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?

Comments

Too cynical?

[XxtraLarGe]

Is it too cynical to mention that the US government has a vested interest in denigrating Bin Laden, and that he's no longer around to deny this claim?

No, probably not. I'm not sure why they would release this detail if it's true. It's not like people's opinion is going to change. "Well, I sort of liked bin Laden until I found out there was PORNOGRAPHY in his compound." Also, it's not like Muslims are going to believe the US government anyway, whether they were bin Laden supporters or not.

Re:Too cynical?

[Xeranar]

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.

Re:Too cynical?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the execution of an old man in front of his family. You've phrased it that way to encourage sympathy.

I can't help thinking he had a quick, easy death. Compared to those people who had to choose between jumping to theirs, or getting burned alive in one of the Towers. What do you imagine their last moments were like?

Re:Too cynical?

[guyminuslife]

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

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

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

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

Re:Too cynical?

[cold fjord]

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?

Let the jokes begin...

[emailandthings]

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"

Steganography

[shoppa]

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.

The First Report Is Never Right

[DG]

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

Wouldn't be shocking..

[feidaykin]

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.

Re:Human after all!

[jamesh]

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

Human - and flawed

[DG]

One of the things that made Osama so dangerous was that he had set himself up as a kind of religious aesthete who, to his followers, had claimed the moral high ground and was thus an example to be emulated.

He was claiming to be more pious than Islamic religious leaders who were preaching a more moderate course of action.

If his claims of piety can be shown to be demonstrably false; if he can be shown to be as flawed and "sinful" as every other man, much of the righteous indignation that mobilizes his followers can be neutralized.

Having disillusioned former terrorists and jihadists renounce their former ways and return to the Muslim mainstream is a win for everybody - it's a win for Islam, a win for the West - and a win for the former jihadists, who will get to live more normal lives that won't have to end violently.

Killing one's enemy is never the ideal course of action. Sometimes it is necessary. But far better for everyone if they become your friends - or at the very least, renounce being your sworn enemy.

DG

Re:Human - and flawed

[_Sprocket_]

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.

Re:Human - and flawed

[RsG]

Actually, even if they didn't assume it was a plant, even if they assumed it really was Bin Laden's porn stash, they'd do what we humans always do in situations like this. They'd rationalize.

It's a universal fault in human nature that we condemn the actions of strangers but forgive those same acts if they're carried out by our idols, friends, family, countrymen, or what-have you. When your friend's SO cheats on them, you call them a bitch/bastard/horrible human being - when that same friend cheats on his/her SO, you assume there were extenuating circumstances. When your religion calls child molestation an unforgivable sin, you condemn all the kiddie-fiddlers to hell - except when the padre is caught with his hands up the altar-boy's skirt; then it's "he has a problem and needs help", and you look the other way while he's reassigned to a new position where he won't have the temptation. When another nation's soldiers kill civvies in a combat zone, it's a war crime - when your own soldiers do the same it's unavoidable collateral damage.

See the pattern? Guilt doesn't matter. Morals don't matter. Familiarity with the accused does. Basic human tribal behaviour.

So what will the supporters of Al-Qaeda think about dear leader's porn stash? They'll make allowances for it. They'll rationalize it, make excuses. Just like any other human being would were they put in that position. That doesn't even get into the fact that most of those same supporters will be adult men, who have their own well hidden porn stashes, and therefor may empathize.

Re:Worth mentioning? Probably not...

[InfiniteZero]

This is a textbook example of the selection bias.

In countries like Afghanistan, the segment of the population that have Internet access and are capable of search in English terms, probably have little in common with the rest of the population.

Re:Human after all!

[PopeRatzo]

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

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

Surprised?

[Heliologue]

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.

Re:Anyone else?

[Locke2005]

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.