Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 15, 2011

Bin Laden Data Used For Blackmail

It is claimed that the raid on the Bin Laden home in Abbottabad also caught a huge amount of data from computer storage devices allegedly found there.

Because no one else has this alleged data, the administration can use it as cover to claim anything about anyone. As I half jokingly wrote:

I am told that the huge amount of data found on DVD disks and memory sticks during the alleged assassination of Osama bin Laden contains proof of a railway plot and also reveals that:
a. Iran will have nuclear weapons within three years,
b. Iran's president Ahmedinejad uses sorcery,
c. Iran's supreme leader Khamenei has a chronic flatulence problem,
d. Iran has special trucks in which Khamenei produces those deadly islamist bio-weapons which makes him the world's greatest threat.
Other great, top secret facts from the found data will be revaled by the administration whenever it will fit its agenda.

We have already seen how this alleged data is used to defame Bin Laden by claiming, without any proof, that the data contained pornography.

Now the U.S. is using the threat to find something culpable in the secret data against Pakistan. As top NYT administration stenographer David Sanger sets out in a preview of Senator Kerry's current pressure mission in Pakistan:

A senior administration official said Saturday that the United States would try to use the threat of Congressional cuts to the $3 billion in annual American aid to Pakistan as leverage. Any evidence of Pakistan’s complicity in sheltering Bin Laden — culled from the hundreds of computer flash drives and documents recovered in the raid — could also be used, the official said. So far, no such evidence has been found.
Mr. Kerry’s main piece of negotiating leverage is Pakistan’s uncertainty about what officials are finding in the trove of computer data — which Mr. Donilon has compared to “a small college library” — about Pakistani complicity hiding the Qaeda leader.

This is pure blackmail: "We might have some evidence against you and publish it, but if you do what we want, then we might not have any."

Having secret data from Bin Laden will allow all kinds of such threats against many nations and people. Beware of believing any of it.

Meanwhile where is Obama holding Osama's son Hamza?

Posted by b on May 15, 2011 at 9:37 UTC | Permalink


No one should believe anything that the evil empire says anyway, but especially on this issue. I don't believe ten percent of the bin Laden assassination story as it is, and I will not believe the sudden discovery that Pakistan is planning a nuclear first strike on India (or whatever).

Posted by: Joseph | May 15 2011 12:07 utc | 1

well it depends how much credibility they have, and I guess they do not have much

this - via Glenn Greenwald - is a take of the legality of it all by a prosecutor of the Nurenberg trials

it should be spread

Posted by: somebody | May 15 2011 19:29 utc | 2

New posting of what I accidently posted on the Strauss-Kahn thread:

I quite agree; the story of pornography could be true, could be false. Without specification who knows?
I doubt though whether the announcement will have the blackmail effect supposed.
As I imagine most men of the Christian right have pornography on their computer, so probably many religious Muslim men do too. Men in constrictive religious situations need material to wank to (as do, of course, others).
By the way, for the women who read this site, I consider porn to be simply visual stimulation to wank to. It doesn't say anything about women.
Bin Ladin's sons probably did have this need, much as I've seen Catholic priests fondle my female friends.
The question is, will this blackmail have its effect? I doubt it, I'm not sure that Muslim reaction is the same as Protestant Christian. We'll see.

Posted by: alexno | May 15 2011 20:14 utc | 3

mad dog british enraged by gadaffis behaviour turn to death squads again:

so what enraged the placid brits? was it this?

'At the outset of the revolution, Qadhafi vowed to house every Libyan, many of whom were still living in tents and houses made out of flattened oil drums. He also vowed that his own parents, who lived in a tent in the Sirte desert, would not be housed until every Libyan was housed. He fulfilled that promise, his own father dying before he had the opportunity to move him into a home. Large scale housing construction took place right across the country, all Libyans being given a decent house or apartment to live in rent-free. In Qadhafi’s Green Book it states: “The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.” '

Posted by: brian | May 15 2011 22:16 utc | 4

the Us needs Pakistan in order to close a deal with Afghanistan Talebans; so why did Obama calculatedly delegitimize its government in front of the whole world, reducing it to pariah status?

besides, Pakistan can't be pushed too far on the fight on terrorism, because of internal instability, and the Us knows it; Pakistan already has paid a very heavy price;

I think Us and pakistani interests collide in Afghanistan; the Us doesn't want to recognize a role for Pakistan in the region, also because the Us want to use the region as a launghing pad against China (I have the impression that a Us-Russia deal has been reached)

so, I think the Us has already decided that Pakistan must either become a Us colony, at its disposal for its imperial ambitions, or be the next failed state on its list; this probably is the message Kerry is carrying;

on the other hand, Pakistan seems to refuse colonization, also thanks to China, that keeps sustaining it; so the failed state goal is probably the only one on the table; it will be pursued through separatism in Beluchistan and every other mean at disposal;

Posted by: claudio | May 16 2011 0:44 utc | 5

Pakistan’s Ambassador to China, Masood Khan: "the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that China would fully support the stance of Pakistan regarding its national interest, solidarity and integrity."

the stakes are quite clear

China has always avoided direct confrontation with the Us, but this time it might be different;

Posted by: claudio | May 16 2011 0:57 utc | 6

The keepers of Bin Laden's computer will probably soon find all sorts of data about Obama's Islamic beliefs, too -- all the better to reinforce the growth of "defense" budgets. Look for the reports on Faux News any day now.

Posted by: JohnH | May 16 2011 4:17 utc | 7

OBL had a stash of porno? Who knows (probably not). What we do know however, is that the U.S. military/intelligence establishment has a long and sordid record of using sex as a weapon against Muslims. The officially sanctioned practices from Gitmo to Abu-Ghraib and everything in between, the U.S. has shown over and over again a perverted obsession with the belief that it can extract a desired psychological advantage though sexually front loaded interrogation methodology. The world sure as shit, knows all about this and it's rather uniquely American character.

(Almost) Funny that they should remind the world of this innovation, with regards to OBL. As if first, anyone would believe it, coming as it were, from the inventors and champion purveyors of this dark art, and secondly as if OBL having did own some porno, that this would be any worse than actively using it for ulterior purposes like we are.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by: anna missed | May 16 2011 8:36 utc | 8

anna missed @ 8: exactly right. As to whether or not he looked at naked folks, who really cares? Any male who's honest, will admit, in most cases, sex really trumps ideology. Maybe now we know BL was a typical religious wacko. If folks in the sex films are there of their own decision, i for one, find it hard to call it porno.( no pun intended.)

Posted by: ben | May 16 2011 14:29 utc | 9

P.S.: It's still only Kabuki, AKA distraction.

Posted by: ben | May 16 2011 15:44 utc | 10

Without proof? What sort of proof would you accept? If the U.S. Gov't released some porn as "proof", would that convince you?

Blackmail? This is really a stupid post. Why would we need to blackmail Pakistan by saying we've got some data and we'll release it unless they do what we want? We already give them at least a billion dollars a year. We can just threaten to stop giving them a billion dollars a year, unless they do what we want.

I really don't think you thought this through.

Posted by: D.C. | May 20 2011 1:57 utc | 11


you think 1 billion dollars a years were given gratuitously? Pakistan collaborated with the Us till it was on the verge of civil war

they might as well ask for 10 billion dollars a year to do what the Us wants them to do, the price might still be too low, who can say?

anyways, yours is a really stupid post: if that kind of threat you suggest would be enough, then why don't the Us just enact it? maybe 1 billion dollars is too low

Posted by: claudio | May 20 2011 14:21 utc | 12

The comments to this entry are closed.