[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Obama Wars Title: US soldiers disciplined for stopping rape of children by Afghan police My father, who saw some pretty terrible sights during World War 2, used to frequently tell me that bad things happen in war, but I don’t think he ever ran into anything like this. A story breaking over the weekend reveals that our “Afghan allies” have been engaged in a sick practice referred to as “boy play” in the common parlance. This essentially translates into abducting, imprisoning and raping young boys, keeping them as sex slaves. As if that wasn’t shocking enough, it’s apparently been standing policy for some time now that US soldiers were told to turn a blind eye to the practice (even when it takes place on our bases) and some of them have even been disciplined and removed from the service for trying to intervene. (New York Times) The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore child sexual abuse by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it. After the beating, the Army relieved Captain Quinn of his command and pulled him from Afghanistan. He has since left the military. In addition to Quinn having his career destroyed, the Army is now trying to drum Green Beret Sgt. First Class Charles Martland out of the service for assisting Quinn in handing a beatdown to the pedophile. And our own military admits that this wasn’t just a case of a few bad apples, but formal policy for troops serving in Afghanistan. I find myself nearly at a loss for words here. Weren’t we supposed to be the good guys? The Army was asked for comment and gave what can only be described as one of the most disappointing answers imaginable. The American policy of nonintervention is intended to maintain good relations with the Afghan police and militia units the United States has trained to fight the Taliban. It also reflects a reluctance to impose cultural values in a country where pederasty is rife, particularly among powerful men, for whom being surrounded by young teenagers can be a mark of social status. There’s a few things we need to know here. How long as this been our “official policy” vis a vis chaining young boys to beds and sodomizing them on a US military base? Who instituted this policy and how far up the chain did it go? And please do note that this isn’t some sort of partisan, Left vs Right, Democrat vs Republican question here. We’ve been in Afghanistan for a long time and the policy may well date back to the Bush administration. (Though even if it does, the weight still falls on the current administration for not stopping it.) Or did it come strictly from inside the military without anyone “bothering” the civilian leadership over it? To be fair, we probably shouldn’t be all that shocked to uncover what the Afghan officials were up to. The Brits have been dealing with problems along these lines for some time now and heard many complaints about immigrants from both Afghanistan and Pakistan when it comes to their particular predilections. It’s apparently woven into the culture. Honoring “cultural differences” can be a tricky line to walk when we’re dealing with foreign nations and their unique cultures and traditions, often to the point of rankling American sensibilities. We’ve seen more than a few cases where female US envoys have donned a head scarf to avoid ruffling the feathers of Arab allies, just as one example. But this is something entirely different. When you find a young boy chained to a bed so the local police chief can brutalize him every night, you put a stop to that.. with the butt of a rifle if need be. And we certainly don’t turn around and end an officer’s career for trying to put a stop to rape and child torture. Someone has to answer for this. Poster Comment: Isn't there even one GOP prez candidate who is willing to go all out to hang these ongoing rapes around Obola's neck? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
That's right! Who are we to judge? And how dare we impose our values on someone else? By the way. There is no such thing as pederasty. We've been told that adult gay scout leaders would not be attracted to adolescent boys.
By the way. There is no such thing as pederasty. Nation building in Afghanistan is the ne plus ultra of a fool’s errand. But even if one were so disposed, effective “nation building” is done in the national interest of the builder. The British rebuilt India in their own image, with a Westminster parliament, common law, and an English education system. In whose image are we building Afghanistan? Eight months after Petraeus announced his latest folly, the Afghan Local Police initiative, Oxfam reported that the newly formed ALP was a hotbed of torture and pederasty. Almost every Afghan institution is, of course. But for most of human history they’ve managed to practice both enthusiasms without international subvention. The U.S. taxpayer accepts wearily the burden of subsidy for Nevada’s cowboy poets and San Francisco’s mime companies, but, even by those generous standards of cultural preservation, it’s hard to see why he should be facilitating the traditional predilections of Pashtun men with an eye for the “dancing boys of Kandahar.”
There are no replies to Comment # 10. End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|||
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|