too cynical? by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Now don't tell me he was a pastafarian???

    74. Re:Too cynical? by Americano · · Score: 1

      ... and?

    75. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your book don't count. Even al-qaeda has acknowledge that bin Laden is dead. Now Obama has shown the world that the US don't fool around. It makes up a bit for the tarnish of non-existing WMD and hollow "bring it on".

      Dumping bin Laden in the sea was a brilliant move. Swift and effective operation by the Navy SEALS, collecting the body together with valuable information, giving bin Laden a muslim burial and then make the man disappear in the sea without a grave for his followers to worship. All within 24 hours. The mysterious and dangerous terrorist that the worlds superpowers - Soviet and the USA - couldn't catch, removed without ever being aware of that he was in any immediate danger or without his allies in Pakistan and beyond able to protect him. It gives any wanna be terrorist leader the message to never feel safe.

      And no picture of the dead body surrounded by his enemies, like Che Guevara, you know the guy on all those t-shirts. Or distasteful treatment of the dead body that shows bad taste even to people who despise the guy, like Mussolini. Even bin Laden's followers will see that bin Laden attacked the US and the US military responded in a strong way. And they did without the need to trample on muslim values or the need to lower itself to the behavior of brutal terrorists and criminals.

    76. Re:Too cynical? by m50d · · Score: 1

      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?

      I'd rather have the choice. I can't imagine getting splattered on the pavement is any more painful than being shot; probably less in fact. And either way you get a few minutes to make whatever peace you want to, maybe even send a few text messages to loved ones. Not that I think for a moment the attack was justified, but there are far worse ways to die.

      --
      I am trolling
    77. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon - If they were just making it up, the government would have been more descriptive and said it was gay and tranny porn.

      Whatever it was, I doubt it was Bin Laden's. It probably belonged to one of the younger guys, maybe the couriers.... someone without multiple wives.

    78. Re:Too cynical? by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Ever seen Dead Hitler? No?

    79. Re:Too cynical? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This only has any propaganda value if there is some proof. For the lack of proof, Islamic fundamentalists are just going to discount this as an amateur attempt to smear the name of the martyr.

      In fact, this flies directly into the face of previous claims that Osama's photos are not released so as to not "fuel hatred" against Americans. The guy was considered a hero by many people out there - now they come out and say that he was partial to porn? Not only will this be disbelieved, but I'd imagine that a lot of the same people will be highly offended by such claims.

    80. Re:Too cynical? by cold+fjord · · 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.

      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?

      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

      ... 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

      Al Qaeda has announced he is dead:
      Text: Al Qaeda statement confirming bin Laden's death

      Iran says he is dead:
      Iran's intelligence chief says bin Laden died long before the 'alleged raid'

      Family members denounce his death:
      My father's death was criminal and I may sue the U.S.

      Locals protest his death:
      Pakistani tribesmen protest

      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?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    81. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also known as the Fox News' mission statement.

      Another faux insight on Fox news.

    82. Re:Too cynical? by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

      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.

      I don't buy it either. I think he was taken alive and is now in an ultra secret interrogation facility. If you were president what would you want, a dead man or a detainee? People say he wouldn't talk. I think the spooks know how to make people talk.

      If the world knew he was alive you'd have to put him in a place like Gitmo. You would have to treat him well so non-incriminating video could be taken for the press. Also, his subordinates would change EVERYTHING fearing that he might spill a few beans.

      He is likely heavily drugged and undergoing the most "enhanced" interrogation imaginable.

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    83. Re:Too cynical? by metacell · · Score: 1

      Ok, it's not important if we call it pornography. Let's call it titillation instead.

    84. Re:Too cynical? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      i read something similar a few months back, tho there it showed that people would stick to what they where told first even when presented with evidence of the contrary.

      As for liking or disliking him, meh. To me pron is nothing special, and the find shows to me that it was humans involved rather then say "demons".

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    85. Re:Too cynical? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      A note about steganography should be prominent on a tech sight like slashdot, just goes to show how how crappy slashdot has gotten.

      No, it's because most of us realise that stenography does not require the use of pornographic images, making the possibility of stenography irrelevant to the presence of pornography.

    86. Re:Too cynical? by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      If they had wanted to make people disregard skepticism, especially in the US, then they would have said they found child porn. The fact that it's regular porn suggests that it's probably not a plant.

    87. Re:Too cynical? by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      "99% of bin Laden's fans..."

      But I wasn't talking about them. Work on your reading comprehension.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    88. Re:Too cynical? by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      "...Islamic fundamentalists...."

      But I wasn't talking about them. Work on your reading comprehension.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    89. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on a tech sight like slashdot

      you probably mean "a tech site like Slashdot"

      You apparently are one of the contributors to whatever crappyness is infecting the site...

    90. Re:Too cynical? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      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.

      Eh, that statement doesn't make much sense... if it wouldn't change people's opinions, there would be no reason to release it if it WASN'T true. If they made it up and that gets discovered, it would be much worse for the US govt's reputation, and there would be absolutely no reason to risk that.

    91. Re:Too cynical? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It equally applies to the "reluctantly supportive" category that you have mentioned. They are far more likely to believe that this is a deliberate attempt to smear, leading them to give more credence to Osama's beliefs, not less.

    92. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why wouldn't right-wing propagandists use this tactic to discredit Obama? It seemed to work well enough when left-wing propagandists did it to Bush.

    93. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, it's not like Muslims are going to believe the US government anyway, whether they were bin Laden supporters or not.

      So everyone who is Muslim, wherever they may be, whatever their nationality, never believes the US government?

      Correct, but it has nothing to do with them begin Muslim. It's more like "no one believes the US government".

    94. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      What did I to you, buddy?

    95. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Well, to be honest the actual "seed of doubt" has been there for a long time. Most people only get their info spoon-fed by the headlines, so they aren't aware that he grew up as a spoiled rich kid from Saudi Arabia, and was actually intensely disliked by most Muslims because he was as big of a dick to them as he has been to the US. He supposedly renounced that life, which most people never really believed, and whaddyaknow here he's got himself a fat little villa, living in a pretty posh area of the region, safe and sound, and it looks like he took out an advance on his 72 virgins to boot. The porn is just icing on the cake.

    96. Re:Too cynical? by feynmanfan1 · · Score: 1

      But pornography is probably the most common thing broadcast on the internet, if you want to hide in a crowd of clowns, dress like a clown. You seem to miss one of the basic points of steganography (also check your spelling, it is not 'stenography').

    97. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are people having a hard time believing a man had pornography?

    98. Re:Too cynical? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the U.S. isn't claiming that Osama bin Laden watched any of the pornography. They're claiming they found it at the compound and they don't know who watched it. Which is pretty cagey actually. Al'Qaeda supporters have to choose between denying that Osama bin Laden watched porn or ignoring the claim. Since the U.S. government isn't claiming that Osama watched any of it, there's no clear attack on Osama to defend. If they choose to ignore it, it will eat away at the image of Osama from the edges, if they deny it stridently, they publicise it to their followers and may, in fact, convince their followers that he did watch porn.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    99. Re:Too cynical? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I just gave you a couple of upmods in other posts, but PLEASE don't crapflood or troll again, OK?

    100. Re:Too cynical? by webmistressrachel · · Score: 0

      Oh, never troll again? :-(

      I can understand that I got burnt and I deserved it for the crapflood, but never troll again?

      That's like asking me to never post again, since before the crapflood most of my posts were just opinions others rated as trolls... not actual trolls...

      ps... did you like my crapflood? I pwn that article, and it's gonna be archived with loads of my posts upmodded... i know, i know, what a bitch...

      pps... mucho appreciated. It's nice to know someone likes me here :-)

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    101. Re:Too cynical? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of images that are not porn, enough so that if you are opposed to porn, steganography would not be a motivation at all to use porn. It's not like a non-porn image arouses suspicions. For example, a google image search for "insects" yielded "About 3,930,000 results (0.21 seconds)".
      As for the spelling, oops!

    102. Re:Too cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      25% of total search engine requests are porn-related. Just because there are a lot of results for insects does not mean there is a lot of insect related internet traffic on the internet, just a lot of web pages no one looks at. For steganography what matters is what average people actually download. If you were agnostic about what to use for steganography porn would be obviously the most effective choice. When you are worried about the U.S. govt raiding your home and putting a couple bullets in your head I'm sure you too would be agnostic about what you used for steganography. Damn disappointing that one has to explain this stuff to slashdot users. Slashdot seems to be overwhelmed by a bunch of bible thumping DOD employees.

    103. Re:Too cynical? by feynmanfan1 · · Score: 1

      25% of total search engine requests are porn-related. Just because there are a lot of results for insects does not mean there is a lot of insect related internet traffic on the internet, just a lot of web pages no one looks at. For steganography what matters is what average people actually download. If you were agnostic about what to use for steganography porn would be obviously the most effective choice. When you are worried about the U.S. govt raiding your home and putting a couple bullets in your head I'm sure you too would be agnostic about what you used for steganography. Damn disappointing that one has to explain this stuff to slashdot users. Slashdot seems to be overwhelmed by a bunch of bible thumping DOD employees.

    104. Re:Too cynical? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      If you were agnostic about what to use for steganography porn would be obviously the most effective choice. When you are worried about the U.S. govt raiding your home and putting a couple bullets in your head I'm sure you too would be agnostic about what you used for steganography.

      If, however, you promote yourself as a fundamentalist muslim leader (or any other anti-porn religious leader) who welcomes the opportunity of glorious martyrdom, willing to kill people for no other reason than they are sinners in the eyes of your religion and it then turns out that when it comes to porn you are agnostic, that's news. Damn disappointing that one has to explain this stuff to slashdot users.

      The fact that 25% of search engine requests are for porn is irrelevant since you can still upload and download non-pornographic images without arousing the slightest suspicion that you are using steganography.

      Slashdot seems to be overwhelmed by a bunch of bible thumping DOD employees.

      And people who can't explain their point without baseless ad hominem attacks. I'm neither promoting the DoD nor saying that porn is bad or religion is good. I do believe that much religious influence in the world would be weakened if the hypocrisy of the leaders is exposed, therefore I welcome this news about a well known religious leader, just as I am glad when catholic abuse is exposed (glad at the exposure, of course, not the abuse) or the hypocritical antics of any other religious leaders comes to light.

      I don't care who uses porn. I'd much rather people use porn than commit murder for their religion, for example. However if an influential fundamentalist religious leader is caught with porn they should be ridiculed for it at every opportunity until they are no longer influential.

    105. Re:Too cynical? by feynmanfan1 · · Score: 1

      willing to kill people for no other reason than they are sinners in the eyes of your religion

      You are misrepresenting the facts of why these people are angry. According to the article "Why they hate us" by Harvard professor Stephen Walt 288,000 is a low ball estimate for the number of Muslims killed by the U.S. in the last 30 years while Muslims have killed only 10,325 U.S. citizens. You don't have a clue why these people are angry. Before you speak at least understand some basic facts, dumb ass.

      The fact that 25% of search engine requests are for porn is irrelevant since you can still upload and download non-pornographic images without arousing the slightest suspicion that you are using steganography.

      The NSA does have people looking for steganography in internet traffic. It makes their job harder if you hide your messages in the most common types of data flowing across the internet. It forces them to search for the needle in a much bigger hay stack--obviously something of benefit to those hiding the message, dip shit.

    106. Re:Too cynical? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      You are misrepresenting the facts of why these people are angry. ...You don't have a clue why these people are angry. Before you speak at least understand some basic facts, dumb ass.

      No I'm not, although you may be speaking of a different set of "these people". Muslims who would otherwise be moderate and peaceable are angry for the reason you state. Hardliners want to kill anyone who doesn't subscribe to their narrow interpretations, including other muslims. OBL and his followers are the hardliner type.

      The NSA does have people looking for steganography in internet traffic. It makes their job harder if you hide your messages in the most common types of data flowing across the internet.

      I'm pretty sure the NSA knows there is a lot of porn on the net and has no more difficulty examining a pornographic image than any other image. I'm also pretty sure that their process of looking for steganography isn't limited to manually downloading images individually and examining them. You may have heard of automation. The NSA uses it.

      You seem to be unable to argue your point without including insults. Interesting.

    107. Re:Too cynical? by feynmanfan1 · · Score: 1

      You are misrepresenting the facts of why these people are angry. ...You don't have a clue why these people are angry. Before you speak at least understand some basic facts, dumb ass.

      No I'm not, although you may be speaking of a different set of "these people". Muslims who would otherwise be moderate and peaceable are angry for the reason you state. Hardliners want to kill anyone who doesn't subscribe to their narrow interpretations, including other muslims. OBL and his followers are the hardliner type.

      Yes you are, at least according to a Harvard professors article "why they hate us" and most other well educated people.(see above)

      The NSA does have people looking for steganography in internet traffic. It makes their job harder if you hide your messages in the most common types of data flowing across the internet.

      I'm pretty sure the NSA knows there is a lot of porn on the net and has no more difficulty examining a pornographic image than any other image. I'm also pretty sure that their process of looking for steganography isn't limited to manually downloading images individually and examining them. You may have heard of automation. The NSA uses it.

      Yes, I know jack ass, I worked at the NSA for 2 years. They have someone called the 'porn queen' who deals with a lot of steganography (if anyone breaks into the NSA they will find a huge stash of porn there too). And yes, it is automated the problem is you do not understand the first thing about cryptography or steganography. In cryptography you choose your key size so that even with automation there is no way of breaking it. Using the most common traffic on the internet, porn, for your steganography makes it less likely the NSA will find it even with automation because you are increasing the search space.

      You seem to be unable to argue your point without including insults. Interesting.

      no, I'm just stating fact, you are a moron.

    108. Re:Too cynical? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Yes you are, at least according to a Harvard professors article "why they hate us" and most other well educated people.

      Aha, appeal to authority! I see ad hominem isn't the only logical fallacy you know how to use. OBL was clear that he wanted to establish a global caliphate and was willing to use force. I'm not sure why you think a Harvard professor would know more about OBL's motivation than the man himself but if you insult me again perhaps you will convince me.

      Using the most common traffic on the internet, porn, for your steganography makes it less likely the NSA will find it even with automation because you are increasing the search space.

      NSA is searching porn for steganography whether you are using it or not so you are having no impact on the search space. As far as an automated algorithm is concerned, image data is image data. The content of the image does not change the type of data it is. A jpg is a jpg. If the NSA is really concentrating their efforts at finding steganography on porn it would negate to some extent any advantage in using it.

      no, I'm just stating fact, you are a moron.

      Ipse-dixitism as well. For someone who considers yourself to be intelligent you really don't seem to be very good at presenting logical argument.

    109. Re:Too cynical? by feynmanfan1 · · Score: 1

      Aha, appeal to authority! I see ad hominem isn't the only logical fallacy you know how to use. OBL was clear that he wanted to establish a global caliphate and was willing to use force. I'm not sure why you think a Harvard professor would know more about OBL's motivation than the man himself but if you insult me again perhaps you will convince me.

      Ok, I'll try not to get angry, it just seems most of your positions are incredibly misinformed and so frustrating to respond to. There was the fact of the low ball estimate of 300,000 muslims killed by U.S. that Walt gave compared to the 10,000 U.S. killed by muslims, something that rightfully angers muslims. Of course you can question those statistics but most of them are based on U.S. or international organization estimates. If you have no trust in any organizations statistics then I guess there is no point in arguing because you have no data to back up your points. I tend to think it is relatively unlikely for a harvard professor who is focused on these issues to be substantially misinformed. Also, Osama bin Laden himself has voiced his agreement with some of Walts writings, for example the Mearsheimer-Walt report on the Israel lobby (a University of Chicago professor and a Harvard professor). So your statement that the "hardliners want to kill anyone who doesn't subscribe to their narrow interpretations, including other muslims" is a vast oversimplification of even their leaders opinions on the matter, there was a recent Brookings institute poll that shows the vast majority of the middle east population is very angry with both Israel and the U.S. I am sure you could find a few inflammatory quotes by Bin Laden but I could find equally inflammatory quotes by GW Bush. Most of that crap is just the propaganda they use, and both sides use it.

      NSA is searching porn for steganography whether you are using it or not so you are having no impact on the search space. As far as an automated algorithm is concerned, image data is image data. The content of the image does not change the type of data it is. A jpg is a jpg. If the NSA is really concentrating their efforts at finding steganography on porn it would negate to some extent any advantage in using it.

      Ok, I'll try to explain this to you one more time. Yes, image data is image data but if al-qaeda had a bias, say did not use porn to for their steganography then the NSA could put a lot more effort into looking at the images or users that did not have porn in their traffic, basically if they use anything that is different from the statistical norm of internet traffic the NSA could use that bias to help as a selector for further (still automated) analysis. So it is best to look like as average an internet user as possible for al-qaeda, that way the NSA gets swamped with false positives. Also the NSA is not omnipotent, they do have constraints on their compute power and capabilities. For instance I very, very much doubt they can break 2000 bit RSA (without something like side channel etc but that requires basically machine access). I really don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand, I'm trying to be nice about it this time though.

  3. In Answer To Your Question by R0UTE · · Score: 1

    Yes

  4. Let the jokes begin... by emailandthings · · 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"

    1. Re:Let the jokes begin... by SpankR · · Score: 1

      "Two shots and a splash of water" sounds better...

    2. Re:Let the jokes begin... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      In light of this article, I guess the "splash" can refer to multiple things.

      Bin Laden's last words: "Doesn't anybody knock anymore!?!"

    3. Re:Let the jokes begin... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      With R2 covering, Seal Team Element R1 entering bedroom, lolling tongue out side of mouth: "Waaaaassuuuuuuuuuuup!!!!"

      Bin Laden: "just chillin' with my ho's..... watchin some porn"

    4. Re:Let the jokes begin... by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can order that, but it'll take 9 years to deliver...

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    5. Re:Let the jokes begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasnt one of the shots in the chest?

    6. Re:Let the jokes begin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that's just so original. You even managed to fuck it up.

  5. Not too cynical by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was it child pornography?

    1. Re:Yes, but... by countertrolling · · Score: 0

      If the government says so, yes, that's what you're supposed to believe. Slashdot stoops so low to print every little thing that the government puts out, verified or not. I would expect better, but the feeding frenzy must go on. Of course most everybody is going to believe it. You people are sick.. I wish I knew the name for this pathological bullshit.. But make no mistake, you people are illin'

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:Yes, but... by CapOblivious2010 · · Score: 1

      If the government says so, yes, that's what you're supposed to believe. Slashdot stoops so low to print every little thing that the government puts out, verified or not. I would expect better, but the feeding frenzy must go on. Of course most everybody is going to believe it. You people are sick.. I wish I knew the name for this pathological bullshit.. But make no mistake, you people are illin'

      Wait, you're saying that because the gov't says something is true, it must NOT be true? Talk about pathological illin! You should look at a mirror some time.

    3. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you're saying that because the gov't says something is true, it must NOT be true?

      No, I usually believe the NOAA satellite pictures are legit, and NASA and the CDC seem okay for the most part.. I only believe the government is lying when it has a vested interested in it, like what we have here to keep the war machine running smoothly... And to keep us from rioting when it steals our pensions to feed Goldman Sachs... That mirror might work on you also.. see yourself swallow a whole kielbasa.. you might be impressed

      but nice try :-)

    4. Re:Yes, but... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Yeah the previous post is mine,, forgot about the button

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    5. Re:Yes, but... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Sorry, didn't mean to make that 'anonymous'... I usually check for that... but man! clicking on these pages makes the comments expand and collapse like a cartoon dresser where you try to close all the drawers.. I do hope you get the message

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    6. Re:Yes, but... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Troll

      Ahhh... making psyops and the group monkeys work for their money... feels good..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    7. Re:Yes, but... by metacell · · Score: 1

      It was probably videos where Iranian women took off their headwear and shook their hair - or even revealed their ankles!

    8. Re:Yes, but... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Propaganda. Learn to identify it.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    9. Re:Yes, but... by CapOblivious2010 · · Score: 1

      I only believe the government is lying when it has a vested interested in it, like what we have here to keep the war machine running smoothly... And to keep us from rioting when it steals our pensions to feed Goldman Sachs... That mirror might work on you also.. see yourself swallow a whole kielbasa.. you might be impressed

      See, that's the point... does the gov't lie about certain things? Of course it does... I'm not for a second suggesting it doesn't. But the fact that the gov't has a vested interest in lying does NOT mean it's actually lying! Sometimes reality aligns with gov't interests, and there's no need to lie... and sometime it doesn't, and the temptation to lie grows. You seemed to imply that the gov't ALWAYS lies:

      If the government says so, yes, that's what you're supposed to believe.

    10. Re:Yes, but... by CapOblivious2010 · · Score: 1

      Propaganda. Learn to identify it.

      Reality... learn to identify it.

      Half the posts say "of course he has porn, most men have porn, no big deal, really" and the other half say "the gov't says he has porn, therefore he must NOT have porn". The fact that no one seems to see the pathology of this situation is fascinating. Truly an interesting window into the minds of the technorati. And not a flattering window at that.

    11. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truly an interesting window into the minds of the technorati. And not a flattering window at that.

      I wish I could throw you a mod point.

  7. It must be pretty good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    1. Re:It must be pretty good... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Don't get ahead of yourself. It was probably burqa-porn - showing an ankle here, an earlobe there...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:It must be pretty good... by OurDailyFred · · Score: 1

      Apparently it took a few days for the porno story to come out because analysts are busy sorting it into three piles: goat, camel and really perverted. How long will it be before someone publishes the "Illustrated Report on Pornography Seized in the Bin Laden Raid"? That's what happened forty years ago with the "Illustrated Presidential Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography" which satirized the then common anti-pornography laws.

      --
      If your only tool is a hammer, you'll approach every problem as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
  8. Who doesn't... by scuzzmonkey69 · · Score: 1

    ...have a stash of porn lying around? I mean seriously, come on.

  9. Steganography by shoppa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Steganography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah because we all know that a young kid like Bin Laden was running alphas of Unity (could make anyone angry), compiling truecrypt from source, and keeping up with the fascinating world of steganography whilst using P2P to share the daily compound news... more likely he was some paranoid moron who trusted a few couriers with his USB sticks or primitive videos thinking about how if he had a phone line and internet connected to his compound the US would "use satellites to track me".

      The only thing this does if it was true (not that anybody who hates the USA would believe it) it prove what everyone knew... he was a hypocrite, before he became a terrorist and moved to Afghan he was partying and drinking in Lebanon very frequently as you'd expect from a worthless kid from a family of oil billionaires. The usual, we must cut off the hands of anyone who is doing western stuff, and please ignore my partying past and porn present.

    2. Re:Steganography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more likely he was some paranoid moron who trusted a few couriers with his USB sticks or primitive videos thinking about how if he had a phone line and internet connected to his compound the US would "use satellites to track me".

      If you're paranoid, but right, are you still paranoid? If he had (and used) an internet connection, I'm sure the US would be tracking him (or rather, tracking the whole area in a bid to find him), and I'm quite sure satellites would enter into it somewhere.

    3. Re:Steganography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... embed it in porn using steganography. It's really the obvious choice.

      Steg sticks out like a sore thumb. So, yes, it is really the obvious choice.

    4. Re:Steganography by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      That depends how good the steg is, and how much data you can hide it in.

    5. Re:Steganography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets use Occams Razor. We have two theories:
      a) They wanted to embed secret terrorist messages in porn. BTW a brilliant idea. Super cool to use the "Western perverts" to transmit "holy messages".
      b) A compound where several young men life beside bin Laden have porn on their computers or below their pillow.

      As we know that pornography grows at best in bigot societies, the more they are fanatics, the bigger is distance between their behavior and their own standards. You can see this in the catholic church and the children of their priests, or the higher rat of child pregnancies among religious teenagers compared to teenagers form more liberal families (on the same wealth level).

      So I go for the second theory, as it sounds more human than A. A would imply a brilliant über-terrorist. Some villain from James Bond, but he is just a normal human and now über-terrorist. He is not the Brain of Pinky and Brain, he is not Joker and he is not some super villian from the marvel comics. And his followers are also only normal humans.

    6. Re:Steganography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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'm pretty sure that he wasn't supposed to compromise his beliefs, which are strictly against pornography, to obtain his goals.

    7. Re:Steganography by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Tom Clancy already did that. In his newest book, the UIC (which is basically al-Qaeda and led by "the Emir"(bin Laden) used steganography to pass messages.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    8. Re:Steganography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was my first thought, too. Porn can easily be emailed, posted in forums, etc. The hidden messages are easily overlooked because, hey, isn't it obvious why a guy might be carrying some nudie pics on his flash drive? Conversely, porn offers plausible deniability for a highly religious person who's had his data stolen.

    9. Re:Steganography by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      Sure, but why, in the holy trinity of three hells, would you embed it in child pornography, as the second linked article suggests?

  10. Don't believe it by tripleevenfall · · 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.

    1. Re:Don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess I am confused why you think this idiot should have a standing in the world among Muslims? He was a terrorist, He was not Mother Teresa. Muslims need to really decide once and for all do they support radical terrorists beliefs of killing the infidels (all Americans or our allies) or do you actually believe you can be at piece with people from all walks of life. If a Muslim tells me they had any respect for Osama bin Laden that equates to someone saying they loved Ted Bundy, Charles Manson,Jeffrey Dahmer.

    2. Re:Don't believe it by nbauman · · Score: 0

      I guess I am confused why you think this idiot should have a standing in the world among Muslims? He was a terrorist

      Why does George W. Bush have standing among Americans? He was a terrorist who invaded Iraq, based on the lie that Saddam had WMDs, resulting in the deaths of 150,000 to 600,000 Iraqis (and the deaths of 4,000 Americans, if you don't care about Iraqis).

    3. Re:Don't believe it by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why does George W. Bush have standing among Americans? He was a terrorist

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      who invaded Iraq

      Invasion of a country is an act of war, often an unjustified one, but no act of terrorism.

      based on the lie that Saddam had WMDs

      Lies are not an act of terrorism (otherwise we would have to arrest all politicians as terrorists ;-))

      resulting in the deaths of 150,000 to 600,000 Iraqis (and the deaths of 4,000 Americans, if you don't care about Iraqis).

      The number of deaths also does not define terrorism.

      Now if Bush had given the explicit command to intentionally kill random civilians in Iraq (as opposed to "just" accepting their death as collateral damage), then the term "terrorist" would be justified. But I don't think he did.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Don't believe it by fiendy · · Score: 2

      Mean? Really? This isn't kindergarden. The man help plan and fund a way for other terrorists to fly planes full of people into buildings. You make it sound like he might have some redeeming qualities. Far worse things have been said about far nicer people. Whether it Is a deliberate smear or not, I'd say it's well deserved. Whether it will work or is a good idea strategically is another matter.

    5. Re:Don't believe it by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      What? Jeffrey Dahmer only wanted to serve his fellow man!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    6. Re:Don't believe it by Duradin · · Score: 1

      You have to remember that on /. (and unfortunately more of our world) if there is any intersection between A and B, no matter how little, it need merely exist, then A == B.

      Since Terrorism kills people and War kills people, then War == Terrorism.

    7. Re:Don't believe it by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      No, killing civilians makes you a war criminal, not a terrorist. Terrorists by definition use random violence as a political tool because their ideals are so far out there that they would never be adopted by any legitimate democratic government. G.W. was an idiot and a liar who actually got reelected after it was obvious he had committed the biggest fuck-up in American history, the invasion of Iraq. He must have much better propagandists than the terrorists, because approximately half of the US voters voted for him -- twice. While arguably the Bush Administration officials should be brought before a war crimes tribunal (especially Rumsfeld), they do not qualify as terrorists.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    8. Re:Don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does George W. Bush have standing among Americans? He was a terrorist.

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      It means exactly what he thinks it means. The US Congress never declared war on Iraq, after all.

      Frankly, the US hasn't engaged in a Constitutionally valid, legally-declared war since WW II. While the Executive branch has the right to dictate the actions of the US Federal military, it has been soabused in the name of saving the world from Communism and Terrorism and whatever other "isms" can be exploited to further US imperialism to the benefit of it's miltary-industrial complex, just as President Eisenhower warned, that the US Federal Government no longer has the moral high ground, and hasn't for decades.

      If that doesn't count as terrorism, I don't know what does.

      By that measure, the US Federal Government is the largest, longest-lived terrorist organization on the planet.

      Or, to state it simply for those of you that don't get it: One man's "war" is another's act of terror. Remember kids, just because you think it's right doesn't mean that it's not terrorism in someone else's eyes.

      who invaded Iraq

      Invasion of a country is an act of war, often an unjustified one, but no act of terrorism.

      Wow, nice sophistry there, Sparky. I'd be willing to bet that all of the foreign nationals (including non-combatants) that have died in "wars" initiated by the US since Vietnam were pretty terrified.

    9. Re:Don't believe it by nbauman · · Score: 1

      OK. Correction. He's a war criminal, not a terrorist.

    10. Re:Don't believe it by dotfile · · Score: 2

      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.

    11. Re:Don't believe it by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      There a lot of room for debate on what the limits of self-defense should be, but in general you are correct -- if you are taking fire from someone who insists on using innocent civilians as a human shield, sometimes the best action is to "shoot the hostage". Do it consistently enough, and eventually the bad guys will realize that hiding behind innocent women and children offers them little defense. But in the meantime, you lose points in the battle for hearts and minds. The people hiding behind human shields and the people taking out the human shields to get the "bad guys" must share responsibility for the collateral damage.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  11. he had the women in the house by mousse-man · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:he had the women in the house by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You must not be married if you think having a wife around means someone will usually fulfill your desires :)

    2. Re:he had the women in the house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didnt he have like three? You'd suspect that he'd be able to talk at least one of em into putting out.

    3. Re:he had the women in the house by andydread · · Score: 1

      it has come out now the the women were completely oblivious to his activities. He kept that completely separate from them.

    4. Re:he had the women in the house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wives in Afghanistan/Pakistan are forced to fulfill their husband's desires ;-)

    5. Re:he had the women in the house by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      it has come out now the the women were completely oblivious to his activities. He kept that completely separate from them.

      A, so it was that kind of porn!

    6. Re:he had the women in the house by AchilleTalon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are thinking like an occidentalist, don't forget about the rights of spouses and women in general in the Taliban's culture.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    7. Re:he had the women in the house by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Well, it's easy to overlook small details like that.

    8. Re:he had the women in the house by mousse-man · · Score: 1

      All in all, there was a talk about six wives. However, I don't know how many he simultaneously had at the end. If it was just 4, it was halal. If not, Osama is going to roast in hell, together with 72 old hags.

    9. Re:he had the women in the house by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you are obviously unaware of the phenomenon of synchronization of menstrual periods by women cohabitating, The all went PMS and on the rag at once.

    10. Re:he had the women in the house by olau · · Score: 1

      That's what you like to think! :)

  12. Electronically recorded video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As opposed to... what? 16mm film?

  13. So? by AVryhof · · Score: 1, Redundant

    So he has porn. I bet there are plenty of Slashdotters who have more illustrious collections than he did.

    Why is this news for nerds?

    Why is this news anyway?

    I'll tell you why, because the whole "War on Terror" is just the Crusades continuing on, and many Christian religions will tell you "porn is bad" or "fornication is bad". They have even gone so far as to get it passed into public lewdness laws so everyone has to abide by it. Guess what people, I'm pretty sure that if you go to church, about half or more of the adult congregation probably owns porn, but are afraid to mention it because their fellow Christians (of which many also own porn) will look down their noses at them.

    He's a guy, he owns porn.... big whoopty doo

    1. Re:So? by tripleevenfall · · Score: 0

      since the obama administration is starting this rumor, you can be sure it has nothing to do with Christianity.

      It's all about them trying to undermine Bin Laden and stop revenge attacks from happening.

    2. Re:So? by Aaron32 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Koran expressly forbids pornography of any kind. Hell, all the women have to be covered from head to toe... literally!

      Since Bin Laden was an extremist, finding that he has porn which is totally against the Koran IS pretty big news.

    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh... He was a Muslim leader and Muslims aren't meant to look at porn? That is probably why.

    4. Re:So? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Hell, all the women have to be covered from head to toe... literally!

      It does?

    5. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      afaik it doesn't. there is a commandment that mandates "decent" clothing - which is not really specified any further...

    6. Re:So? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Do you suppose Obama has porn?

    7. Re:So? by mick88 · · Score: 1

      >> about half or more of the adult congregation probably owns porn

      I rent it. I have a lease with an option to buy.

      --
      I created this account just so I could comment on this story
    8. Re:So? by andydread · · Score: 1

      I think he was a Muslim leader as much as the KKK were Christian leaders. just sayin...

    9. Re:So? by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      If I were him, I would.

    10. Re:So? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      It's news because most slashdotters readily admit to being nefarious wankers, and don't claim some kind of moral superiority in a effort to convince impressionable young idealists to martyr themselves in a misguided attempt to seek revenge on a country whose bigging crime is having greater influence in Bin Laden's homeland than Bin Laden himself does. Of course, after watching so many misguided Republicans, seeing blatant acts of hypocrisy doesn't really seem like news anymore, unless it's a particularly egregious example.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    11. Re:So? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Obviously not... Michelle would kick his ass!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    12. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure Michelle's foot feels good enough for that. For some people, power and submission go hand-in-hand.

    13. Re:So? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      You here so much bull about Islam these days so I tend to question everything I hear about it.

  14. Assume everything they say is a lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess he was watching porn with two of his wives before using on of them as a meat-shield, this after a long day of threatening kids who'd lost their toys over the 30ft reinforced luxury castle walls.

    1. Re:Assume everything they say is a lie. by metacell · · Score: 1

      Using his wife as a shield was another one of the false reports the media received. But as a poster remarked above, it doesn't matter if people later find out it isn't true - their attitudes will still have shifted somewhat.

  15. What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand what the big deal is about...

    If you searched any house anywhere you'd probably find some porn somewhere..

  16. He hadn't bin laden how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  17. Porn? by Wowsers · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:Porn? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... except in the White House, were it is a sex toy.

    2. Re:Porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not porn. It's an assassin training video.

    3. Re:Porn? by Nationless · · Score: 1

      Wonder if he had Nailin Paylin.

    4. Re:Porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      You would think a man of his resources and feelings towards Republicans would also have a copy of "Nailin' Palin"

    5. Re:Porn? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If I was Osama this would make me cum in seconds:

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-422020716321890776#

      (NSFW)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  18. Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Jahava · · Score: 4, 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?

    1. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by InfiniteZero · · 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.

    2. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Somehow I doubt Aphganis would be doing Google searches in English. The statistics likely apply to foreign troops and NGO stationed there.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    3. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they probably have a lot in common with Bin Laden.

    4. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      Did a bit or random sampling around Europe and it seems that "girl" and "girls" are in all of them. Maybe it is because these terms yield more relevant results.

    5. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow I doubt Aphganis would be doing Google searches in English. The statistics likely apply to foreign troops and NGO stationed there.

      Look at other countries that don't speak English and don't have U.S. troops present or a high ex-pat population. They still have searches in English. It's just a good way to find stuff online.

      I'm sure there are tons of porn sites in Arabic but I bet there is many times that amount in English.

    6. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have difficulty believing the search term of choice for horny western servicemen is something so tame as "hot girls".

    7. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      In their defense, that Katrina Kaif chick is pretty hot!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    8. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Unless you're looking for gay porn, in which case you are a minority of the population anyway.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    9. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people in the country wouldn't be doing Google searches at all and the ones that did would be much more likely to have a good education

    10. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all due respect... how are your results interesting?

      Compare them to the US, Canda, or England... and girls, girl, or women are all in the top results.

      Nevermind confirmation bias of the users.

      The real takeaway here is something that was covered in a musical.

      The internet is for Porn! Porn Porn Porn!

      Personally, what I'm curious about... this is probably something that will be used in an attack against normal porn or CP. To my knowledge...and I can't find the paper now... some research was doing a project using outguess/etc to try to detect steg on the net. If I recall correctly only a SINGLE stegged image was ever uncovered through normal spidering...

      Anybody recall something similar?

    11. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      It's not selection bias, I'm not sure you know what that means. If they're the top image search terms, they're the top image search.

      Put another way, yes Captain Obvious, citing a statistic about search terms self selects for people who use the Internet. Wow!

    12. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't they use English search terms? Do you think that there is a booming on-line Pashtun-speaking porn industry? No matter who you are, you'd probably be looking for "boobs" on Google in English.

      Hell, even if you were looking for "burkha porn", you'd probably still be 1000x better off in English.

       

    13. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      You're saying that people who can't speak English are not interested in viewing porn? Ok, you're probably right.

    14. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Can't help noticing a curious coincidence: about 20000 additional troops was deployed to Afghanistan in 2009, and about 30000 in 2010. This segment is likely to have an Internet access, so...

    15. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously buddy? Google trends to prove that point? That trend would be same for practically any country :-/
      http://www.google.com/insights/search/#geo=US&gprop=images&cmpt=q

    16. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by technik · · Score: 1

      Then again, the story isn't unbelievable. Just take a look at some interesting Google Trends results:

              Afghanistan's Top Image Search Terms, 2008-Present
              Pakistan's Top Image Search Terms, 2008-Present

      I wouldn't make much of that. It doesn't differ much for Washington, D.C..

    17. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why is doxtar doing so well? And seksi?
      I think this a classic case of Ted Haggard being completely heterosexual.

    18. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      The majority of non-English searches are also for girls... click the links.

    19. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow I doubt Aphganis would be doing Google searches in English. The statistics likely apply to foreign troops and NGO stationed there.

      Get translate.google.com to tell you what some of those Persian words mean.

    20. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Pakistan's top image search terms
      >Indian girls

      How naughty. :3c

    21. Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So some people are looking up "google" in Google... Interesting.

  19. Limewire by Aaron32 · · Score: 0

    He just had limewire on his computer. Nuff said

  20. Uh... by GoneAwry · · 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?

  21. Anyone else? by Ender_Wiggin · · 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.

    1. Re:Anyone else? by NotAGoodNickname · · Score: 1

      Yes, they will act like that when other Al Qaeda people are around to keep the facade up.

    2. Re:Anyone else? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Wow, what a crazy idea...bin Laden might be a bad person. Defending the world's #1 religious fanatic, here live in Slashdot. Isn't this the place where theists are regularly trashed for hypocrisy and guilt is presumed for any offense?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Anyone else? by Mr2cents · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    4. Re:Anyone else? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      "I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again." - GWB

      Inside every gook is an American dying to get out...

      -----

      A football game?

      Yeah, yeah, we put up a few bets, five thousand maybe, and have a little fun. Special services in Tokyo says it's one of the best gimmicks we've got to keep the American way of life going here in Asia.

      Betting?

      No, football!

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    5. Re:Anyone else? by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He was a good person when he was killing our soldiers in Afghanistan, but when he started murdering Americans he became evil, or hypocrisy!
      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.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    6. Re:Anyone else? by diegocg · · Score: 1

      In fact, Osama had two wifes living with him. He didn't "need" porn.

    7. Re:Anyone else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

      I think it is now safe to classify porn-watchers as terrorists; We need more control & less accountability to control this new pornographic terrorist threat. The economy is being decimated by it.

    8. Re:Anyone else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS.

    9. Re:Anyone else? by rworne · · Score: 1

      Why not blame him?

      He was in charge, and therefore responsible for the actions of his underlings.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    10. Re:Anyone else? by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The history of US foreign intervention is rife with examples of the Law of Unintended Consequences. On the whole, the American belief that we can fuck with other countries at will has done a lot more harm than good to American interests. I say that as an American and a Libertarian. Sometimes the best action is to do nothing. And I miss the cold war, because despite our demonization of the Soviets, they at least were predictable and dependable.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    11. Re:Anyone else? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Any man with an active imagination doesn't "need" porn. And any man who has lived with a woman knows it doesn't necessarily increase the availability of sex.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    12. Re:Anyone else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Of course! And you're also a priviledged sexist who oppresses women. Didn't you get the memo?

    13. Re:Anyone else? by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      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 after Able Archer. We were being more aggressive than usual because we thought the Soviets considered us soft push-overs and were waiting for a chance to invade. Turns out that they expected us to attack first and nuke half of Poland just so we could take over East Germany. As if anyone would actually want that shithole after what the Communists did to the place. The Germans are probably still paying through the nose to fix it.

      Anyway, having lived through a decade or two of the Cold War, I can tell you, I'll take terrorists any day over 20,000 nuclear warheads on alert status targeting me.

    14. Re:Anyone else? by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the Soviets were also imperialistic fucks. Albeit not on the scale of the US, whose imperialist, expansionist "interventions" were an issue from the moment white people set foot on the damned continent.

      Speaking as someone who is neither Soviet/Russian or USian, I'd rather have neither and have countries not "intervene" in shit that doesn't concern them.

    15. Re:Anyone else? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      They also truly believed that the US was interested in attacking them first.

      Gee, I cannot imagine, why.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    16. Re:Anyone else? by syousef · · Score: 1

      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.

      I must be strange. I don't give a fuck that bin laden watched porn. I do care that he arranged to have thousands murdered and succeeded in curbing western freedom. If he hadn't done that why would I care who he slept with or what got him off???

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    17. Re:Anyone else? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      I must be strange. I don't give a fuck that bin laden watched porn. I do care that he arranged to have thousands murdered and succeeded in curbing western freedom.

      No that's not strange, it's completely normal. There are, however, people in the world who admire him for arranging to have thousands murdered and yet would be likely to hate the idea of him watching porn.

  22. Shocking! by SpankR · · Score: 1

    This is shocking! What with his well known respect for women and all... Next you're going to tell me he was a mass murderer!

  23. stegapornography ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has been previously reported that steganography porn is used by Islamic terrorists and it must be true as I read it on the Internet ...

    Link between child porn and Muslim terrorists

    link

  24. All the news you can eat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First we heard that the pathetic Osama Bin Laden grabbed a woman and held her in front of himself in a cowardly attempt to save his own skin as the brave SEALs risked their own lives while diligently avoiding civilian deaths.

    Unfortunately for them they crocked one of their choppers on the way in and had to leave behind witnesses. Damn! They must be regretting that now.

    Still, they quickly dumped the body where no one could view the evidence and as if by a miracle the video record of events has evaporated into thin air. The photographs of the body which they rashly acknowledged early on will not be released - out of respect for the dead...Ha! Don't make me laugh.

    Now they are continuing their efforts to besmirch Bin Laden's name by helpfully informing the world that - shock horror - there was porn in that building! The sub-text here is that no good Muslim should jack off to pictures of naked women and so Bin Laden must have been a bad Muslim.

    The US is doing itself few favours by continuing to withhold evidence while maintaining the slow drip drip of mud slinging. Far from being a victory this is a huge, though slow burning, PR disaster for them. Day by day an increasing number of people are loosing respect for the honesty of the current administration.

    That's what happens when you get your hands on all that power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Obama is no different to Bush on that score.

    1. Re:All the news you can eat... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      I'll bet you believe the Phone Company killed Kennedy too...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  25. Bad USA by fluor2 · · Score: 1, 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!

    1. Re:Bad USA by binaryseraph · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the hundreds that have died in Turkey as a result of his organizations plans in car bombings.Tell that to the thousands of people and families that lost loved ones because of the trade center. Tell that to the TENS OF THOUSANDS of fellow innocent muslims he (and his organization at his direction) killed for his own egotistical views. Tell that to the children who are brainwashed into believing this ultra conservative religious mindset so they can be used for the sole purpose of being "martyrs" (pawns) and blowing themselves up in the streets killing more innocent civilians. There are plenty of reasons to dislike the US. But as far as Bin Laden goes, this guy should have been turned inside out and beaten publicly. His porn stash going public should be only the start to the humiliation of him and everything and everyone who sides with him.


      Oh and by the way, one of the ways his organization funded itself (Aside from selling drugs) was through enslaving women and forcing them to make pornographic material so it could be sold.

  26. Cynical or Typical? by Fringe · · Score: 2, 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.

    1. Re:Cynical or Typical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The party forever citizen.

    2. Re:Cynical or Typical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, Office of Strategic Influence, Rendition, Iran–Contra, Northwoods, COINTELPRO, Paperclip.

      They lie about who their guys kill, they lie about who kills their guys. They discredit or kill their enemies even if they have to discredit or kill their own citizens to do it. Lying is good, Torture is good, Assassination and Murder is good. Trafficking cocaine and herion is good. Nonconsensual human experimentation is good.

      Yes, trust your government. Your government is good.

    3. Re:Cynical or Typical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a cheap shot to imply cynisism

  27. Fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bin Laden

    1. Re:Fuck by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      I think he'd rather be watching porn...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  28. He didn't seem all that ba... wait,he had PORN!?!? by thesandbender · · Score: 2

    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.

  29. Denigrating porn as well? by Noughmad · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    1. Re:Denigrating porn as well? by lucian1900 · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with porn to normal people. However, it is forbidden to muslims.

    2. Re:Denigrating porn as well? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Really? I'll have to see if I can get my sister-in-law to watch it. She claims to be a Muslim, but the first thing she did upon coming to America was to buy 4 pounds of bacon!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Denigrating porn as well? by lucian1900 · · Score: 1

      Practicing, potentially fanatical, muslims.

  30. Now we know why he was killed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Legal prosecution of copyright violators just hasn't had the desired deterrant effect.

  31. The First Report Is Never Right by DG · · 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

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:The First Report Is Never Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I could see how someone under stress could report "he used a woman as a human shield", and later have that totally disproved. It's the nature of crisis reporting.

    2. Re:The First Report Is Never Right by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Live video of the assault should eliminate that kind of excuse... but then they say the cameras weren't functioning.

    3. Re:The First Report Is Never Right by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1
      So, the official version rebuilt using images from recording cameras sticked on the helmets of the commando is: OBL quit the first floor to hide in his spouses room at the second floor where the commando finds him. He was shot in the thorax and then, a second commando member shoot him in the head. He was disarmed and seems not to resist in anyway.

      The conclusion seems obvious to me, they never try to get him alive, the orders were to kill him.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    4. Re:The First Report Is Never Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has been wanted dead or alive for some time now. I just don't think they cared anymore.

    5. Re:The First Report Is Never Right by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      In conclusion, when Obama approved the operation, he didn't tell anyone OBL should be captured alive if possible or he simply asked specifically he wants him dead? That makes a lot of difference about the White-House rethoric around this operation. There is good reasons to want him dead, but asking him dead is really different from asking to capture him from the presidential point of view. Asking him dead, is denying him any rights to a trial and judging him a priori.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    6. Re:The First Report Is Never Right by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      "He was resisting and trying to strike our bullets with his head!"

    7. Re:The First Report Is Never Right by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      When that tendency is combined with this Administration's almost pathological need to spin everything in a way that maximizes its value for promoting the Administration's agenda, you get this. It is not that other Administrations have not done similar things, it is just that they put more work into making sure that the exaggerations were within the "honest" mistake range of what really happened. I know a lot of people who think they outright lie. I believe that they just think that if they get their version out there fast enough and loud enough people will believe it, even if it turns out to be wrong.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    8. Re:The First Report Is Never Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I know a lot of people who think they outright lie.

      And? I know a lot of people who are almost pathological in their hatred of Obama, and go to Fox news to get their opinion reinforced.

      It doesn't prove a damn thing.

    9. Re:The First Report Is Never Right by murdocj · · Score: 1

      If Bin Laden had obviously surrendered, they would have loaded him on the chopper and left, but "obviously surrendering" would involved him immediately kneeling, putting his hands in the air, and then somehow verifying that he isn't wearing a suicide vest. He didn't do that, and he's dead.

    10. Re:The First Report Is Never Right by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      There is good reasons to want him dead, but asking him dead is really different from asking to capture him from the presidential point of view. Asking him dead, is denying him any rights to a trial and judging him a priori.

      It's certainly made me decide not to publicly declare war on the US and then claim responsibility when US civilians are killed in terrorist attacks, so as well as denying OBL the right to a trial, it's having a chilling effect on free speech!</sarcasm>

  32. And the top US search terms are any better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:And the top US search terms are any better... by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

      My country's search terms: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#geo=HU&gprop=images&cmpt=q

      The number 1 by a wide margin is "képek" which means "images".

      Searching for images on an image search site...

      And the margin seems to grow bigger every year.

      This is so sad.

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
  33. But muslim porn is different ... by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · 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"

    --
    Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    1. Re:But muslim porn is different ... by JavaBear · · Score: 2, Funny

      Naah, it was Pornography where actors dressed as "Mooh-Ham-Mad" were literally porking the pigs.

    2. Re:But muslim porn is different ... by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

      Sounds like porcine-ography.

    3. Re:But muslim porn is different ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Your list is obviously fabricated.

      I mean, nothing at all about beer?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:But muslim porn is different ... by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

      I'll remember that when I add it to ListsExchange

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    5. Re:But muslim porn is different ... by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1

      Porkography

  34. Jihadists Gone Wild? by Flipstylee · · Score: 2

    or was it "Rear Cave Entrance Sluts 9"?

  35. Wouldn't be shocking.. by feidaykin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --

    "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    1. Re:Wouldn't be shocking.. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      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.

      One's wives are not covered head-to-toe when in the home. The whole point in the mystique that is created is that it is revealed to the One who the woman belongs to.

      Either your comment was a throw-away line you don't believe, or you're really really clueless.

    2. Re:Wouldn't be shocking.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't upset about Israel. He was upset about the American (read that "infidel") presence in Saudi Arabia, the location of Holy Mecca and Medina, the homeland of the Prophet. It wasn't until quite recently that he got on the Israel/Palestine bandwagon.

    3. Re:Wouldn't be shocking.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Would you think a house more odd without some porn in it or not? Is porn Evil ? Certainly not and certainly more human than religion in my book.
      A pile of bollocks invented by people to coerce others to be slaves vs. the presentation of a natural need installed by evolution.
      This disclosure makes me think the administration are extremely thick or very clever. I can't justify the clever idea yet.

  36. Is there something wrong about that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get it, what's the point? Everyone needs to rub one out now and then. Is there something wrong with that?

  37. Religion and Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't like this is the first (or last) religious zealot who will have porn on his computer. If he broke laws, well, I guess that doesn't matter anymore.

    At least Bin Laden isn't known to have molested children.

    How come we never hear about an Atheist or women being caught with porn on their systems? Certainly those other groups have porn too?

    1. Re:Religion and Porn by NEDHead · · Score: 1

      Does teaching children to strap on bombs and blow themselves up count as molestation?

    2. Re:Religion and Porn by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Speaking only for myself, I'd rather be fucked in the ass than have a bomb strapped to me and detonated. But hey, that's just my own opinion...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Religion and Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey now that's crazy talk. It's MUCH worse for a kid to be exposed to some sexual contact than for them to be blown limb from limb.

  38. How severe???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soft porn - women with their eyes visible

    Hard porn- women with their faces visible

    or

    Extreme porn - women with their whole heads uncovered

    1. Re:How severe???? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      In Pakistan, a woman who flashes ankle in public is considered a slut?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  39. Probably knees, elbows, shoulders. by SickLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

    I hear that ballerina costumes offend the prophet.

    --
    main() {1;} // zen app
  40. Human - and flawed by DG · · 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

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:Human - and flawed by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Human - and flawed by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Human - and flawed by RsG · · 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.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    4. Re:Human - and flawed by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Don't his recruiters tell people that if they become suicide bombers (martyrs), that they can ignore Islamic laws, go to strip joints, hire prostitutes, etc. According to Bin Laden, as long as they blow themselves up, they get their virgins in heaven. I would expect Bin Laden to have porn, drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, etc.

    5. Re:Human - and flawed by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Human - and flawed by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Don't his recruiters tell people that if they become suicide bombers (martyrs), that they can ignore Islamic laws, go to strip joints, hire prostitutes, etc. According to Bin Laden, as long as they blow themselves up, they get their virgins in heaven. I would expect Bin Laden to have porn, drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, etc.

      But Bin Laden didn't blow himself up. He hid for 10 years doing nothing but the equivalent of posting Youtube videos encouraging other people to blow themselves up. What's his claim for martyrhood?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:Human - and flawed by Xest · · Score: 0

      Would they even care if it was true? Osama sent someone to find him a wife, and he wanted them to be around 16 years old, they came back with a 17 year old which isn't so bad, but let's face it, someone in his 50s asking for a 16 year old wife? It's quite obvious he was a dirty old man from that alone, but judging by various stories over the years of rape of young girls (and boys for that matter) by the Taliban I don't think it's something they'd be that ashamed about, they have a belief that they can do what they want with women anyway, so why would porn phase them? I think amongst the Taliban/Al Qaeda group rape and so forth are deemed pretty acceptable so I doubt they have much of a problem with porn.

    8. Re:Human - and flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone believe it ? True or otherwise ? The US government is always completely straight forward and trustworthy in reporting such things. Just look at the initial info that came out of the raid. There was a big firefight. No wait, just one guy. Bin Laden was armed ! No wait, he wasn't. It was a mansion ! Heh, no. Not quite. Makes you wonder about the rest doesn't it ?

      He's dead. Really.
      We lost the body. ( Burial at sea lol )

      He may actually be dead. However, given the governments track record on truthfulness, the question will always linger.

    9. Re:Human - and flawed by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      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.

      Don't they usually appear before their followers blubbering, apologising, and begging for forgivness (that is never given).

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    10. Re:Human - and flawed by tnk1 · · Score: 3, 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.

    11. Re:Human - and flawed by dmacleod808 · · Score: 1

      his wife was not killed. There goes your moral high ground http://ibnlive.in.com/news/osamas-wife-not-killed-in-raid-white-house/151062-2.html

      --
      There Can Be Only One...
    12. Re:Human - and flawed by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      No, most of them will initially tell themselves that. Many of those will indeed continue to believe it was planted by the US. But many will slowly begin to have subconscious doubts they will try to dismiss but those doubts will eat away at them.

      Planted or not, if this slightly disenchants 5% of his radical followers and makes them wonder at how many of their ilk are hypocrites, it might have some small impact on their actions and efficacy. So I'd say it's worth the try as it costs nothing.

    13. Re:Human - and flawed by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I presume his claim consisted of considering himself a target of every Predator and Reaper drone or Special Operations team that could be vectored to his position, should he ever be located somewhere that the US knew about.

      He may or may not have realized that truly he was going to be a dead man eventually, but I think that he had a good reason to believe that his actions could earn him "martyrdom" (heavy emphasis on air-quotes).

    14. Re:Human - and flawed by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      And even if she had been killed... so what? What makes a woman incapable of killing people or setting off explosives?

      Hell, to become his wife, she might well have been more committed to his cause than he truly was. He might have been in it for power and fame, she was probably in it because she believed in what he said he believed in. She might have even simply attacked the soldiers to try and protect her children if any were there. Women tend to be smaller and less aggressive on average, but they make up for it with large helpings of being committed to killing you when you set them off.

    15. Re:Human - and flawed by Americano · · Score: 1

      His wife wasn't killed. For somebody with a lot of strong opinions, you seem rather short on facts.

    16. Re:Human - and flawed by creat3d · · Score: 1

      Did he set himself up as such or was his enemies hard-bent on creating a strong "the evil guy" image of him, justifying their business of going after him and all he represents? Blackwater, Halliburton and a gazillion other entities NEEDED that representation of Bin Laden... even though he had nothing to do with 9/1..

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    17. Re:Human - and flawed by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2

      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.

  41. I believe It by jesseck · · Score: 4, Informative

    When I was in Iraq, we found porn in a few houses on raids. Videos (arab and French), Playboy, and a few other things.

    1. Re:I believe It by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I wonder if you conducted those raids in the US if the percentage of house containing porn would be higher or lower?

      My guess would be higher simply because Americans have higher incomes and can afford it more easily.

    2. Re:I believe It by jesseck · · Score: 1

      Hell yeah, it would be. I had a whole bunch out there myself. The ironic thing, though, is this- we can get it in the country, but they search us and make us leave it behind on the way out.

    3. Re:I believe It by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Paying for porn??! If you're doing that, you don't have just a simple curiosity and shallow desire, you have an addiction.

      Pay for porn..., It's given away for free on the Internet. No need to pay for shit.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:I believe It by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you seem to be an expert on this.

  42. Re:WMD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of seamen, perhaps. The attacking Navy Seals where very cautions because of that.

  43. I don't want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think I want to know if Osama bin Laden watched them or not... I think that would be too much information...

  44. Out of Curiosity by NEDHead · · Score: 1

    Was it legal retail copies, or should the RIAA get involved

    1. Re:Out of Curiosity by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      A-HA! The real reason for the raid comes out...

  45. Score for Censorship! by Seumas · · Score: 2

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

  46. Fallacy of loaded question by Punto · · Score: 1

    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)

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

  47. I expect you'd find some in the White House, too by petes_PoV · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  48. Cynical comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would be the purpose in trying denigrate somebody whose stated goal and purpose was to kill thousands of innocent people? I think they are already "self-denigrated". I would assume it is indeed what they found when they checked the collected materials out.

  49. Porn or Nuclear Fallout? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many times has bin Laden been reported killed?

    This whole killing bin Laden story is a total load of bull shit. Its a smear campaign probably on some dude long dead.
    The American Public would be better knowing the truth of WHY 9/!! happened than some distracting story centered around one person.
    Only idiots will think Building 7 fell down on its own. It contained the SEC ongoing investigation into the Trillion Dollar bet, A stock market world economic drain and manipulation of the 90's and the reason for even the first attempt to bomb the WTC. (google "trillion dollar bet" and read the transcript and also ask what the pentagon spent 2.3 trillion of tax payer money on that they did not account for or provide "representation" to the American public for the taxes paid. Donal Rumsfeld 9/10/2001 stated about this unaccounted for pentagon spending. Enron, Worldcom, Califiorina Electric.... all loses in the embezzling gamble of this, as well as those who were drained in southeast Asia.. including 88% Muslim population of Indonesia. Plenty Info is publicly available to follow the money across the timeline but the News-media dealt with, and probably continues to, anthrax threats from our own Military. Ted Turner Spoke up and later suffered an anthrax attack on his livestock.

    But then again one of two things is showing, the american public is really very stupid and gullible as a whole or the government is so wrapped up in their own fabricated world they can't see the real world. Or more likely Both!

    7 billion people on this planet and even you can do the math that shows you less than 1% of this population is playing some damn pathetic war mongering power tripping control game for which its NATO illegal for players to kill each other but ok to kill sold---ers and sacrific even many more civilians just struggle through their life due the ASSHOLES....... who are really interested in some adult dudes porn!....

    Osama bin Laden was just another pawn and who they killed again... the stories coming out in sum indicate it's all fabricated to appeal to as many supporters as possible and insult as many enemies to flame it all up, while distracting the majority for the very current disaster fears from Nuclear War.... http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/04/22/fukushima-2000-atomic-bombs/

    Fukushima is SERIOUS. Way more serious than the pawn of ObL.and his porn.... Just how FUCKING blind are people.... key words "porn" and "fucking" are so wonderful distraction..... WTF!!! where are peoples brains, between their legs?

    Its obvious who know this!!!

    1. Re:Porn or Nuclear Fallout? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Masterbait over these radio active fallout plots... if you can... http://zardoz.nilu.no/~flexpart/fpinteractive/plots/?C=M;O=D

    2. Re:Porn or Nuclear Fallout? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear you. Mankind has not shed the ape. It's all a shit show, clowns and circus freaks all over the place, keep us entertained ignore the man behind the curtain.

      I feel your rage, I deal with it by drinking mostly.

  50. Question Re: Muslim beliefs by airfoobar · · Score: 1

    Do Muslims have anything against pornography/nudity/sexuality like the Christians? I mean, would this put Osama in a bad light as far as other Muslim extremists are concerned?

    1. Re:Question Re: Muslim beliefs by fritsd · · Score: 1

      Do Muslims have anything against pornography/nudity/sexuality like the Christians?

      Where do you get the idea that Christians have anything against nudity/sexuality??
      For example: (warning: image may be offensive in Afghanistan and USA) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo%27s_David
      Hint: there's 2 000 000 000 people described as Christians, 3 of which are Shakers.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    2. Re:Question Re: Muslim beliefs by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, the Movieland Wax Museum in California had a replica of Michaelangelo's David with one important difference... that's right, the strategically placed fig leaf!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Question Re: Muslim beliefs by DigiShaman · · Score: 1
      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  51. How is this worth mentioning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Men will be men, big surprise there!

    Has the US gone completely immature and just goes "oh lol look he had pr0ns! omg! lol wtf! rotfl!"

    How is this sort of information relevant, let alone ethical ?

    Americans disgust me more and more. Apparently they failed very hard at ethics 101 (or even basic human psychology for that matter)

    Grow up yanks!

    1. Re:How is this worth mentioning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because muslims always like to rub it in how immoral western societies and people are.

      and here we are - a muslim having a stash of p0rn.

      so take a hard close look at yourself first, dear muslim friends, before complaining about other people.

      and it's not just p0rn. same story with alcohol.

  52. WHy do they publish such information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly. Why do they publish such information? If you investigate a college dormitory you most likely find porn there. I guess under every 14 year old bed there is some of that stuff to find. So why not at bin Laden house where he lived with many people together.

  53. The real OBL wouldn't have porn by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    So it must all be a lie! Really, who is going to believe all these stories if they won't show the world proof they actually found and killed the man? The average Jihad terrorist won't believe stuff like this and only get more infuriated because of it. This is turning into a PR nightmare for the USA. Fist no trial, then no proof and now slander after they (supposedly) killed him. Don't you just love the way the USA justice system works? Would you want the government that you chose treat you the same if they feel you've done them wrong?

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  54. Nothing nefarious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People need to keep their mouth shut before passing off hearsay as fact.

    A little critical thinking would help. Bin laden had wives. I don't think he really needs porn.

    1. Re:Nothing nefarious? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Uh, I have a wife. A relatively hot one, 10 years younger than me, who used to be told she should be a model. Doesn't keep me from viewing porn.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  55. Great post. Please mod up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :-)

  56. We Need to Define Pornography in this Case... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1
    ... and no, I'm not saying this because I want to see his collection. I'm saying this because there could be at least three different relevant definitions of porn here, and we need to know which one is being used:
    • Pornography as defined by a religious extremist
    • Pornography as defined by a conservative government
    • Pornography as defined by someone who uses the internet regularly

    In a culture were women wear veils, pornography might include a woman wearing what would be acceptable at a public school in the USA. And as our government continues to march towards increasing conservatism, their definition of pornography might not be far from that either.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:We Need to Define Pornography in this Case... by m6ack · · Score: 1

      ... and no, I'm not saying this because I want to see his collection. I'm saying this because there could be at least three different relevant definitions of porn here, and we need to know which one is being used:

      • Pornography as defined by a religious extremist
      • Pornography as defined by a conservative government
      • Pornography as defined by someone who uses the internet regularly

      So... A forth...

      Pornography as blessed in the name of Jihad

  57. Surprised? by Heliologue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Surprised? by Locke2005 · · Score: 0

      Well, they seem to be of the opinion that if a woman gets raped, it's HER fault... but how is that any different than Texas?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Surprised? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Notice however that the original source stated that the pornography was found "inside the compound", and we already know there were younger couriers working within it, a courier whose job took him regularly alone to internet cafes with usb sticks in hand.

      It's easy to jump to conclusions, but the fact is that it is more likely that any collection of pornography would be in the hands of the younger men in the compound(Bin Laden was in his 50s).

      It's clear that chinese whispers are inflating this story as it goes along. The second link is a fairly transparent attempt by the submitter to conflate this alleged collection of Bin Laden's with child pornography. And while all this is possible, I see no evidence whatsoever that Bin Laden actually had any pornography collection at all.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  58. Re:News For Nerds by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

    It may involves steganography, don't you think it is cool enough for nerds?

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  59. They're Not Very Specific by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    I mean was it your usual pizza delivery porn, midget group porn, goat porn, gay porn? Give us some details! Better yet, release the porn!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  60. Research by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    I am sure that he was only watching it for doing research on how decadent the West is.

  61. Cynical by DaMattster · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Cynical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breaking News.

      Bin Laden was watching PORN. OMG.

      This story is just... pitiful. The guy is dead. Just leave it alone.

    2. Re:Cynical by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I agree it does look like psyops. They'll milk it a lot more, psyops is a big operation and since the WAR ON TERROR(tm) was declared as a permanent war, it's a permanent operation.

    3. Re:Cynical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      However, the Obama Administration wants to parade OBL's faults and make his hypocrisy well-known thereby lessening his martyrdom.

      So Obama does need to spike the ball.

    4. Re:Cynical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because everyone who's a conservative is a bible thumper. Give me a fucking break and shove your stereotypes up your ass.

  62. Cynical? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    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 assume the US government wants to further inflame radical Islamic terrorists so as to further their hatred of the US people to encourage more attacks.

    1. Re:Cynical? by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

      In other words: Yes.

  63. I'm not sure this will end well for the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > 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?
    Not at all. In fact, I personally believe that the story of the porn should never have gotten to news outlets. Just because Bin Laden hurt the U.S., its government automatically considers him to be so sub-par of a human that they can happily say, "Hey! We found porn! WTF is that doing here?!" to anybody they please. Yes, he's dead. Does that mean that if one's grandfather died and we found a bunch of porn hidden in his place, we could all say, "Your grandfather was a pervert! Hahaha!" ? I don't think so. I believe it's wrong.

    However, it could be a tactic to get the enemy riled enough to make a hasty move. After all, it IS wrong. "Your leader is a pervert!" Those who believe in him so strongly could very easily be angered when something like that is said. On the other hand, if the U.S. isn't careful, its words could destroy the country. Like I said, I feel it's wrong, but it COULD merely be a war tactic to draw followers out of hiding. I sure hope the U.S. knows what it is doing...

  64. In short by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1
    In short:

    Steganography and pornography are the two breasts of lactating nerds.

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  65. WHY is this on Slashdot? by IntenseTech · · Score: 0

    How is this "News for nerds"??? This crap belongs in the tabloids or something. And certainly isn't worth even being mentioned in tech news. The only thing disgusting about this, is that it was allowed to be a news item HERE. I don't read Slashdot to get the latest gossip / hearsay on political figures, living, dead or undead. pfft... now there's two main things I'd like to see Slashdot do: 1) Allow me to read Slashdot without any anonymous posts whatsoever. 2) Allow me to delete / hide any story that's completely off topic in the tech arena, esp. political, fashion, sports. 'nuff said.

  66. Re:WMD? by milkmage · · Score: 2

    nope.. just several well used copies of Weapons of Ass Destruction

  67. Who cares? by nurb432 · · Score: 0

    Really, why do i care he had porn? Its not like most of the world cares, and if its to 'insult' him or give him a bad image, those that do care wouldn't believe it anyway.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  68. OBL was very smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Porn is nothing! If he had a collection of .mp3s or videos he would have been summarily executed years ago!

  69. Show us the evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They seriously need to show us the pictures, err, videos so that we can believe them.

  70. Personally... by vell0cet · · Score: 1

    Personally... I think this is brilliant.

    They assassinated him, now they're assassinating his character. It's hard to follow a martyr who's a horny lecherous old man who's into tasty teens. They're basically doing to bin Laden what the western media does to washed up celebrities. It doesn't matter how successful and popular Charlie Sheen may have been... nobody's would follow him into battle now.

  71. Re:Sexophobia/sexophilia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mark V. Shaney, is that you?

  72. I am guessing... by Phizzle · · Score: 1

    ...its either Burka on Burka action or some Afgan Pedobear stuff - thats how they roll there...

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
    1. Re:I am guessing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on these results, I'd be willing to wager that at least one donkey was involved. http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=donkey%20sex&cmpt=q

    2. Re:I am guessing... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      No, it was the worst stuff...

      Instead of normal guy on goat action, this was goat on goat!

  73. Guards, guards! by ForgedArtificer · · Score: 1

    So you've got a bunch of lonely guards, holding loaded weapons and locked up in a little compound with you all day.

    Oh, years ago they were feeling pretty zealot-y, but by now..... well, bending the religious dogma enough to keep a stash of porn around (after all, you've been loyal servants of Allah for years, he'll be ok with this one little transgression, a few extra prayers will take care of it...) might be considered a REALLY GOOD IDEA at this point.

    Or you could just let them wander away from the compound and rape the women of the town you're staying in. That's CERTAIN not to attract attention.

    --
    The right to offend is central to the right to free speech.
  74. slashdot where have you gone? by rhendershot · · Score: 1

    this isn't news. It doesn't matter. It's not very interesting to nerds. I'm very very tired of the blatant click-bait. Please.. Stop.

  75. Timothy - you suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bin Laden was a mass murderer and you're worried that the discovery of porn would denigrate him?

    Go fuck yourself.

  76. proportion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see, this man orchestrated the murder of many people. Strict Islam requires that raped women be stoned to death. But now, a stunning revelation: Bin Laden had porn. Somehow, that's the last straw in his moral condemnation?

  77. Proof! by PPH · · Score: 1

    Publish the pics! Now this is an AP FOIA request I could get behind. Forget those disgusting pics of head shots.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  78. Cynicism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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?

    Not at all, if defending bin Laden's integrity and moral stature is that important to you.

  79. Define porn by metacell · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    1. Re:Define porn by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      maybe it was Ghaddafi's bodyguards taking it all off except their weapons, and shaking their booties and boobies. .....ooo. Rule #34, /me hits the search engine!!!

    2. Re:Define porn by metacell · · Score: 1

      Damn you, now you've put the image in my head!

    3. Re:Define porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's disgusting you perv. Sicko.

    4. Re:Define porn by exentropy · · Score: 1

      I know it when I see it.

    5. Re:Define porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... I have heard of this, It's the BurkaShake dance ... Right????

    6. Re:Define porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Would you L@@K at the shins on that one!"

    7. Re:Define porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in Islam, that would earn her hanging in Hell by every strand of hair she showed anyone besides her husband.

  80. You may be a terrorist if.... by Memroid · · Score: 3, Funny

    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

  81. Re:Sexophobia/sexophilia by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

    Fnord!

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  82. So I want to hide in plain sight, avoiding the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes of COURSE I would choose to embed messages in illegal, universally despised, always hunted for by law enforcement, consumed by a narrow and shady audience, disseminated through the equivalent of "dark alley" servers/sites... child porn.

    Because there is so little legal, mass-consumed porn out there to choose from.

    Seriously, a terrorist strategy that amounts to "blending in with the OTHER criminals" ? No.

  83. Planted and/or Rationalized by DG · · Score: 4, 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

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:Planted and/or Rationalized by capnkr · · Score: 2
      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 share. Thank you.

      Tags: Sarcasm, Irony

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    2. Re:Planted and/or Rationalized by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. The government would never spread false-but-juicy tidbits to demoralize bin Laden's followers. I mean, they could have said much worse. Like he used his own wife as a human shield during the attack, or something.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    3. Re:Planted and/or Rationalized by Surt · · Score: 2

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

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Planted and/or Rationalized by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I was actually about to write the same thing myself. The interesting thing to note is that some of those lost fighters might do a boomerang. It's a little known fact that many of the founders of the Libertarian movement in American were former communists. When they abandoned communist thinking, they went straight to the opposite extreme without ever hitting the middle ground. That's just to illustrate my point that while we'll probably never hear about it, if it does happen, some of the people who believe this may actually switch sides over it.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  84. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By tarnishing his memory as much as possible they try to put a shadow on his martyrhood. Abin laden doing what he preached is a great martyr. A bin Laden which watch porn, masturbate on kiddy porn (I bet the next find) is not so much a great martyr.

    And it is not as if *all* muslim will disbelieve the US governement 100%. Some will have doubts. A seed of doubt well placed could push a few of them to abandon the movement, or worst.

  85. Was any of this porn child porn? by jonwil · · Score: 1

    Finding evidence that Osama was involved with child porn would combine 2 of the 3 biggest arguments used for internet censorship (child porn and terrorist groups).
    And if this child porn (if it existed) was copied without the permission of the copyright holder, it would give you all 3 reasons for internet censorship.

  86. How is he different from any government official? by Shivetya · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  87. Hiding Messages in Porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it possible that the porn was for Steganography purposes?

  88. Rule of Law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What differentiate us from barbarous murderer assholes like bin laden, is that we follow the rule of law, and set up process for people to defend themselves against what they are accused of, as opposed to torture them or even execute them while unarmed.

    Which is why IMHO he should have been arrested, given a process, THEN executed, THEN the corpse given to the ocean. But a direct execution for "resisting" while unarmed, give a bitter taste : the SEED of doubt that the rule of law was maybe planned from the start by those who sent the seal there , to be ignored. And least you accuse me of being a laden-lover : I am not. But on the other hand I have already watched some non-US country channel news state that it was maybe an execution and thus illegal. Think about that carefully. Maybe you do not care, but increasingly the US is seen as a rogue state which use immoral means (torture) and ilelgal means (execution) to do its stuff.

    1. Re:Rule of Law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...we follow the rule of law, and set up process for people to defend themselves against what they are accused of, as opposed to torture them...

      Four words: Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

  89. Re:He didn't seem all that ba... wait,he had PORN! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Because it's interesting. Already here on Slashdot it's gotten nearly 400 comments. Haven't you noticed how the administration has leaked a constant stream of 'interesting' things about the Osama Bin Laden raid? They know it is good political stuff, and the more they can get people talking about it, the longer Obama's popularity spike will last. That is what they are hoping.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  90. nothing new... by idji · · Score: 1

    Turkey had softporn after midnight on free-to-air TV channels in the early 90's. Konya was the center of fundamentalism back then and had the largest porn sales, overtly on the streets. Porn and Islam go so well together, especially with all that suppressed sexuality. At least they could say they are just practicing for their heavenly virgins.
    I doubt the Vatican is any different, with its suppressed sexuality.

    1. Re:nothing new... by dancingmad · · Score: 2

      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.).

      --
      "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
  91. What Kind of porn? by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

    72 virgins in paradise?

    --
    "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
  92. Wait, what? by motang · · Score: 1

    Isn't it against Islam to have pornography?

  93. Muslims are not puritan Christians. by jandersen · · Score: 1

    All this hullabaloo about Osama having watched porn is based on the assumption that it is something he, as a muslim, would be ashamed of. I'm sure this is the case - all this prudishness and denial of our natural instincts is to a great extent something that is specific to our culture. Just read Arabian Nights - not the "cleaned up" version, but the full version. Or Kama Sutra, or look around in Indian temples; being shy about sexuality is not universal amongst religious people, it is a Christian thing.

    All in all, I think most of his followers will be more interested in knowing which titles he preferred, so they can emulate their spiritual leader.

  94. steganography by feynmanfan1 · · Score: 1

    I would like to point out that it is possible this was used for steganography, hiding messages inside common images so that they would not attract attention. Basically pornography is really common on the internet. It does make for good U.S. propaganda though. A note about steganography should be prominent on a tech sight like slashdot, just goes to show how how crappy slashdot has gotten. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography#Digital_steganography

  95. Video Playback Equipment? by hawguy · · Score: 1

    They say "video playback equipment" as if it's some high technology that only a government official would have access to. I have at least 8 separate pieces of "video playback equipment" in my house counting DVD, Blu-ray, VHS, DVR and computers.

    Oh, and I have porn in various formats so I can play it in any of those devices. It's part of my disaster preparedness, some things are too important to go without.

  96. FOIA request can be filed? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Since the prOn found in Bin Laden compound can not be military secrets it can not be classified. Since there is no trial pending it can not be called evidence of some trial. Sorbanes Oxley act prohibits destruction of electronic records. So it can't be erased either. So if you file a FOIA request for that material, the Government of the United States must provide you with the smut!

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  97. Calling BullS*** by MonsterMasher · · Score: 1

    What!? No 'Bomb making material'? no White supremacist lit?!

    A weird twist on the classic negative propaganda. It usually goes like this:

    "When the 'compound' was searched, White Supremacists literature, guns, and Bomb making material was found."

    They don't mention that Bomb material usually consist of bleach and other house hold cleaners.

    There is not a home in the USA which doesn't contain 'bomb materials'

  98. Bagdad Bob... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..here.

  99. Cynical? Yes. by seeker_1us · · Score: 1

    It is quite likely that they found pornography.

    Bin Laden was a spoiled rich kid who became a mafia leader. He sought power. He killed innocent people and his own mafia partners to gain power. He used Islam as a means to that end.

    I find no reason what so ever to expect that he was dedicated to God, except in terms of lip-service.

    Furthermore, his mafia organization (al-Queda) probably used Steganography in the porn for transmitting messages.

  100. Facials? by witherstaff · · Score: 1

    His favorite porn must have ended with getting shot in the eye

  101. Hypocrisy by turgid · · Score: 1

    There's no hypocrite like a religious hypocrite.

  102. Re:I expect you'd find some in the White House, to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... 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.

    What a stupid thing to say. You actually believe they added a load of porn to the choppers just so they could add propaganda value to the mission?

  103. Osama Bin Wankin' ?? by HycoWhit · · Score: 1

    Osama Bin Wankin' ??

  104. So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guys lived there. Porn is a surprise?

  105. First we have drop weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now we have drop porn.

  106. Wow! What a shocker! by pro151 · · Score: 1

    This from a culture that wages "Holy War" against the infidels that would corrupt their "pure and true" society. What do you expect form a bunch of towel heads that believe it is fine to treat their wives and mistresses like 2nd class, 3rd rate sub-human slaves? Who in their right mind would find this to be unusual?

  107. In other news, Obama poll scores have IMPROVED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like, who are they polling? Does "public" mean you and I or the electors? :-)

    PS: I raise your Richard Gere gerbil with my Madonna fucked-by-a-Bull video, which actually DID happen but is elusive to find on the peer2peer nets because she actively searches her own porn to throw around C'N'D letters from her fine collection of Staff (moar liek Staff Infection).

    InB4DonkeyShowTijuana.

  108. Or maybe.... by DG · · Score: 1

    People are much more willing to share good news than bad news.

    Given that this is one of the best bits of news in a very very long time - arguably, the best news since 9/11 - they can be somewhat forgiven for wanting to get it out in a hurry, even if all the details weren't firmed up yet.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  109. Heh. by DG · · Score: 1

    Thanks.

    I'm a big fan of "lead by example".

    The best way to generate unbiased and thoughtful discourse? Generate thoughtful and unbiased discourse.

    It doesn't hurt either than I'm not 16 and have seen some stuff. I find my opinions get a lot more grey the older I get. The 16 year old me was an asshole.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  110. Hussein & Laden burned poppy fields -- that's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only mistakes Sadam and Osama are dead is because they burned down the poppy fields around them throughout the middle east. I researched this matter conclusively, and ever since Sadam was killed the poppy fields were replanted 5-times larger domain and guarded by actual US Army soldiers whom I met after having returned.

    Osama did the same thing: he burned all the poppy fields in Afghanistan, but they were promptly replanted. It is prime evidence that US Congress and CIA are actively using Heroin as well as other drugs to tamper and re-conquer and domesticate Americans by passing nasty cut-throat regulations in the States to seize houses and assets and imprison the people of all their liberties and freedoms for recurring Felony maintenance that you never grow out-of. Just look at the numbers, and all the fake infrastructure to "rehabilitate" inmates. This is the same matter of business that killed Sony Bono because he was pushing legislation and investigations to investigate the link of known drug traffickers.

    Also the best source for defending yourself of this legislation is a man Marc Stevens whom authored Adventures In Legalland.

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Marc+Stevens+drugs

    From the early '90's, seizing assets and houses of people having any connection to "drugs" has been a $17 billion industry, in which the seizures return to the raiding Party as spoils of war to earn them bonuses as it is auctioned-off without a warrant and without a legal or equitable title of any kind.

    All they are is a huge class of cannibalistic Felons liquidating assets of the people just before they diaspora back around the world like a bunch of international robbers to live a higher quality of living than the people they left with debt-slavery.

  111. How fucking stupid is this, really? by CaptainTux · · Score: 1

    So bin Laden had a collection of porn. So did most of the 'men who killed him. What does that mean? It means that, in addition to being a terrorist, bin Laden was also a normal human being who wasn't a lot different than many of us on different levels. I think it's interesting that porn always seems to surface when the government wants to 'really' discredit someone (like they needed to in this case?). It's like they're pandering to the conservative Christians in the country to prove how bad the person was. I can see the conversation now: Mom: Well, they got bin Laden, finally Dad: Yeah, well, I don't think we should celebrate the death of another human being Mom: They found out he had porn, Jimmy - *porn*! Dad: Oh hell no! Thank God they got that evil bastard before he could get that filth into our wholesome American culture. I'm so mad right now, I think I'll be in the garage praying and cuddling with the flag. Mom: It's okay honey, calm down, he's not a threat anymore: they killed him and seized the porn. It's in a safe place now where it can't hurt anyone. This is the most insanely stupid thing I've read in a while. But it's just part of the all-out propaganda war we tend to run against our enemies. We did it to Castro, we did it to the Russians when we were enemies, and it shouldn't surprise us that we are doing it to bin Laden. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go masturbate to a hot picture of Laura Bush and Michelle Obama I photoshopped together. HAWT! I bet Osama had the good stuff too...

    --
    Anthony Papillion
    Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
    "Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
    1. Re:How fucking stupid is this, really? by m6ack · · Score: 1

      So bin Laden had a collection of porn. So did most of the 'men who killed him. What does that mean? It means that, in addition to being a terrorist, bin Laden was also a normal human being who wasn't a lot different than many of us on different levels.

      Well... it's not very stupid to me actually... The people that look up to Bin Laudin are Extreme Muslims. If he were truly watching homosexual porn, or American porn... well, it would discredit him in the eyes of his followers. He would not be the great imam... but... as you stated just another flawed human being... A man in a world of extremes that cannot win against his passions... how can he be a holy leader of the Jihad?

  112. While I'm at it... by DG · · Score: 1

    The decision to go in with a Special Ops team, instead of blasting the compound with a UAV or cruise missile strike, is one of the ballsiest decisions I've seen a commander-in-chief make in a very, very long time.

    Notwithstanding their carefully crafted image and SOCOM 3, any time you put men on the ground far away from safety, the level of assumed risk skyrockets. Even this raid lost a helicopter (shades of Carter's attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages in the '70s)

    But when it goes right, it allows you to tightly focus the violence to the smallest possible audience, killing the bare minimum necessary to accomplish the mission, and (mostly - even SEALs make mistakes sometimes) ensuring that you get the right target.

    Far too many American presidents have taken the safe and expedient COA rather than the risky but more morally justifiable COA.

    And the payoff is HUGE. Not only did they get their man, they snagged a treasure trove of intel that will probably prove to be the unraveling of the remnants of the Al-Quaida network. And perhaps more importantly, they did it without killing the dozens of children who were living in the compound.

    This whole mission was very, very well done, and I hope it represents a turning point for a lot of US foreign policy.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:While I'm at it... by korean.ian · · Score: 1

      This whole mission was very, very well done, and I hope it represents a turning point for a lot of US foreign policy.

      DG

      It sure does! Public assassination is now part of the game of international relations! Wheeeee!

  113. He is dead by netflusher · · Score: 1

    Lol, he's dead, its not like he'll come out and deny this. Say what ever you want and people will believe it. Even if this is true, i wouldn't be surprised. The guy was an asshole and he deserved what he got.

  114. Don't fucking do it, then. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of examples of false confessions being given,

    Mostly under duress, which is not the case here.

    and it's not uncommon for terrorist groups to try to take credit for activities that they didn't actually do

    It's not uncommon for people to hit their thumbs with hammers, poison themselves with household cleaning products, or shoot themselves with firearms that were absolutely positively not loaded.

    You probably think people should be protected against their own stupidity, but then it could be suggested that you don't exactly have a neutral viewpoint on the matter.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Don't fucking do it, then. by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      You don't understand terrorism, do you? The idea isn't to do real damage to the target, but to generate a lot of fear with very public (but relatively harmless) shows of violence. The events of 9/11 were unusually harmful for a terrorist action, but even then it's the psychological damage that has taken a toll on America, not the 0.083% of Americans who died that day. It's actually good strategy for a terrorist group to take credit for things they didn't do, because they get a bump upward in publicity (and thus fear in the target) without having to put themselves at more than minimal risk. One should never take anything a terrorist says as the truth, at least without independent, corroborating evidence. In fact the best strategic response to terrorism is to either ignore it or appear to ignore it while quietly searching them out.

      Terrorists very much know what they're doing when they claim credit for actions they never did; don't you think it behooves us to 1) not help them along by believing in their propaganda and 2) make damn sure that you punish the right people for crimes they actually did?

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    2. Re:Don't fucking do it, then. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You don't understand terrorism, do you?

      Not as well as you understand being a patronising, arrogant git, that's for sure. But better than you understand math, it would seem...

      not the 0.083% of Americans who died that day.

      O Rly? A quarter of a million?

      Terrorists very much know what they're doing when they claim credit for actions they never did

      I know, but I don't care. If you don't wanted to be treated like you did it, don't boast that you did it. Simple enough. It's like when people do a holdup with fake guns and then get shot; entirely self-inflicted, serves them right, and good riddance to bad rubbish.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  115. It's apparently legit by reboot246 · · Score: 2

    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

  116. Standard US MO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://maxblumenthal.com/2011/05/did-bin-laden-borrow-his-porn-stash-from-manuel-noriega/

  117. Bin Laden porn by PattyMc · · Score: 1

    Of course it is true. This war is about a patriarchal culture seeking to prevent the emancipation of its women. The purpose of women in that culture is to bear children - children that can be reliably sourced as belonging to a particular male - and provide sexual gratification. They are obsessed with wanton Western women. They just want to make sure they stay in the West or on a dvd. They don't want them in their neighborhood or raising their children.The West may be fighting to keep the oil flowing but these guys are fighting to keep their women as chattel.The more patriarchal the culture, the more obsessed it is with sex and power..

  118. Cynical by avxo · · Score: 1
    Timothy:

    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 cynical to mention it, however, it's unclear what the US government gains by releasing this information however. The overwhelming majority of people fall into one of two categories: those who see bin Laden as a moral compass and those who see him as a terrorist thug, beyond redemption. The former won't believe the porn story and will assume it's propaganda to discredit and insult bin Laden; the latter wouldn't care about whether bin Laden liked scheiße porn.

    This may be cynical of me, but I wish you'd added a "Warning: FUD story ahead, submitted by the writer of the story" disclaimer to the FUD "twitpic will sell your pics!!!!1111one!!! I HAVE DIVINED THIS FROM TEA LEAVES!" story you approved by Andy Smith.

  119. Consider the source by pasv · · Score: 1

    It's the US govt just putting shit on terrorist leaders' reputations. The tactic isn't uncommon but it might be more effective against religious extremists. I say good move, fake or not! Wars aren't just fought with bullets (like the one going thru Bin Landin's brain, hohoho)

  120. FOI by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Forget the Photoshopped death photos, I'm filing a FOI request for all of that porn.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  121. 72 videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    72 videos to be precise.

  122. Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would be more interested where he got it if he had no internet?
    Do they still sell mags?

  123. Why this news HAD to come out by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    So everybody can forget about asking for the photos of ... of ...

    Who had porn?

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  124. uh, nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't news...

  125. LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL! Yes, because killing thousands of people aint nuthin compared to watching Debbie does Baghdad.

  126. selection bias? not necessarily by pterry · · Score: 1

    The people doing the searching probably know from experience that they will get more results for an English search term than for its local translation. Also, searching for images, they are less likely to care what language the accompanying text is in.

  127. Not a surprise at all. by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

    Porn is often how terrorist use stenography to communicate amongst each other covertly.

    1. Re:Not a surprise at all. by m6ack · · Score: 1

      Porn is often how terrorist use stenography to communicate amongst each other covertly.

      Not this bunch... We're pretty sure how he communicated with his people... nice try though.

  128. OMG just connected the dots by dindi · · Score: 1

    It was then the dude from Middle Men, who either gave the idea to track foreign threat by the taste of porno or tracked them again with the young military blond. Now I understand!!!!

  129. Interesting... but... by m6ack · · Score: 1

    I'm really interested in what kind of porn it was... Did it have to do with goats, like everyone is joking about? Was he ogling Americans, Arabians -- male or female, I wonder?

  130. No designated porn buddy? by kimgkimg · · Score: 1

    Was his porn buddy killed in the raid too? Or maybe he didn't designate a porn buddy.

  131. Who said he was against porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He hates America because you support the corrupt, dictatorial Saudi family in his home country. He hates Israel because of their treatment of his fellow Arabs in Palestine. All the rest was added by you propaganda departments (Fox et al) I also don't like the guy, but I am just saying what he ac

  132. Geneva Conventions Don't Preclude Shooting by cmholm · · Score: 1

    The core concept of the Geneva Conventions is the humane treatment of protected classes of people, those who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities. Combatants can be killed at will. It isn't required to give quarter, inquire if enemy combatants are seeking it, or determine their combat capabilities. One isn't even strictly required to honor a white flag.

    Thus, per UN Resolution 1373, and the US Congress' Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115Stat.224, enacted September18, 2001), American commandos enjoyed the latitude to capture or kill OBL. As it worked out, they killed him, although you may not approve of the act or the international protocols that authorized it.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  133. Oh you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Osama was just like any ordinary guy?

    Honestly, I doubt it was Osama's. He had three wives there, how much do you think they guy can get it up? It was probably his kid's that they killed.

  134. ? on linked article for "pornography not uncommon" by pmarinus · · Score: 1

    Why is that 2008 article the only reference I can find on the web to the “White-chapel Rapist”? That part of the article is quoted verbatim and discussed on many sites, yet is not independently cited.