Osama Bin Laden Photo Leaked

 Posted by on May 4, 2011  Add comments
May 042011
 

The US president has decided that the picture taken of Osama Bin Laden after he was shot is too gruesome for general release, but luckily, one of my henchmen was a deep-cover member of the Navy Seal team that took out the evil mastermind, codenamed Geronimo.

He sent us this picture from Pakistan.

 

I know it’s horrible, but you have the right to see it and judge for yourself.  Is this really Osama bin Laden or an uncannily accurate body double?  Could it be Photoshopped?   Is it his identical twin?  Or an identical triplet?

Informed sources suggest that Osama bin Laden cloned thousands of copies of himself and sent them to every corner of the Earth, so how do we know that this is indeed the World’s Most Wanted Man?

White House security sources insist that DNA evidence doesn’t lie.  According to reports, tests on the body indicate 99.9% certainty that this is the man known to have sat in caves looking extremely sinister and holding a very sinister-looking rifle.   99.9% certainty means that the chances of this being Bin Laden are 1000 to 1, which means that there are only seven million other people in the world who match this DNA, and half of them are women.

You can’t get better odds than that.

  85 Responses to “Osama Bin Laden Photo Leaked”

Comments (85)
  1.  

    Yeah, but what about the bankers. You seem to have ‘conveniently’ forgotten about them.

    Edit: Very sorry, you were asking for that though…

    ::

  2.  

    Do they mean that it is 99.9% more likely that they would observe these genetic profiles (in the DNA they obtained) if the alleged body was bin Laden’s than they would observe if the body was from an unrelated man? They must have had DNA samples from close relatives of Bin Laden to make assessments like that. Even then, these figures just allow them to relay opinions about relationships in terms understandable to Joe Soap, from terms like likelihood ratios which show how strongly DNA supports relationships between people.

  3.  

    They have DNA from his sister.

  4.  

    It appears the Bin Laden who was killed this time was the bulb of Bert from Sesame street !

    How could that happen ? must have been the dialysis, or maybe he was a Muppet all along

    Let history show

    ( Is that cotton wool in his eye some sort of dressing )?

  5.  

    a (bad) ballad for bin laden

    I shot him in the eye, in the eye,
    Him and the missus chillin,gettin high , gettin high ,
    He pushed her out in front of him ,
    That’s no lie, that’s no lie.

    Didn’t really mean for him to die, for him to die,
    She didn’t get a chance to say good bye, say good bye,
    There’s stuff in compounds which money just can’t buy, just can’t buy,
    And if Bin Laden had only knew this,
    Our story wouldn’t have to end with a sigh, with a sigh

    Thank me later

    no really .

  6.  

    Full sister or half?! Uncertainty increases if she was his half sister and there is a greater chance of false positives and false negatives. One of his childrens DNA would give the greatest level of certainty, I think.

  7.  

    I don’t know. As you say, a half-sister would increase the chances of false positives, and in any case we cant seem to get a straight story from them. What sort of world superpower can’t even plan its lies in advance and stick to them? I would have thought that was an elementary point.

  8.  

    i saw him in supermacs last evening

  9.  

    He’s like the last great American whale.

  10.  

    robert fisk said yesterday, that there was one question unanswered – what osama thought about the emerging democracy in the arab world – in an earlier interview with fisk, he had prophesied this movement, but as a Caliphate, which it plainly isn’t and has not been a motivation or driver.

    jim corr might try to conflate these events – the execution and this arab movement – this is wrong and perhaps this is what concerns the west, as the friendly dictator is uncovered as the butcher.

    india apparently, is pakistan’s biggest concern – maybe this is why it’s not good at finding the most wanted men on the planet ,

  11.  

    jim corr is a muppet.

    sorry – what was the question again?

  12.  

    I heard that interview with Fisk, and he made a lot of sense. OBL’s day had passed long ago, and the Arab revolution has rendered al Qaeda irrelevant. It seems to me that this action in Pakistan was like killing off a TV character. It doesn’t matter if they really shot Osama Bin Laden or not. The whole point is to end the storyline. I just hope he doesn’t walk out of the shower in a few years like Bobby Ewing.

  13.  

    this one from salman rushdie who knows more than me, but not jim ,

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-02/salman-rushdie-pakistans-deadly-game/

    i’ll never say anything bad about jim on the off chance that he might introduce me to one of his sisters, andrea perhaps but i don’t mind , but yes andrea – she knows loads about stuff

  14.  

    Rushdie is right. The real threat is teh Pakistan Taliban, while the generals and spies continue to blind themselves to the threat because of their ridiculous obsession with India. Everyone should read Midnight’s Children.

  15.  

    @ artyeva.

    no jim is class.

    bock’s picture above tells of that moppet lie you speak about.
    when bert left sesame st.( alledegly after rows about who got top billing , he or ernie, and then big burd stole their march) , anyway, when bert left he became a body double for osama, his height was a differentiator in a middling height arab world, and as the grotesque picture shows above, bert shoulda stuck with the street.

  16.  

    which is how i saw the real OBL in town last night – with a polystyrene cup at his sat down feet, outside o’mahonys – and him with the shakes mumbling something about”poor bert, allah be mercifull” or else it was ” gaspers bud ?”

  17.  

    yes bock, the western narrative is jaded and utterly biased.

    beggers belief to hear the corn fed chanting of U.S.A that night, celebrating the death of this man, hardly closure. ( that said with total respect to the victims of 9-11)

    donald trump frightened me recently, although he won’t be the republican candidate, when he as much as said ” let’s stop the silliness in libya and just go in and take the oil” and middle america silently agreed or as much as .

  18.  

    As someone said in a text to Vincent tonight, if Osama had caused the deaths of thousands in Dublin we’d be cheering too on the streets if the FCA took him out…

  19.  

    The picture looks like Brian Cowen after 42 pints.
    Regarding OBL, it’s definitely the most expensive execution in human history. OBL was a monster, but IMHO it doesn’t give country A any right to kill individual B in country C’s territory. When other’s do that to country A, they call it terrorism.
    Now, can we please get a no-fly zone over the Palestinians.
    Cheers!

  20.  

    If the FCA took him out he’d be in the pub.

  21.  

    I wish they’d got Dustin the Turkey.

  22.  

    All this nonsense about images. If as claimed he was shot twice in the face with a military weapon, then the images must resemble road kill? Therefore proving nothing.

  23.  

    And where was Mr.Snuffleupagus in all this? Heh? Big Bird seems to be his only link to the Western World…I smell Jim Hensons hand in this whole situation too..

  24.  

    “If the FCA took him out he’d be in the pub.” hahaha
    Vincent did one of those queer stares at the camera when he read that one all right.. ha.

  25.  

    If the FCA “took” him “out” he’d be sitting in bed deafened by multiple shouts of ‘Bang Bang!”

  26.  

    I thought that the picture would be bad, but not THAT bad! I won’t sleep at night now. Like the green couch, though – at least he had a good interior decorating sense about him. But I thought that he was shot over his left eye, not into it.

    99.9% certainty – 999 to 1, not 1,000 to 1. So not such good odds after all.

    Sniffle – is it later yet? Thanks – really. What melody is that to be sung to? Maybe Ernie really did it – and should also get a 1/4 of the $25m reward money…

    Just found this – from (of course) the Wiki page for “Bert is Evil”:

    In late 1998 Pozniak posted a contribution submitted by humorist J-roen photoshopped to depict a then relatively unknown international terrorist, Osama bin Laden,[7] posing with Bert.

    Is this photo then support for the “uncannily accurate body double” theory (or maybe it supports the photoshop theory)?:

    http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20001209122600/plaza.v-wave.com/bert/exclu006.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_is_Evil

  27.  

    If the FCA “took” him “out” he’d be sitting in bed deafened by multiple shouts of ‘Bang Bang!”
    Oh stop. I can’t take any more. I’ve a pain in my side from laughing.

  28.  

    IAPIMSFL – is that somewhere between LOL and ROFL?

  29.  

    S1LU — 999. 1000. Considering what we’re discussing, what’s the difference?

  30.  

    No difference. Just a statistics joke. Guess not!

  31.  

    It reminds me of the story about the Nobel physics laureate teaching a class of undergraduates how to use a slide rule.

    But maybe I’ll keep that for another day.

  32.  

    Bock: They say they have samples from his sister, well they would have to as any others would be useless. A sample would have to be from a sibling because genetics does not allow heirs and arranges things in the following manner. A sibling is a full relative, parents and your children are a half relative, your grandchildren only a quarter relative and your great grandchildren just barely related. Your existence is likened to a pebble dropped into a large pool and makes a small splash but soon all traces of the splash will disappear leaving no trace of you having ever existed.
    Remember all that shite years ago, who shot JR well I suspect Bin Laden will be the same. Was Bin Laden a CIA operative or a terrorist.

  33.  

    It’s all an academic discussion now, since al Qaeda has confirmed that OBL was killed.

  34.  

    Jack the Lad

    A sibling is not a “full relative”. The only individual that you could share close to 100% of DNA with is an identical twin. Siblings and parents share ~50%, no? Didn’t Dawkins aptly equate genes to true time travellers and that we are just vessels. In the end, they are the ones that stick around.

  35.  

    Irate Chemist: Check out with Dawkins and you will see that my analysis is correct. You get 50% from your father and 50% from your mother and your siblings receive the same set making a full relative. On the other hand your children receive 50% from you and 50% from your wife thus making them only a half relative. Yes of course Dawkins is correct when he states we are mere vessels for the genes, ships in the night you might say and discarded when we have passed them on. It is they that is in charge. Of course an identical twin would make for an excellent sample but in the real world is impractical so a sibling would do fine.

    I have assumed that you are male for the purpose of the above comment.

  36.  

    Would have been better just to say “your spouse” than “your wife”. Irate Chemists can also be women. According to the Women Member’s Network of the Royal Society of Chemists,

    The number of women members of the RSC is constantly increasing especially amongst student members where female students now equal male students studying the chemical sciences.

    http://www.rsc.org/Membership/Networking/WomenMembersNetwork/index.asp

    But I suppose the IC might tell us what gender of chemist (s)he is soon enough…

  37.  

    There’s been an Osama sighting already.
    You can clearly make him out at the end of this video.

  38.  

    Good video, but a little dated. Uploaded in 2009, pre-Geronimo KIA. And I don’t think that SEALS dance like that on a mission.

  39.  

    Is it Osama, or is it Elvis in heavy disguise?

  40.  

    S1LU : Have you gone completely daft or what, I said I have assumed you are male for the purpose of the above comment, but I am not here to give you reading lessons . I am getting the gaggle ready.

  41.  

    Hold the gaggle: I understand – only words in said above comment that assumed maleness were “your wife”. So I just said that, if you had said “your spouse”, you would have avoided having to say that you assumed that Irate was male.

    But – I could be wrong: a woman could have a wife, too:

    In a marraige would it alright if a lesbian couple referred to themselves as husband and wife?
    I understand that it is usually wife and wife…

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110331222812AAPH2Ed

    Referring to this:

    In a female same-sex marriage, both spouses may refer to themselves as “wife”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife#Contemporary_status

    Now, back to our topic…

  42.  

    A woman these days might well have a wife. Women friends of mine have often wished for a wife on the grounds that men are useless at housework, but anyway this is all irrelevant bickering about irrelevant bullshit. I think we’ll leave it here and drop the nonsense.

    Thanks, guys.

  43.  

    LOL!

    (BTW, teenage girls often call each other guys…)

  44.  

    The next person on this site who says LOL is getting a cruise missile delivered directly to their front door.

  45.  

    … lol

  46.  

    OUCH!!!!!!

  47.  

    That was fast – even for a cruise missile…

  48.  

    Jack the Lad; Forget Dawkins (if he were dead he would be spinning in his grave), look to the fundamentals of modern genetics. Yes, you get 50% of genes from your father and 50% from your mother. You are 50% related to them, genetically. Your siblings also get the same, but here’s the difference: they don’t get the same 50% of genes from each parent, if they did get “the same set” would that not make all of your siblings identical twins, since they inherited the exact same genes from each parent?

    Each parent has 2 different copies of each gene (alleles), we get one from each parent, for each gene we inherit. Statistically, it would be very unlikely to inherit the exact same 10 million genes your brother/sister inherited–which would make an identical twin. In fact, it is so statistically impossible that the only way to have an identical twin is for a fertilised egg (which has its quota of genes from each parent) to physically split into two separate embryos with the exact same genome (because it came from the same initial fertilised egg).

    My example of an identical twin was for the purpose of illustrating what a complete genetic “relative” was.

  49.  

    IC, do you think you’re talking to a pack of dopes here? Seriously?
    “You are 50% related to them, genetically.” No you’re not. You’re 100% related to “them”. Read them.

    “Your siblings also get the same, but here’s the difference: they don’t get the same 50% of genes from each parent, if they did get “the same set” would that not make all of your siblings identical twins, since they inherited the exact same genes from each parent?” I always wondered why I’m unique like that.

  50.  

    To be read together with the previous sentence:

    Yes, you get 50% of genes from your father and 50% from your mother. You are 50% related to them, genetically.

    IC obviously means that you are 50% related to EACH ONE of them, genetically.

    In any case, there are different ways to say something – some nice, some not so nice. An example of the latter is:

    IC, do you think you’re talking to a pack of dopes here? Seriously?…Read them.

    An example of the former would be:

    IC, by writing “them”, it sounds like you mean that we’re only 50% related to them, when we’re really 100% related to them – 50% to each! Could you clarify please?

    Although reading it again, I think that most people understand that that’s what (s)he (IC) meant. ; )

  51.  

    Yeah, S1LU–50% (exactly) related to each of them. The genetic relationship to a sibling is 50% (on average), an identical twin is 100% (exactly). Grandparent/grandchild have 25% (on average) of their genome in common and a great grandparent/great grandchild have 12.5% (on average) in common.

    There are strange exceptions; we get all of our Y chromosome from our father, if you are male, and our mitochondrial DNA comes exclusively from our mother, regardless of sex (in healthy individuals). You can trace male ancestry through the Y chromosome and everyones mitochondrial DNA converges on primordial eve who lived 200,000 in east Africa.

  52.  

    200,000 years AGO you mean… ; )

    IC – are you going to tell us if your Y-ed up or not? The suspense is intolerable:

    IC isn’t telling her sex
    She’s her if she has only X
    My bet is he’s Y
    Just another guy
    ‘Till now all (s)he does is perplex!

  53.  

    Forget about it S1LU, it doesn’t matter either way. I did mean AGO–thanks for another clarification, you’re sharp this morning.

    IC, do you think you’re talking to a pack of dopes here? Seriously?
    “You are 50% related to them, genetically.” No you’re not. You’re 100% related to “them”. Read them.

    FME, you are 100% related to your parents (they gave you life), but not genetically. You share 50% of your DNA with each of them and both of them combined. Individually, you get one set of two genes from each of them, or 50%. Combined, thats two sets of four genes, still 50%. Again, the only person that you are 100% genetically related to is an identical twin.

  54.  

    IC : Genetics does not work to a blueprint but rather to a recipe. The configuration is different in every person other than a clone. Genetics classifies relatives in the manner I have laid out.

  55.  

    Jack the Lad, I don’t know what you are saying in post 54. The issue I had with your post was that you said that a sibling was a “full relative”, which I understood as 100% genetically similar, as you went on to say, correctly, that a parent/child relationship was half. Thats incorrect, to my knowledge. On average you share 50% of your DNA with a sibling, 25% with a half sibling. Did I mis-understand your original post?

  56.  

    Thanks for that S1LU.. I’ve seen the err of my ways. Must put things nicer, like the example you gave me.
    I get a bit fiery at times.. It can be difficult to convey tone sometimes in the written word.
    Just one thing you missed though. I wasn’t fucking talking to you. ;)

    IC, RE: “FME, you are 100% related to your parents (they gave you life)”.
    Go way IC. I always thought I came from a stork.
    Thanks for the genetics 101 lesson though!

  57.  

    Seriously, no bother!

  58.  

    IC: The notion that we can be 100% genetically similar does not enter the equation simply because unlike bees we do not possess the ability to clone. So you see a full relative for a bee would be completely different to that for a human. In the case of siblings it would simply be that they received their genes from the same parents.Have another go at post 54 because it is a far more elegant description.

  59.  

    You haven’t explained anything RE post 54, Jack the Lad. You still haven’t explained in simple terms what you meant in your original post. An identical twin IS a clone, or the biological equivalent of a clone. Its two people from the same fertilised egg, hence the EXACT same DNA. The fertilised egg spontaneously breaks into two–you have two developing embryos that originated from one, 100% equivalent DNA in each subsequent child.

    Fraternal twins are two separate eggs fertilised by two different sperm resulting in twins that are non-identical and have 50% relatedness genetically, the normal pattern seen in siblings.

  60.  

    So how is it that there are slight differences even between identical twins, that someone like a mother can distinguish?

    ————————————————————–

    FME’s Praise

    Thanks for the thanks, FME
    Even though you wern’t* talking to me
    But if someone’s attacked
    Then I have to fight back
    And in this case, that someone’s IC !

    You do get quite fiery at times
    But in this world, there are worse crimes
    The err in your ways
    You’ve seen, to your praise
    That’s good, ’cause with his** name, yours rhymes!***

    ————————————————————–

    * couldn’t fit “f***ing” into the verse… ; )
    ** or her…
    *** with IC, that is!

  61.  

    Thanks again S1LU.
    That’s very good.
    RE: “** or her..”
    I believe IC fits into the XX category. (We all can’t be perfect I suppose.)
    These things are important for establishing who you wanna flirt with hey! ;)

  62.  

    Especially if you’re not bi-Y/X-ual – hey hey! ; )

    XXies are as perfect in their XXiness as YXies are in theirs (I think that we’ll leave that one without a limerick for now…). Need both kinds for a perfect (close as possible, anyway) humanity. At least we share an X!

    Um, sorry Bock – at least there’s no LOLing…

  63.  

    Now that we’ve discussed this issue at length, is anyone interested in getting back to Osama bin Laden?

  64.  

    I am.
    All right so.
    Who’s his sister? Miss piggy? Big bird? .. ha ha ha.

  65.  

    Bertha Bint Laden

    OK – OBL.

    I go for reasonable conspiracy theories. You think that it’s really possible that it wasn’t really him that they got in this seally operation? That they either got him a long time ago, and/or are just using this for political purposes? Seems very far fetched, especially considering that both the locals and Al Qaeda seem to think that they got him. But I suppose anything is possible in the world of clandenstine politics. Could the whole thing, including the DNA sister test, be a set up?

    And speaking of genetics, twins and cloning, could there really be other Osamas out there? Maybe they did get one of them…

  66.  

    S1LU; From the day of birth each twin is their own person, two different people–of course a mother could tell them apart. Also, from the moment the single egg splits into two, each genome is exposed to different environmental conditions etc., slightly different phenotypes (physical manifestation of a gene) may appear. Apologies for going off topic, Bock.

  67.  

    how likely is it, that osama is now dressed in orange and living in cuba? his daughter claims he was alive when he was taken from the “mansion”. there’s no real evidence to show he is dead. surely a strike team could have been put together to take him alive?

  68.  

    I don’t know why they should.

    OBL has been irrelevant for a long time, so why entertain him as a guest when he can’t provide any useful information? He’d be a liability.

    Politically, it was no problem to kill a man widely perceived as the biggest enemy ever seen by the USA. Indeed, there was only a political upside for any president. The mystery is why Obama didn’t wait until he was closer to an election.

  69.  

    Maybe because he knew people would say “Oh – he did it now because it’s close to the election”, and the effect would backfire. Or maybe they really had to do it now, or he would get away. Although I can’t imagine how he could, once they knew where he was.

    But why say that he was irrelevant? He was still supposedly controlling things from there. And you don’t think he would have any useful info – that it would all have been on hard drives already? Unlikely. Taken alive, they could have humiliated him like they did with Sadam, although that would have gotten the Muslim world upset again.

    Maybe he was alive when taken from there – the first shot was to the chest, I recall. Maybe the bullseye was done afterwards. Or maybe his daughter was just lying, or deluded, wishing that it was so. Even with all of the detailed followup reporting, who really knows – or wants to tell? Lots of maybes.

  70.  

    I think he was irrelevant for quite a while. In fact, I’m not even convinced he was alive. That’s how irrelevant I think he was.

    The Arab uprising provided an alternative outlet for disaffected Muslim youth and also created a secular channel for their anger. This must be disappointing for those who need to maintain a Muslim demon for political reasons.

  71.  

    Must be.

    One does not have to be alive to be relevant. Take Jesus, or closer to topic, Muhammad, for example. They’re still pretty relevant for a lot of people. Al Qaedans probably think that OBL is still relevant, as a role model and jihad guide, anyway.

  72.  

    Al Qaeda was never a well-defined concept, and is now no more than a bunch of angry people, like the People’s Front of Judea. It proved extremely useful as an enemy, and I have no doubt it will be replaced in the media by something suitably sinister.

  73.  

    Seems like it was well defined for its members, who had to take an oath of loyalty to OBL. Wonder what new ones take now. Big Wiki article on it – dispute as to how well-defined they are, or at least were.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

    Maybe Iran will rise again in the Sinister Charts. Or Pakistan. Or China, or North Korea. Lots of choices.

  74.  

    Maybe just this once, we could have a discussion without you quoting Wikipedia.

  75.  

    I was gonna say LOL, but that’s also a no-no. Hmmm…

    Is it the quoting of it that bothers you, or the using of it? Even with it’s problems, I always find it very informative and enlightening about almost everything. I think it’s a good idea to give ones sources.

    You made a definitive statement – that “Al Qaeda was never a well-defined concept”. I just wanted to check it out, and it seems like it’s not as definitive as you say it is. Wiki is the easiest and I’ve found best general first stop to learn about anything – that’s all.

  76.  

    Wikipedia is as strong as its last contributor, and while I’d trust it for factual, uncontentious matters, I’d be highly suspicious of it when it comes to questions as nebulous and controversial as this.

    In the case of Al Qaeda, wide reading is required and I can only give you my opinion that the concept is ill-defined. That appears to be the view of most informed commentators I’ve read over the last decade.

  77.  

    Each most recent contributor probably doesn’t change much from the main body of the page. And editors are always checking and discussing pages.

    But I accept and respect your decade-acquired opinion. : )

    (are these smileys alright every once in a while?)

  78.  

    Smileys were turned off on the site a long time ago. Feel free to make any letter-shapes you want. I don’t understand them anyway.

  79.  

    I feel a smile, a flash of my pearly whites always brightens someone’s day.

  80.  

    And in print, even a (semi)colon and a parenthesis – like this? : )

    Or more brighter, with a D, like this? : D

  81.  

    Yes, like those. Lovely.
    I don’t use the winkies too much myself. As I don’t wink at people much in reality, not unless it’s inadvertent and a bit of dust gets in my eye.
    Smiles are good though. You don’t want to be too smiley though, as it just looks like you’re on the happy pills.

  82.  

    Just looks like? : D

    I use them to let people know that what I said was said in a friendly way, if it’s hard to figure that out without them. And winkies to let the person know that it was a joke, or something funny about it.

    OK – back to topic… ; )

  83.  

    This discussion has been chasing so many wild hares that perhaps the impression has been created that Osama bin Laden wasn’t so important and bad. For the record I want to say that OBL was an organzer of mass murder and a scumbag worse than any scumbag semiliterate street mugger that might assault innocent pedestrians in Limerick, Dublin or Ballybunion. He had it coming to him folks.

    Now as for calling lesbian couples wife and wife…Ask your friendly neighbourhood imam or parish priest for lexical and other advice.

  84.  

    US believes China got to take some photos of the Stealth Copter before it was shipped back.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/world/asia/15copter.html?_r=1

  85.  

    The tail had curved parts, unlike the Black Hawk’s sharp edges? Sorry, but wasn’t the whole idea of the sharp edges, to confuse enemy radar? I’m starting to think all this talk of stealth technology is a load of bollocks.

Leave a Reply