Kicking out a decorated vet for protecting a rape victim:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/20/army-kicking-out-decorated-green-beret-who-stood-up-for-afghan-rape-victim/?intcmp=hpbt1

With the new stuff coming out in the news, I re titled the thread edited the first post to keep the topic.
.

After learning of the meeting, Rahman allegedly beat the boy's mother for reporting the crime. It was at this point, the Green Berets had had enough. Quinn and Martland went to confront Rahman.

"He confessed to the crime and laughed about it, and said it wasn't a big deal. Even when we patiently explained how serious the charge was, he kept laughing," Quinn said.

According to reports of the incident, Quinn and Martland shoved Abdul Rahman to the ground. It was the only way to get their point across, according to Quinn. "As a man, as a father of a young boy myself at the time, I felt obliged to step in to prevent further repeat occurrences," Quinn said.

Rahman walked away bruised from getting shoved and thrown to the ground, but otherwise okay, according to teammates. But Rahman quickly reported the incident to another Army unit in a nearby village. The next day a U.S. Army helicopter landed and took Quinn and Martland away, ending their work in Kunduz Province.

Never never lay hands on another individual in a aggressive manner. You know that.

Martland, though, has been fighting to stay in the Army. In February 2015, the Army conducted a "Qualitative Management Program" review board. His supporters suspect because Martland had a

"relief for cause" evaluation

in his service record, the U.S. Army ordered Martland to be "involuntary discharged" from the Army by Nov. 1, 2015.

Career stopper right there. Only choice now is to get out. Since E7/SFC is Indefinite the US Army can choose to remove them at any times.

 Jihadin wrote:

After learning of the meeting, Rahman allegedly beat the boy's mother for reporting the crime. It was at this point, the Green Berets had had enough. Quinn and Martland went to confront Rahman.

"He confessed to the crime and laughed about it, and said it wasn't a big deal. Even when we patiently explained how serious the charge was, he kept laughing," Quinn said.

According to reports of the incident, Quinn and Martland shoved Abdul Rahman to the ground. It was the only way to get their point across, according to Quinn. "As a man, as a father of a young boy myself at the time, I felt obliged to step in to prevent further repeat occurrences," Quinn said.

Rahman walked away bruised from getting shoved and thrown to the ground, but otherwise okay, according to teammates. But Rahman quickly reported the incident to another Army unit in a nearby village. The next day a U.S. Army helicopter landed and took Quinn and Martland away, ending their work in Kunduz Province.

Never never lay hands on another individual in a aggressive manner. You know that.

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of times outside of "never" in which soldiers lay hands on and take other forceful actions on other individuals in a (very) aggressive manner. What if he had been a suspected militant rather than a corrupt, child- and woman-abusing police official?

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

After learning of the meeting, Rahman allegedly beat the boy's mother for reporting the crime. It was at this point, the Green Berets had had enough. Quinn and Martland went to confront Rahman.

"He confessed to the crime and laughed about it, and said it wasn't a big deal. Even when we patiently explained how serious the charge was, he kept laughing," Quinn said.

According to reports of the incident, Quinn and Martland shoved Abdul Rahman to the ground. It was the only way to get their point across, according to Quinn. "As a man, as a father of a young boy myself at the time, I felt obliged to step in to prevent further repeat occurrences," Quinn said.

Rahman walked away bruised from getting shoved and thrown to the ground, but otherwise okay, according to teammates. But Rahman quickly reported the incident to another Army unit in a nearby village. The next day a U.S. Army helicopter landed and took Quinn and Martland away, ending their work in Kunduz Province.

Never never lay hands on another individual in a aggressive manner. You know that.

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of times outside of "never" in which soldiers lay hands on and take other forceful actions on other individuals in a (very) aggressive manner. What if he had been a suspected militant rather than a corrupt, child- and woman-abusing police official?

It does not matter. Militant, EPW, suspect, or someone who looks shifty. One does not get physical with the indigs. There is a Chain of Command. What if the boy in question

Bacha bāzī (Persian: بچه بازی‎, literally "playing with boys"; from بچه bacha, "child", and بازی bāzī, "game") is a slang term in Afghanistan for any activity that involves an adult sexually preying on a child. It includes child pornography, sexual slavery and child prostitution in which prepubescent and adolescent boys are sold to wealthy or powerful men for entertainment and sexual activities.[1] Bacha bazi has existed throughout history,[2] and is currently reported in various parts of Afghanistan.[3][4][5][6][7] Force and coercion are a common component of this abuse, and security officials state they are unable to end it because many of the men involved in bacha bazi-related activities are powerful and well-armed warlords including former Northern Alliance commanders.[8][9][10]

During the Taliban's rule (1994-2001), bacha bazi carried the death penalty.[11][12] A documentary film by Najibullah Quraishi about dancing boys was screened by the UK Royal Society of Arts on March 29, 2010[13] and aired by the U.S. TV series PBS Frontline on 20 April 2010."[14] The practice of dancing boys is illegal under Afghan law, being "against both sharia law and the civil code",[15] but the laws are seldom enforced against powerful offenders and police have been reportedly complicit in related crimes.[16][17]

I don't think you're picking up what I'm putting down.

I don't think your tracking where I'm at to

 Jihadin wrote:
I don't think your tracking where I'm at to

No, I'm tracking. And I see the reasoning to relieve him during the deployment. I question though whether a "soft" relief might have been more appropriate, as that wouldn't have near-automatically ended his career like the relief for cause did.

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I don't think your tracking where I'm at to

No, I'm tracking. And I see the reasoning to relieve him during the deployment. I question though whether a "soft" relief might have been more appropriate, as that wouldn't have near-automatically ended his career like the relief for cause did.

The issue went outside his circle when Rahman reported him to another unit.

Seems pretty cut and dried then with what Jihadin says. The thing that is getting myself and many others riled is the double standard exibited here between this soldier and Bergdahl.

Relapse wrote:
Kicking out a decorated vet for protecting a rape victim:

Says him. Of course, his records are sealed so if there is a different side of the story, we won't hear it.

Relapse wrote:
I guess they're trying to balance the scales for protecting a deserter who got a White House rose garden tribute. Par for the course these days.

Bergdahl was charged with desertation ultimately, correct? He is, in fact, going to be court martialed, right? What was he protected from, exactly?

Relapse wrote:
The thing that is getting myself and many others riled is the double standard exibited here between this soldier and Bergdahl.

What, that soldiers who break the law are held accountable, as it would appear both of these individuals are doing? By this guys own admission he assaulted someone.

Or are you making an argument that the US government shouldn't try to get back our soldiers when held by the enemy? Please, elaborate.

I'll repeat what I said previously: If you put on our country's uniform, I'd prefer for our government to make every effort to retrieve you from enemy forces, even if you weren't a good soldier. Even if maybe it was your own fault you got captured. Especially if you weren't, at the time, charged with anything and we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty (I could swear I read that somewhere). Even if it's just so you can be tried for desertation, because the penalty for deserting should be jail, not having your head cut off on the internet by people who declared war on us. That I even need to type this is mind blowing. I know you have a huge rage boner for Obama but FFS, think about the arguments you're making.

And I'll elaborate, this piece of crap gets a White House ceremony in the rose garden. Not like his case is going to be prejudiced or anything.

Relapse wrote:
And I'll elaborate, this piece of crap gets a White House ceremony in the rose garden. Not like his case is going to be prejudiced or anything.

I'll elaborate as well: you're conflating two different issues because your dislike for the administration is outweighing your desire to stroke the military's chin.

Berghdal was recovered illegally. I don't see anyone actually covering that. But yes, his recovery should have happened, even if to charge him, however not in the fashion it happened. Although the administration did screw the pooch there, just so we could court martial him. He will probably just get a BCD and sent on his merry way. Good Riddance.

Jihadin, after reading many posts from you I am assuming you were either a BDE or above CSM or a BN or above Commander. Possibly of a PSB or STB. Or you were a Specialist.

Would you have relieved this NCO if you were his commander? There are many way to admonish an NCO without a relief for cause.

My only hope is that this SFC had over 18 so he could atleast be in the safe zone and still retire. Pushing a Local National is not, based on the many things I have seen, reason for relief for cause. HItting, Torture, or even allowing harm to a local through inaction is however. Unfortunatly dancing boys are very common. I spent 6 months with the ANA and I had to remove a few ANA Soldiers from the class because they kept bring in phones, which was not allowed, just so they could keep looking at the videos they had saved of dancing boys. Nothing much I could do about it except spit in disgust.

 redleger wrote:
Berghdal was recovered illegally. I don't see anyone actually covering that. But yes, his recovery should have happened, even if to charge him, however not in the fashion it happened. Although the administration did screw the pooch there, just so we could court martial him. He will probably just get a BCD and sent on his merry way. Good Riddance.

Jihadin, after reading many posts from you I am assuming you were either a BDE or above CSM or a BN or above Commander. Possibly of a PSB or STB. Or you were a Specialist.

Would you have relieved this NCO if you were his commander? There are many way to admonish an NCO without a relief for cause.

My only hope is that this SFC had over 18 so he could atleast be in the safe zone and still retire. Pushing a Local National is not, based on the many things I have seen, reason for relief for cause. HItting, Torture, or even allowing harm to a local through inaction is however. Unfortunatly dancing boys are very common. I spent 6 months with the ANA and I had to remove a few ANA Soldiers from the class because they kept bring in phones, which was not allowed, just so they could keep looking at the videos they had saved of dancing boys. Nothing much I could do about it except spit in disgust.

Nothing like Bacha Bazi to turn your stomach and make you want to nuke the whole country and just label it a lost cause.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Berghdal was recovered illegally. I don't see anyone actually covering that. But yes, his recovery should have happened, even if to charge him, however not in the fashion it happened. Although the administration did screw the pooch there, just so we could court martial him. He will probably just get a BCD and sent on his merry way. Good Riddance.

Jihadin, after reading many posts from you I am assuming you were either a BDE or above CSM or a BN or above Commander. Possibly of a PSB or STB. Or you were a Specialist.

Would you have relieved this NCO if you were his commander? There are many way to admonish an NCO without a relief for cause.

My only hope is that this SFC had over 18 so he could atleast be in the safe zone and still retire. Pushing a Local National is not, based on the many things I have seen, reason for relief for cause. HItting, Torture, or even allowing harm to a local through inaction is however. Unfortunatly dancing boys are very common. I spent 6 months with the ANA and I had to remove a few ANA Soldiers from the class because they kept bring in phones, which was not allowed, just so they could keep looking at the videos they had saved of dancing boys. Nothing much I could do about it except spit in disgust.

Nothing like Bacha Bazi to turn your stomach and make you want to nuke the whole country and just label it a lost cause.

Ghazi is another subject entirely. I don't wanna get started on the hatred towards the administration for that. I often think the administration must have several 40k tables set up in the warroom because they definatly have no issues sacrificing us like Cultists trying to hold an objective.

 redleger wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Berghdal was recovered illegally. I don't see anyone actually covering that. But yes, his recovery should have happened, even if to charge him, however not in the fashion it happened. Although the administration did screw the pooch there, just so we could court martial him. He will probably just get a BCD and sent on his merry way. Good Riddance.

Jihadin, after reading many posts from you I am assuming you were either a BDE or above CSM or a BN or above Commander. Possibly of a PSB or STB. Or you were a Specialist.

Would you have relieved this NCO if you were his commander? There are many way to admonish an NCO without a relief for cause.

My only hope is that this SFC had over 18 so he could atleast be in the safe zone and still retire. Pushing a Local National is not, based on the many things I have seen, reason for relief for cause. HItting, Torture, or even allowing harm to a local through inaction is however. Unfortunatly dancing boys are very common. I spent 6 months with the ANA and I had to remove a few ANA Soldiers from the class because they kept bring in phones, which was not allowed, just so they could keep looking at the videos they had saved of dancing boys. Nothing much I could do about it except spit in disgust.

Nothing like Bacha Bazi to turn your stomach and make you want to nuke the whole country and just label it a lost cause.

Ghazi is another subject entirely. I don't wanna get started on the hatred towards the administration for that. I often think the administration must have several 40k tables set up in the warroom because they definatly have no issues sacrificing us like Cultists trying to hold an objective.

when/where were you? I was in Helmand for the Big Push. We had it pretty bad but I can't imagine how bad the Brits must have had it. One guy who had done a tour with the Brits who had rotated back in told us they were literally running out of ammo on some posts and were preparing to fix bayonets.

It's probably wrong of me to think this, but all that pops into my mind is a bunch of redcoats doing a bayonet charge at people with AKs.

"Charge bayonets!"

I really wish people (especially) vets would stop taking these stories at face value. You and I don't know the story. We don't know the story in this case, and we certainly don't know the whole story in Bergdahl's case. My unit TACOPS officer wouldn't elaborate but what you've heard about Bergdahl is wrong on a lot of levels.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I really wish people (especially) vets would stop taking these stories at face value. You and I don't know the story. We don't know the story in this case, and we certainly don't know the whole story in Bergdahl's case. My unit TACOPS officer wouldn't elaborate but what you've heard about Bergdahl is wrong on a lot of levels.

I know he deserted. Not much else to know. I know we traded detainees for him. Thats illegal. Pretty cut and dry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Berghdal was recovered illegally. I don't see anyone actually covering that. But yes, his recovery should have happened, even if to charge him, however not in the fashion it happened. Although the administration did screw the pooch there, just so we could court martial him. He will probably just get a BCD and sent on his merry way. Good Riddance.

Jihadin, after reading many posts from you I am assuming you were either a BDE or above CSM or a BN or above Commander. Possibly of a PSB or STB. Or you were a Specialist.

Would you have relieved this NCO if you were his commander? There are many way to admonish an NCO without a relief for cause.

My only hope is that this SFC had over 18 so he could atleast be in the safe zone and still retire. Pushing a Local National is not, based on the many things I have seen, reason for relief for cause. HItting, Torture, or even allowing harm to a local through inaction is however. Unfortunatly dancing boys are very common. I spent 6 months with the ANA and I had to remove a few ANA Soldiers from the class because they kept bring in phones, which was not allowed, just so they could keep looking at the videos they had saved of dancing boys. Nothing much I could do about it except spit in disgust.

Nothing like Bacha Bazi to turn your stomach and make you want to nuke the whole country and just label it a lost cause.

Ghazi is another subject entirely. I don't wanna get started on the hatred towards the administration for that. I often think the administration must have several 40k tables set up in the warroom because they definatly have no issues sacrificing us like Cultists trying to hold an objective.

when/where were you? I was in Helmand for the Big Push. We had it pretty bad but I can't imagine how bad the Brits must have had it. One guy who had done a tour with the Brits who had rotated back in told us they were literally running out of ammo on some posts and were preparing to fix bayonets.

Not quite a fix bayonets situation for me. Last tour was Oruzgan then Zabul to teach ANA to shoot D30s

This situation with the child rapists is beginning to get more coverage in the news. For those who were over there, how bad was it with these guys?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/26/lawmakers-question-whether-pentagon-encouraged-troops-to-turn-blind-eye-to/

Relapse wrote:
This situation with the child rapists is beginning to get more coverage in the news. For those who were over there, how bad was it with these guys?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/26/lawmakers-question-whether-pentagon-encouraged-troops-to-turn-blind-eye-to/

go spend 5 minutes researching " Bacha Bazi" and if you can still keep your lunch down their may be something wrong with you.

 Ouze wrote:

I'll repeat what I said previously: If you put on our country's uniform, I'd prefer for our government to make every effort to retrieve you from enemy forces, even if you weren't a good soldier. Even if maybe it was your own fault you got captured. Especially if you weren't, at the time, charged with anything and we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty (I could swear I read that somewhere). Even if it's just so you can be tried for desertation, because the penalty for deserting should be jail, not having your head cut off on the internet by people who declared war on us. That I even need to type this is mind blowing. I know you have a huge rage boner for Obama but FFS, think about the arguments you're making.

I think you're mixing up who started this war and stuff.

Anyway, this all could have been avoided if the soldier had just blown the native's head off, then claimed he had been waving a loaf of bread or something in a threatening manner.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Relapse wrote:
This situation with the child rapists is beginning to get more coverage in the news. For those who were over there, how bad was it with these guys?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/26/lawmakers-question-whether-pentagon-encouraged-troops-to-turn-blind-eye-to/

go spend 5 minutes researching " Bacha Bazi" and if you can still keep your lunch down their may be something wrong with you.

What the crap. That's some seriously sub human bull gak. Looking back at Jihadin's post, with the first mention and then this article:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

Jeez. That was illuminating. And super depressing.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

I'll repeat what I said previously: If you put on our country's uniform, I'd prefer for our government to make every effort to retrieve you from enemy forces, even if you weren't a good soldier. Even if maybe it was your own fault you got captured. Especially if you weren't, at the time, charged with anything and we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty (I could swear I read that somewhere). Even if it's just so you can be tried for desertation, because the penalty for deserting should be jail, not having your head cut off on the internet by people who declared war on us. That I even need to type this is mind blowing. I know you have a huge rage boner for Obama but FFS, think about the arguments you're making.

I think you're mixing up who started this war and stuff.

Anyway, this all could have been avoided if the soldier had just blown the native's head off, then claimed he had been waving a loaf of bread or something in a threatening manner.

If you think he's mixing up who started the war, you should probably do a little more research before engaging in any further discussion on the subject, unless you just love to embarrass yourself.

No, I'm pretty sure I got it right. Maybe lay off the manifest destiny a little, it's hampering your objectivity.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure I got it right. Maybe lay off the manifest destiny a little, it's hampering your objectivity.

You must have skipped the 9/11 chapter in whatever book you read about the War in Afghanistan.


Do you think Poland started WWII as well?

Since when is al-Qaeda synonymous with Afghanistan? Yes, the Taliban government provided shelter to bin Ladin and his ilk, but I'm pretty sure it was the US that attacked Afghanistan. I'm not going to pretend that they didn't have it coming, but technically the nation of Afghanistan didn't attack the US.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Since when is al-Qaeda synonymous with Afghanistan? Yes, the Taliban government provided shelter to bin Ladin and his ilk, but I'm pretty sure it was the US that attacked Afghanistan. I'm not going to pretend that they didn't have it coming, but technically the nation of Afghanistan didn't attack the US.

Um... the Taliban was the Afghan government. o.O

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Berghdal was recovered illegally. I don't see anyone actually covering that. But yes, his recovery should have happened, even if to charge him, however not in the fashion it happened. Although the administration did screw the pooch there, just so we could court martial him. He will probably just get a BCD and sent on his merry way. Good Riddance.

Jihadin, after reading many posts from you I am assuming you were either a BDE or above CSM or a BN or above Commander. Possibly of a PSB or STB. Or you were a Specialist.

Would you have relieved this NCO if you were his commander? There are many way to admonish an NCO without a relief for cause.

My only hope is that this SFC had over 18 so he could atleast be in the safe zone and still retire. Pushing a Local National is not, based on the many things I have seen, reason for relief for cause. HItting, Torture, or even allowing harm to a local through inaction is however. Unfortunatly dancing boys are very common. I spent 6 months with the ANA and I had to remove a few ANA Soldiers from the class because they kept bring in phones, which was not allowed, just so they could keep looking at the videos they had saved of dancing boys. Nothing much I could do about it except spit in disgust.

Nothing like Bacha Bazi to turn your stomach and make you want to nuke the whole country and just label it a lost cause.

Child abuse is bad, but nuking an entire country is worse.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Berghdal was recovered illegally. I don't see anyone actually covering that. But yes, his recovery should have happened, even if to charge him, however not in the fashion it happened. Although the administration did screw the pooch there, just so we could court martial him. He will probably just get a BCD and sent on his merry way. Good Riddance.

Jihadin, after reading many posts from you I am assuming you were either a BDE or above CSM or a BN or above Commander. Possibly of a PSB or STB. Or you were a Specialist.

Would you have relieved this NCO if you were his commander? There are many way to admonish an NCO without a relief for cause.

My only hope is that this SFC had over 18 so he could atleast be in the safe zone and still retire. Pushing a Local National is not, based on the many things I have seen, reason for relief for cause. HItting, Torture, or even allowing harm to a local through inaction is however. Unfortunatly dancing boys are very common. I spent 6 months with the ANA and I had to remove a few ANA Soldiers from the class because they kept bring in phones, which was not allowed, just so they could keep looking at the videos they had saved of dancing boys. Nothing much I could do about it except spit in disgust.

Nothing like Bacha Bazi to turn your stomach and make you want to nuke the whole country and just label it a lost cause.

Child abuse is bad, but nuking an entire country is worse.

The thing that is really bad is the fact that this child abuse is institutionalized. I'm sure talk of nukes in this regard is methphoric. I have to wonder to what degree this practice has poisoned the different generations of Afghans through the centuries.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Berghdal was recovered illegally. I don't see anyone actually covering that. But yes, his recovery should have happened, even if to charge him, however not in the fashion it happened. Although the administration did screw the pooch there, just so we could court martial him. He will probably just get a BCD and sent on his merry way. Good Riddance.

Jihadin, after reading many posts from you I am assuming you were either a BDE or above CSM or a BN or above Commander. Possibly of a PSB or STB. Or you were a Specialist.

Would you have relieved this NCO if you were his commander? There are many way to admonish an NCO without a relief for cause.

My only hope is that this SFC had over 18 so he could atleast be in the safe zone and still retire. Pushing a Local National is not, based on the many things I have seen, reason for relief for cause. HItting, Torture, or even allowing harm to a local through inaction is however. Unfortunatly dancing boys are very common. I spent 6 months with the ANA and I had to remove a few ANA Soldiers from the class because they kept bring in phones, which was not allowed, just so they could keep looking at the videos they had saved of dancing boys. Nothing much I could do about it except spit in disgust.

Nothing like Bacha Bazi to turn your stomach and make you want to nuke the whole country and just label it a lost cause.

Child abuse is bad, but nuking an entire country is worse.

Having been forced to watch my fair share of human rights violations for a long period of time ranging from Child Sex trafficking to Beastiality (however you spell it) and lets not forget the wonderful rules regarding woman, She can read? quick kill her. Yeah your right nuking a country is a bit extreme. we should first evacuate those who don't want to die and will renounce pretty much 2/3rds of their culture. (Pretty much everything except Pashtunwali is garbage). then we can nuke them

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Since when is al-Qaeda synonymous with Afghanistan? Yes, the Taliban government provided shelter to bin Ladin and his ilk, but I'm pretty sure it was the US that attacked Afghanistan. I'm not going to pretend that they didn't have it coming, but technically the nation of Afghanistan didn't attack the US.

Well, if you are framing it like that, you could just as easily say that technically, the US didn't attack the nation of Afghanistan, either.

And all you people that say that pedophilia could never be accepted in a 'civilized" country..I give you afghanistan as exhibit A. Ancient Greece as exhibit B. Now that we have opened the door on gay marriage...i give it 20 to 50 years before we start seeing this in AMERICA.

Thankx Obama.


GG

p,s, the thanx is intended as sacrcasm..for the people that lack the ability to understand the meme

 generalgrog wrote:
And all you people that say that pedophilia could never be accepted in a 'civilized" country..I give you afghanistan as exhibit A. Ancient Greece as exhibit B. Now that we have opened the door on gay marriage...i give it 20 to 50 years before we start seeing this in AMERICA.

Thankx Obama.


GG

p,s, the thanx is intended as sacrcasm..for the people that lack the ability to understand the meme

Are you calling Afghanastan civilized?

Typical liberal tagline:

"It's their culture, and it deserves respect."

Edit: Eh, feth it, it's not worth it.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Since when is al-Qaeda synonymous with Afghanistan? Yes, the Taliban government provided shelter to bin Ladin and his ilk, but I'm pretty sure it was the US that attacked Afghanistan. I'm not going to pretend that they didn't have it coming, but technically the nation of Afghanistan didn't attack the US.

Um... the Taliban was the Afghan government. o.O

I think the distinction is that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not the same thing. They had similar ideologies, and the Taliban provided shelter to Al-Qaeda, but Taliban is not a synonym for Al-Qaeda is I think the point that was being made. Al-Qaeda was an autonomous group comprised mostly of foreigners (and run largely by Saudi's) with aspirations of global Jihad, while the Taliban were an ethno-political group primarily interested in just ruling Afghanistan (albeit horrifyingly). Thus, the Taliban were not the ones that attacked the US, which is technically correct.

It is interesting to note that the practice carried a death penalty as far as the Taliban was concerned.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Typical liberal tagline:

"It's their culture, and it deserves respect."

Conservatives also pull that line when it suites them. For example: (drum roll) gun rights! Are often defended by initiating calls to culture, and cultural icons like the bill of rights.

I recall a documentary about the dancing boys in Afghanistan, the climax of which was a policeman basically saying that sodomising boys was their god given right (after all, if god had wanted men to sleep with women, he wouldn't have made women unclean, right?).

If you're going to argue that there is some idea of right and wrong that transcends culture, I'd say that door swings both ways.

 Smacks wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Typical liberal tagline:

"It's their culture, and it deserves respect."

Conservatives also pull that line when it suites them. For example: (drum roll) gun rights! Are often defended by initiating calls to culture, and cultural icons like the bill of rights.

I recall a documentary about the dancing boys in Afghanistan, the climax of which was a policeman basically saying that sodomising boys was their god given right (after all, if god had wanted men to sleep with women, he wouldn't have made women unclean, right?).

If you're going to argue that there is some idea of right and wrong that transcends culture, I'd say that door swings both ways.

Did that documentary talk about the extent this goes on over there and if it goes on in other countries in the region? There are some seriously messed up people over there.

I think it's called "This Is What Winning Looks Like", it's available on Youtube (at least in the UK).

I'm not trying to defend it. On the contrary, as someone who is very liberal, I find the assertion that liberals "typically" advocate "respecting" child abuse very offensive. Though child abuse has been prevalent in many western institutions, such as the catholic church, the BBC, boarding schools etc... There are really messed up people here too. It's hardly justification for military intervention.

 Smacks wrote:
I think it's called "This Is What Winning Looks Like", it's available on Youtube (at least in the UK).

I'm not trying to defend it. On the contrary, as someone who is very liberal, I find the assertion that liberals "typically" advocate "respecting" child abuse very offensive. Though child abuse has been prevalent in many western institutions, such as the catholic church, the BBC, boarding schools etc... There are really messed up people here too. It's hardly justification for military intervention.

I seriously doubt anyone on these forums, no matter their politics defends this. I have some seriously hostile disagreements at times with people here, but at heart, there is no one here I think that doesn't find the practice repugnant.

 Smacks wrote:
and cultural icons like the bill of rights.

The Bill of Rights is more than a cultural icon, it's the law of the land here.

From the Wiki link I posted:

In a 2013 Vice Media, Inc. documentary titled "This Is What Winning Looks Like", British independent film-maker Ben Anderson describes the systematic kidnapping, sexual enslavement and murder of young men and boys by local security forces in the Afghan city of Sangin. The film depicts several scenes of Anderson along with American military personal describing how difficult it is to work with the Afghan police considering the blatant molestation and rape of local youth. The documentary also contains footage of an American military advisor confronting the then acting Police Chief on the abuse after a young boy is shot in the leg after trying to escape a police barrack. When the marine suggests that the barracks be searched for children, and that any policeman found to be engaged in pedophilia be arrested and jailed, the high-ranking officer insists what occurs between the security forces and the boys is consensual, saying "[the boys] like being there and giving their butts at night." He went on to claim that this practice was historic and necessary. "If [my commanders] don't feth the butts of those boys, what should they feth? The @&&@$?-/ of their own Grandmothers?"[30]

"In 2015, The New York Times reported that U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan were instructed by their commanders to ignore child sexual abuse being carried out by Afghan security forces, except "when rape is being used as a weapon of war." American soldiers have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records. But the U.S. soldiers have been increasingly troubled that instead of weeding out pedophiles, the US military was arming them against the Taliban and placing them as the police commanders of villages — and doing little when they began abusing children. One U.S. Army Captain, Dan Quinn, became distressed after hearing cries of young boys being raped by Afghan officers. He then intervened and beat up the Afghan officer who was responsible. After the beating, the US Army relieved the Captain of his command and pulled him from Afghanistan. He has since left the military."

I would have gone bat gak crazy over there with this happening.

 Hordini wrote:
The Bill of Rights is more than a cultural icon, it's the law of the land here.

Law is a subset of culture.

Afghanistan is rather a lawless place at the moment, but when you have high ranking police officers advocating child sex abuse by security officers (see Relapse's quote above), it could be argued it is the law of the land there too.

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
The Bill of Rights is more than a cultural icon, it's the law of the land here.

Law is a subset of culture.

Afghanistan is rather a lawless place at the moment, but when you have high ranking police officers advocating child sex abuse by security officers (see Relapse's quote above), it could be argued it is the law of the land there too.

Well, not if it's against the law. It could be a cultural norm and still be illegal.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Since when is al-Qaeda synonymous with Afghanistan? Yes, the Taliban government provided shelter to bin Ladin and his ilk, but I'm pretty sure it was the US that attacked Afghanistan. I'm not going to pretend that they didn't have it coming, but technically the nation of Afghanistan didn't attack the US.

Um... the Taliban was the Afghan government. o.O

I think the distinction is that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not the same thing. They had similar ideologies, and the Taliban provided shelter to Al-Qaeda, but Taliban is not a synonym for Al-Qaeda is I think the point that was being made. Al-Qaeda was an autonomous group comprised mostly of foreigners (and run largely by Saudi's) with aspirations of global Jihad, while the Taliban were an ethno-political group primarily interested in just ruling Afghanistan (albeit horrifyingly). Thus, the Taliban were not the ones that attacked the US, which is technically correct.

Exactly. The fact that I (and you) even had to spell that out is a bit disturbing.

 Hordini wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure I got it right. Maybe lay off the manifest destiny a little, it's hampering your objectivity.

You must have skipped the 9/11 chapter in whatever book you read about the War in Afghanistan.


Do you think Poland started WWII as well?

If Poland didn't go around wearing such short skirts it wouldn't have caught Nazi Germany and the USSR's attention. Poland was just asking for it.

 Frazzled wrote:
If Poland didn't go around wearing such short skirts it wouldn't have caught Nazi Germany and the USSR's attention. Poland was just asking for it.

Funnily enough, it was actually the Germans who were dressing up in short skirts and pretending to be Polish, Poland was actually wearing cargo pants and a turtle-neck the whole time.

 Hordini wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure I got it right. Maybe lay off the manifest destiny a little, it's hampering your objectivity.

You must have skipped the 9/11 chapter in whatever book you read about the War in Afghanistan.


Do you think Poland started WWII as well?

It's funny because your analogy actually says exactly the opposite of what you're trying to say.

I'm sure you think Iraq was just about to launch invisible nukes at the US, too.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Since when is al-Qaeda synonymous with Afghanistan? Yes, the Taliban government provided shelter to bin Ladin and his ilk, but I'm pretty sure it was the US that attacked Afghanistan. I'm not going to pretend that they didn't have it coming, but technically the nation of Afghanistan didn't attack the US.

Um... the Taliban was the Afghan government. o.O

I think the distinction is that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not the same thing. They had similar ideologies, and the Taliban provided shelter to Al-Qaeda, but Taliban is not a synonym for Al-Qaeda is I think the point that was being made. Al-Qaeda was an autonomous group comprised mostly of foreigners (and run largely by Saudi's) with aspirations of global Jihad, while the Taliban were an ethno-political group primarily interested in just ruling Afghanistan (albeit horrifyingly). Thus, the Taliban were not the ones that attacked the US, which is technically correct.

Exactly. The fact that I (and you) even had to spell that out is a bit disturbing.

Are you really advocating that the US should NOT have responded to 9/11??

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Since when is al-Qaeda synonymous with Afghanistan? Yes, the Taliban government provided shelter to bin Ladin and his ilk, but I'm pretty sure it was the US that attacked Afghanistan. I'm not going to pretend that they didn't have it coming, but technically the nation of Afghanistan didn't attack the US.

Um... the Taliban was the Afghan government. o.O

I think the distinction is that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not the same thing. They had similar ideologies, and the Taliban provided shelter to Al-Qaeda, but Taliban is not a synonym for Al-Qaeda is I think the point that was being made. Al-Qaeda was an autonomous group comprised mostly of foreigners (and run largely by Saudi's) with aspirations of global Jihad, while the Taliban were an ethno-political group primarily interested in just ruling Afghanistan (albeit horrifyingly). Thus, the Taliban were not the ones that attacked the US, which is technically correct.

Exactly. The fact that I (and you) even had to spell that out is a bit disturbing.

Are you really advocating that the US should NOT have responded to 9/11??

Certainly not in the manner which it did. I mean, everyone knows the War on Terror has been a colossal clusterfeth from the get go, right?

The whole concept of "they might be baby rapists, but they're our baby rapists" , turns my stomach.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure I got it right. Maybe lay off the manifest destiny a little, it's hampering your objectivity.

You must have skipped the 9/11 chapter in whatever book you read about the War in Afghanistan.


Do you think Poland started WWII as well?

It's funny because your analogy actually says exactly the opposite of what you're trying to say.

I'm sure you think Iraq was just about to launch invisible nukes at the US, too.

Who said anything about Iraq? Moving the goalposts a bit, don't you think?

Relapse wrote:
The whole concept of "they might be baby rapists, but they're our baby rapists" , turns my stomach.

I think it's more a concept of, "If you only deal with the pure and righteous, you won't end up dealing with anybody."

So we have a story that, in part, is about child sex abuse in Afghanistan. One poster uses it to claim that it’s totally going to happen in the US as well, and another poster uses it to attach liberalism. Neither point makes any sense, but they weren’t really meant to.

This is where the culture war takes you. It produces this reflexive attack mentality. Instead of thinking about this issue, what can be done and what should be done, instead people just try to attach it to their own pet issue, no matter how stupid that connection is, spew that on the keyboard and move on. The effect is that neither the poster nor the reader learns or achieves anything.

The more that kind of culture war way of thinking replaces actual discussion, the dumber discussion gets.

 sebster wrote:
So we have a story that, in part, is about child sex abuse in Afghanistan. One poster uses it to claim that it’s totally going to happen in the US as well, and another poster uses it to attach liberalism. Neither point makes any sense, but they weren’t really meant to.

This is where the culture war takes you. It produces this reflexive attack mentality. Instead of thinking about this issue, what can be done and what should be done, instead people just try to attach it to their own pet issue, no matter how stupid that connection is, spew that on the keyboard and move on. The effect is that neither the poster nor the reader learns or achieves anything.

The more that kind of culture war way of thinking replaces actual discussion, the dumber discussion gets.

I begin to wonder how many of these suicide bombers, people attacking Afghan police, etc., have family or themselves that were victimized in this way. It's real easy to see the rage that would lead people to these actions in that light. Who gives a crap about democracy when you or your family are subject to this outrageous abuse.

Relapse wrote:
I begin to wonder how many of these suicide bombers, people attacking Afghan police, etc., have family or themselves that were victimized in this way. It's real easy to see the rage that would lead people to these actions in that light. Who gives a crap about democracy when you or your family are subject to this outrageous abuse.

I’d never thought of it that way. Interesting. Is it widespread enough to account for a significant portion of it? Personally, I think the more direct and generally accepted conclusion is sufficient*, but I won’t dismiss this playing a factor kind of thing playing a major part without evidence of its scale and effect.


*The simple answer, to me, is that when you combine ultra-conservative religious teaching and a multi-generational warzone you’re going to get hardliners.

Relapse wrote:

 sebster wrote:
So we have a story that, in part, is about child sex abuse in Afghanistan. One poster uses it to claim that it’s totally going to happen in the US as well, and another poster uses it to attach liberalism. Neither point makes any sense, but they weren’t really meant to.

This is where the culture war takes you. It produces this reflexive attack mentality. Instead of thinking about this issue, what can be done and what should be done, instead people just try to attach it to their own pet issue, no matter how stupid that connection is, spew that on the keyboard and move on. The effect is that neither the poster nor the reader learns or achieves anything.

The more that kind of culture war way of thinking replaces actual discussion, the dumber discussion gets.

I begin to wonder how many of these suicide bombers, people attacking Afghan police, etc., have family or themselves that were victimized in this way. It's real easy to see the rage that would lead people to these actions in that light. Who gives a crap about democracy when you or your family are subject to this outrageous abuse.

Ironically most of the suicide bombers we encountered in Helmand/Nimruz province weren't even Afghans, they were Pakistani's who were brought into Afghanistan by the Taliban to kill UN forces. Pakistan has pretty much allowed the Taliban to run the area east of Afghanistan and those people want to break away from both countries and form "Pashtunistan" but neither country will let them for obvious reasons.

I've never understood why the US response to 9/11 didn't go after Saudi Arabia, given where most of the perpetrators were from.

I guess that would have been more economically and diplomatically inconvenient than kicking the crap out of Afghanistan.

 Da Boss wrote:
I've never understood why the US response to 9/11 didn't go after Saudi Arabia, given where most of the perpetrators were from.

I guess that would have been more economically and diplomatically inconvenient than kicking the crap out of Afghanistan.

Seems like a relatively simple answer if you look at it.

Talibs (gov't of Afghanistan) actively protected the guys who planned and financed the operation and had hosted them as they planned the attack.

The Saudis did not.

Where the perps were born frankly did not and should not have been a deciding factor as to where the retaliation should have taken place. Not sure why you would argue otherwise unless you're just trying to be snarky.

So islamic extremists do not get any funding or help from the Saudis? That's news to me!

 Da Boss wrote:
I've never understood why the US response to 9/11 didn't go after Saudi Arabia, given where most of the perpetrators were from.

I guess that would have been more economically and diplomatically inconvenient than kicking the crap out of Afghanistan.

Because Al-Qaeda was utilizing Afghanistan as its training base for terrorist operations against the US. They are a multinational terrorist group that doesn't have a home country. The fact that many of them came from Saudi is about as relevant as the fact that most NHL players are Canadian and yet most of the teams are in the US

 Da Boss wrote:
So islamic extremists do not get any funding or help from the Saudis? That's news to me!

I'll assume you are choosing to ignore what I actually wrote in favor of building a straw man.

We can all agree the Talibs, the acting gov't of Afghanistan did indeed harbor/protect the Al Queda leadership, right?

That should not be disputable. The Talibs made it clear that was indeed their policy.

I see, so because Saudi Arabia lies about it's support for Jihadist and extremist movements, that's okay.

*Shakes head*

Well, at least the war sorted out islamic fundamentalism.

 Da Boss wrote:
I see, so because Saudi Arabia lies about it's support for Jihadist and extremist movements, that's okay.

*Shakes head*

Well, at least the war sorted out islamic fundamentalism.

Again, you asked why we invaded Afghanistan rather than Saudi Arabia.

Is there a portion of the provided answer you either do not understand or for some reason disagree with?

Yes, because I believe the Saudis did more to cause the attacks than the Taliban did by hiding the leaders in the aftermath.

My view on it is, the Taliban were dumb enough to be obvious.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yes, because I believe the Saudis did more to cause the attacks than the Taliban did by hiding the leaders in the aftermath.

My view on it is, the Taliban were dumb enough to be obvious.

How do you suppose invading Saudi Arabia would have brought the Al Queda leadership to justice? (that was the intent of going into Afghanistan)

Can you please define 'the Saudis'? Because the actual gov't of Saudi fights AQ and their ilk domestically and has been for a while. Have they had some policies (especially in regards to banking) that have enabled AQ and their ilk to transfer funds? Yep. And many of those funds were generated from organizations set up as charities and gathered funds internationally (the UK was a MAJOR source, second to funds from the country (not gov't) of Saudi Arabia. Are you suggesting we should also have gone to war against the UK because charities either based there or collecting funds there went directly to AQ prior to 9-11?

At this point I'll assume you have an ax to grind against the US and there is no way to actually reason with you.

It's nice that you are making that assumption of me- I've no particular axe to grind against the US, I just think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were colossal mistakes.

Do I have an axe to grind against Saudi Arabia? Yes, yes I do. And I think all of us should, as it is a barbaric country.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's nice that you are making that assumption of me- I've no particular axe to grind against the US, I just think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were colossal mistakes.

Do I have an axe to grind against Saudi Arabia? Yes, yes I do. And I think all of us should, as it is a barbaric country.

Every country in the middle east, with the exception of Israel are "Barbaric". Mostly because they have some form of Sharia law incorporated into their governance.

 Da Boss wrote:
I see, so because Saudi Arabia lies about it's support for Jihadist and extremist movements, that's okay.

The difference is that Saudi support was from private individuals, acting on account of their own personal beliefs. Which doesn't make it okay, but it'd be a just plain weird response to drive tanks over the border and start bombing government facilities on account of what private individuals did.

Citizens in the US city of Boston gave a lot of money to support the IRA, and while that wasn't okay on any level, it would have been completely bizarre for the UK to respond by attacking the US government.

This isn't to say the Saudis can't or shouldn't do more. Their reaction has been, well, complex and weird, but kind of understandable given their own priorities. Basically the House of Saud needs to be seen less as the leaders of country, and more the owners of a money flow from oil, who care only for keeping that oil flowing. So on the one hand they see terrorism as a potential threat to their sweet, sweet oil revenue, but on the other hand they're happy if that terrorism focuses elsewhere, and all the while they rely on extremist Islamic teaching as an outlet for the social problems of their own country.

The trick then is to put enough pressure on the Saudis so that it causes them more harm than good. But right now as long as we buy their oil no matter what, I can't see how that's going to happen.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Every country in the middle east, with the exception of Israel are "Barbaric". Mostly because they have some form of Sharia law incorporated into their governance.

Oh look, pure unashamed bigotry.

 sebster wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I see, so because Saudi Arabia lies about it's support for Jihadist and extremist movements, that's okay.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Every country in the middle east, with the exception of Israel are "Barbaric". Mostly because they have some form of Sharia law incorporated into their governance.

Oh look, pure unashamed bigotry.

Or, "Ohh look, someone who isn't afraid to call it how they see it".

Please show me 1 middle eastern country that allows woman to vote and to walk around without coverings without facing some kind of consequence. Name me a country that hasn't publicly declared their goal of destroying Israel, Name me a country that hasn't violated numerous human rights on a regular basis.

Kuwait is probably the best out of the lot and even they have issues.

I'd say, if it spreads to all of them, the whole concept of institutionalized raping of children is a good argument these countries have a barbaric culture.
That's just one thing. Isn't slavery a thing over there? Reading about how foreign workers are being treated as they prepare the World Cup venue is another good argument.
Then again, what is it we do that is considered barbaric or outrageous in the countries over there? Might be a good opportunity to hold the mirror up to ourselves.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Or, "Ohh look, someone who isn't afraid to call it how they see it".

Well, yes, obviously you're calling it as you see it. The point is that what you're seeing is bigoted nonsense.

Please show me 1 middle eastern country that allows woman to vote and to walk around without coverings without facing some kind of consequence.

You've moved your goal posts from barabarism to face covering in a single post. Boring, disingenuous nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I'd say, if it spreads to all of them, the whole concept of institutionalized raping of children is a good argument these countries have a barbaric culture.

And if we all start start eating our elderly, then you could say the same about us.

You're hiding a nasty piece of bigotry behind an 'if'.

 sebster wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Or, "Ohh look, someone who isn't afraid to call it how they see it".

Well, yes, obviously you're calling it as you see it. The point is that what you're seeing is bigoted nonsense.

Please show me 1 middle eastern country that allows woman to vote and to walk around without coverings without facing some kind of consequence.

You've moved your goal posts from barabarism to face covering in a single post. Boring, disingenuous nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I'd say, if it spreads to all of them, the whole concept of institutionalized raping of children is a good argument these countries have a barbaric culture.

And if we all start start eating our elderly, then you could say the same about us.

You're hiding a nasty piece of bigotry behind an 'if'.

Not at all. I think I should have been more clear. It seems from what I've read about it, this practice is spread throughout the Middle East as well as Afghanastan. I am not sure about that being true, though. I'll do some search later and get back to you on that. I think you'd agree then that's really bad, if not barbaric.

Of course, this isn't something that goes on in any western country that I know of:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/mideast/facing-crucifixion-saudi-man-still-dreaming-future-n431536

That is a hell of a civilized justice system, what with public beheadings and stoning so for different of fences, such as being suspected of being a witch or committing the crime of being raped. That last one takes blaming the victim to a whole new level.

Relapse wrote:
Not at all. I think I should have been more clear. It seems from what I've read about it, this practice is spread throughout the Middle East as well as Afghanastan.

There's been a hell of a lot of paedophilia in the Catholic church. But the term 'barbaric' was never used.

I am not sure about that being true, though. I'll do some search later and get back to you on that. I think you'd agree then that's really bad, if not barbaric.

Definitely. It happens once and it's fething appalling. That enclaves set up where it's acceptable is just the worst. But to assume its possible that it might just be common across a whole region of the world is... well, like saying if blood libel was widespread, then Jews would be the worst. But it's pretty obvious to everyone now that putting out that kind of accusation as an 'if' is basically letting bigotry make your assumptions for you.

Of course, this isn't something that goes on in any western country that I know of:

Not in Western countries, but in plenty of non-Arabic, non-Muslim countries.

Let's all remember to keep the arguments to the facts not individuals members

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Please show me 1 middle eastern country that allows woman to vote and to walk around without coverings without facing some kind of consequence.

Well, you already moved the goalposts once, but why not - Kuwait allows women to vote and has women elected to their government, and are not required to wear a burqa or niqab.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Please show me 1 middle eastern country that allows woman to vote and to walk around without coverings without facing some kind of consequence.

Well, you already moved the goalposts once, but why not - Kuwait allows women to vote and has women elected to their government, and are not required to wear a burqa or niqab.

Women can vote and walk around without head coverings in Turkey, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Cyprus.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Please show me 1 middle eastern country that allows woman to vote and to walk around without coverings without facing some kind of consequence.

Well, you already moved the goalposts once, but why not - Kuwait allows women to vote and has women elected to their government, and are not required to wear a burqa or niqab.

Well 1: I didnt move the goal posts I just further defined what I considered to be Barbarism.
and 2: Its funny you bring up Kuwait because in my post i even specifically mention Kuwait is probably the best of them ad they have problems.

Women are discriminated against, and Kuwait has no laws prohibiting domestic violence, sexual harassment, or marital rape.

From HRW's website.

3: I don't consider cyprus or Turkey to be part of the Middle East, Really I don't consider Egypt to be either, beyond the simple fact that they are more closely linked to Africa (land wise) then the Middle East.

In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex
with animals, but the animals must be female.
Having sexual relations with a male animal is
punishable by death.

I would say that is pretty barbaric wouldn't you?

But anyway lets just say that the entirety of the middle east is at least 100 years behind most of the western world. again with the exception of Israel and emphasis on "MOST of the western world"

So if you change the definition of "Middle East" and then change your criteria from "women can't vote and show their face" to "its legal to feth a goat", then you maybe somewhat have a point?

Also, just for lulz, more states in the US legalized bestiality than same-sex marriage. If "fetching animals isn't against the law" is the new measure for a country being barbaric then it doesn't look good for the grey states on this map:

 d-usa wrote:
So if you change the definition of "Middle East" and then change your criteria from "women can't vote and show their face" to "its legal to feth a goat", then you maybe somewhat have a point?

Also, just for lulz, more states in the US legalized bestiality than same-sex marriage. If "fetching animals isn't against the law" is the new measure for a country being barbaric then it doesn't look good for the grey states on this map:

Red Herring much?

What I posted was an ACTUAL law legalizing Bestiality, what you posted were states that DONT have laws against it.

No, what you posted was "name one country in the Middle East where women can vote and not wear coverings", then moved the goal post by clarifying that Middle East is based on your own private definition of Middle East, then moved the goal post again by saying that legally being allowed to have sex with an animal is barbaric and that it is legal to have sex with a male animal on Lebanon (which is false by the way), then now moved the goal post again by saying "something being legal isn't the same as something not being illegal".

But we are sitting here with baited breath waiting on the newest goalpost to fall.

 d-usa wrote:
No, what you posted was "name one country in the Middle East where women can vote and not wear coverings", then moved the goal post by clarifying that Middle East is based on your own private definition of Middle East, then moved the goal post again by saying that legally being allowed to have sex with an animal is barbaric and that it is legal to have sex with a male animal on Lebanon (which is false by the way), then now moved the goal post again by saying "something being legal isn't the same as something not being illegal".

But we are sitting here with baited breath waiting on the newest goalpost to fall.

So, to clarify, you took something out of context, then you took something out of context, then you took something out of context, then you made a red herring, and then you made a false statement. Noted

"Name one country in the Middle East where women can vote and walk around uncovered" *names 6* "you are taking it out of context"

"I don't consider them the Middle East" "so are we using your own definition of Middle East then?" "You are taking my statement out of context"

"Legal animal fething is barbaric and its legal in Lebanon" "it's not legal in Lebanon, but its legal in many US states" "red hering!"

Pro tip: Using your own words, definitions, and criteria is not taking you out of context. It's proving you wrong. Using legal bestiality as a sudden new criteria for being barbaric could be a red herring, especially since it's not true that it's legal in Lebanon, but pointing out that it is legal in our non-barbaric country isn't a red herring, it's proving you wrong.

Pro-tip 2: if you constantly have to move your arguments and post lies to back them up when you are forced to move the goal posts, you probably didn't have a very good argument to begin with.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
and 2: Its funny you bring up Kuwait because in my post i even specifically mention Kuwait is probably the best of them ad they have problems.

So you did; my bad. I somehow didn't see it.

 d-usa wrote:
"Name one country in the Middle East where women can vote and walk around uncovered" *names 6* "you are taking it out of context"

"I don't consider them the Middle East" "so are we using your own definition of Middle East then?" "You are taking my statement out of context"

"Legal animal fething is barbaric and its legal in Lebanon" "it's not legal in Lebanon, but its legal in many US states" "red hering!"

Pro tip: Using your own words, definitions, and criteria is not taking you out of context. It's proving you wrong. Using legal bestiality as a sudden new criteria for being barbaric could be a red herring, especially since it's not true that it's legal in Lebanon, but pointing out that it is legal in our non-barbaric country isn't a red herring, it's proving you wrong.

Pro-tip 2: if you constantly have to move your arguments and post lies to back them up when you are forced to move the goal posts, you probably didn't have a very good argument to begin with.

1: I should have been more clear on what I consider to be the Middle East, I apologize for not specifying further and instead using a general term which is about 90% accurate for the point I was making.
2: Bestiality is in fact legal in Lebanon, and the red herring is because there is no law against it in certain US states, the difference is very obvious and if you don't believe so then I recommend you never become a lawyer.
3: Pro tips: debating on an offtopic forum while going off topic is...redundant.

Back on topic. I am a bit surprised this only came to light 14 years after we started this whole charade.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure I got it right. Maybe lay off the manifest destiny a little, it's hampering your objectivity.

Mostly it was the Russians that started EVERYTHING by selling massive amounts of weaponry to ME dictators back in the day.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Every country in the middle east, with the exception of Israel are "Barbaric". Mostly because they have some form of Sharia law incorporated into their governance.

Truth. Look at Saudi Arabia and Turkey, two of our big ol' "allies."

Perhaps the time has come to dial back the conversation to Afghanastan, which I think we can all safely agree, is as barbaric and depraved a country as there is in today's world.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Well 1: I didnt move the goal posts I just further defined what I considered to be Barbarism.

Yeah, by redefining barbarism as having strict laws on what women can wear. Trying to establish a claim of barbarism... by pointing out how strict the laws are. "It's totally wild and lawless. If you doubt me just look at these laws they have."

Your thinking on this issue is really very silly.

But anyway lets just say that the entirety of the middle east is at least 100 years behind most of the western world. again with the exception of Israel and emphasis on "MOST of the western world"

Actually no, let's not say that because it is, again, bigotry produced by very limited information and very weak thinking.

The act itself is barbaric. The origin of this post was that the Soldier who stopped this horrific act was persecuted and removed from service. He is fighting this, but as a Soldier myself I know he will probably lose. It is horrible. We have certain values beat into our brains, they are as follows.
Loyalty
Duty
Respect
Selfless Service
Honor
Integrity
Personal Courage.

If you feel this Soldier in quesiton violated our core values, then explain how please, and why he should have been persecuted with extreme prejudice. Arguing about how the middle east is good of bad is pointless. Those of use who have seen it, experienced it, can not be swayed by your arguments or a wiki page. Its that simple.

Nvm

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Nvm

If you typted it originally you probably meant it. Please elaborate.

Or he typed something are realized he was wrong. Or accidentally replied to the wrong thread. Or simply didn't want to get in an argument.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Since when is al-Qaeda synonymous with Afghanistan? Yes, the Taliban government provided shelter to bin Ladin and his ilk, but I'm pretty sure it was the US that attacked Afghanistan. I'm not going to pretend that they didn't have it coming, but technically the nation of Afghanistan didn't attack the US.

Um... the Taliban was the Afghan government. o.O

I think the distinction is that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not the same thing. They had similar ideologies, and the Taliban provided shelter to Al-Qaeda, but Taliban is not a synonym for Al-Qaeda is I think the point that was being made. Al-Qaeda was an autonomous group comprised mostly of foreigners (and run largely by Saudi's) with aspirations of global Jihad, while the Taliban were an ethno-political group primarily interested in just ruling Afghanistan (albeit horrifyingly). Thus, the Taliban were not the ones that attacked the US, which is technically correct.

Exactly. The fact that I (and you) even had to spell that out is a bit disturbing.

Are you really advocating that the US should NOT have responded to 9/11??

We both know you're more intelligent than that. That strawman was so blatant that it's almost a disgrace. I mean, I even said in my first post that they friggin' had it coming.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Since when is al-Qaeda synonymous with Afghanistan? Yes, the Taliban government provided shelter to bin Ladin and his ilk, but I'm pretty sure it was the US that attacked Afghanistan. I'm not going to pretend that they didn't have it coming, but technically the nation of Afghanistan didn't attack the US.

Um... the Taliban was the Afghan government. o.O

I think the distinction is that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not the same thing. They had similar ideologies, and the Taliban provided shelter to Al-Qaeda, but Taliban is not a synonym for Al-Qaeda is I think the point that was being made. Al-Qaeda was an autonomous group comprised mostly of foreigners (and run largely by Saudi's) with aspirations of global Jihad, while the Taliban were an ethno-political group primarily interested in just ruling Afghanistan (albeit horrifyingly). Thus, the Taliban were not the ones that attacked the US, which is technically correct.

Exactly. The fact that I (and you) even had to spell that out is a bit disturbing.

Are you really advocating that the US should NOT have responded to 9/11??

We both know you're more intelligent than that. That strawman was so blatant that it's almost a disgrace. I mean, I even said in my first post that they friggin' had it coming.

YOU brought up that comparison. Not me... The US response was towards the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies.

 sebster wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Well 1: I didnt move the goal posts I just further defined what I considered to be Barbarism.

Yeah, by redefining barbarism as having strict laws on what women can wear. Trying to establish a claim of barbarism... by pointing out how strict the laws are. "It's totally wild and lawless. If you doubt me just look at these laws they have."

Your thinking on this issue is really very silly.

I've been talking to some Afghani refugees lately and it is weird to hear them talk about the Taliban as a good thing as it kept the warlords under control and they could get back to a country that had rule of law (however much you may disagree with it). These guys I am talking to may be Taliban sympathisers, but it definitely a different viewpoint to what we hear regularly.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Since when is al-Qaeda synonymous with Afghanistan? Yes, the Taliban government provided shelter to bin Ladin and his ilk, but I'm pretty sure it was the US that attacked Afghanistan. I'm not going to pretend that they didn't have it coming, but technically the nation of Afghanistan didn't attack the US.

Um... the Taliban was the Afghan government. o.O

I think the distinction is that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not the same thing. They had similar ideologies, and the Taliban provided shelter to Al-Qaeda, but Taliban is not a synonym for Al-Qaeda is I think the point that was being made. Al-Qaeda was an autonomous group comprised mostly of foreigners (and run largely by Saudi's) with aspirations of global Jihad, while the Taliban were an ethno-political group primarily interested in just ruling Afghanistan (albeit horrifyingly). Thus, the Taliban were not the ones that attacked the US, which is technically correct.

Exactly. The fact that I (and you) even had to spell that out is a bit disturbing.

Are you really advocating that the US should NOT have responded to 9/11??

We both know you're more intelligent than that. That strawman was so blatant that it's almost a disgrace. I mean, I even said in my first post that they friggin' had it coming.

YOU brought up that comparison. Not me... The US response was towards the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies.

What comparison? Who's comparing anything? The claim was made that Afghanistan declared war on the US; that is empirically not true.

 Bullockist wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Well 1: I didnt move the goal posts I just further defined what I considered to be Barbarism.

Yeah, by redefining barbarism as having strict laws on what women can wear. Trying to establish a claim of barbarism... by pointing out how strict the laws are. "It's totally wild and lawless. If you doubt me just look at these laws they have."

Your thinking on this issue is really very silly.

I've been talking to some Afghani refugees lately and it is weird to hear them talk about the Taliban as a good thing as it kept the warlords under control and they could get back to a country that had rule of law (however much you may disagree with it). These guys I am talking to may be Taliban sympathisers, but it definitely a different viewpoint to what we hear regularly.

The warlords and the Taliban were basically one and the same. Warlords would switch sides on a whim and would follow whomever was winning at the time and such. So its not so much one over the other but the fact that they were basically the same people with different names on different days

As far as the law is concerned, areas that were dominated by the Taliban did indeed have laws and courts, unfortunately for most people these were wildly different depending on what day of the week you went there and which judge saw your case. The biggest problem was that most of the laws were based on Sharia Law and as such pretty much anything remotely entertaining was illegal, Alcohol, Television, Music. I read a couple of great books that went over some of this stuff, i think i posted them before in the "what are you reading" topic but not sure.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure I got it right. Maybe lay off the manifest destiny a little, it's hampering your objectivity.

Mostly it was the Russians that started EVERYTHING by selling massive amounts of weaponry to ME dictators back in the day.

What! No way!
Russia only started selling weapons because you guys were selling weapons to Israel! It is the West (the US, UK and France in particular) who started the mess by destroying the Ottoman Empire and squeezing an agressive Israel into a place that was already occupied with a vastly different culture. No sir, can't see how that could possibly destabilise the Middle East.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Well 1: I didnt move the goal posts I just further defined what I considered to be Barbarism.

Yeah, by redefining barbarism as having strict laws on what women can wear. Trying to establish a claim of barbarism... by pointing out how strict the laws are. "It's totally wild and lawless. If you doubt me just look at these laws they have."

Your thinking on this issue is really very silly.

I've been talking to some Afghani refugees lately and it is weird to hear them talk about the Taliban as a good thing as it kept the warlords under control and they could get back to a country that had rule of law (however much you may disagree with it). These guys I am talking to may be Taliban sympathisers, but it definitely a different viewpoint to what we hear regularly.

As far as the law is concerned, areas that were dominated by the Taliban did indeed have laws and courts, unfortunately for most people these were wildly different depending on what day of the week you went there and which judge saw your case. The biggest problem was that most of the laws were based on Sharia Law and as such pretty much anything remotely entertaining was illegal, Alcohol, Television, Music. I read a couple of great books that went over some of this stuff, i think i posted them before in the "what are you reading" topic but not sure.

I don't know about you, but I would prefer restrictive laws over constant unrest and war any day of the week.

Relapse wrote:
Perhaps the time has come to dial back the conversation to Afghanastan, which I think we can all safely agree, is as barbaric and depraved a country as there is in today's world.

Well spoken and true.

Relapse wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Perhaps the time has come to dial back the conversation to Afghanastan, which I think we can all safely agree, is as barbaric and depraved a country as there is in today's world.

Well spoken and true.

Yes, I also think that about myself all the time.

 Bullockist wrote:


I've been talking to some Afghani refugees lately and it is weird to hear them talk about the Taliban as a good thing as it kept the warlords under control and they could get back to a country that had rule of law (however much you may disagree with it). These guys I am talking to may be Taliban sympathisers, but it definitely a different viewpoint to what we hear regularly.

Just who is this guy? He's a fething genius!

Edit idiocy: I cannot spell genius

I hear what you are saying oh orky overlord but i cannot shake the impression that Afghanistan is going to be a lot more chaotic after the Taliban were kicked out than they were before and for a long time. We can argue semantics and evil government and the like but all that really matters to the people is, markets, food and safety and I think all of those would have taken a nosedive after the invasion. This is what the guys I was talking to were implying.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I don't know about you, but I would prefer restrictive laws over constant unrest and war any day of the week.

The thing is, inconsistent application of laws might as well be synonymous with constant unrest, because there is absolutely no way of planning for the future if you don't kno whether or not what you're doing is going to get you punished.

OK, so we all agree to disagree, do you think this particular Soldier, regardless of if you agree with him being there based on politics, should have been put out?

 redleger wrote:
OK, so we all agree to disagree, do you think this particular Soldier, regardless of if you agree with him being there based on politics, should have been put out?

I don't disagree with you.

This is child abuse. Simple as that and imo, American service members, should never walk away without doing something about it.

At some point, you have to draw a line in the sand and say, this ain't happening on my watch.

Looks like support might be building for the man, but I don't think he'll win:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/20/green-beret-discharged-after-confronting-accused-afghan-rapist-appeals-decision.html?intcmp=hplnws

 whembly wrote:

 redleger wrote:
OK, so we all agree to disagree, do you think this particular Soldier, regardless of if you agree with him being there based on politics, should have been put out?

I don't disagree with you.

This is child abuse. Simple as that and imo, American service members, should never walk away without doing something about it.

At some point, you have to draw a line in the sand and say, this ain't happening on my watch.

This is hardly a black and white issue unfortunately.

We as US Service Members are not a part of Afghan law enforcement. The nation has a government, has laws, and has law enforcement. We are not there to act in that stead. We are there to support the Afghan fight against the Taliban/Al Qaeda/ISIS.

Did that man do wrong? Morally, no. They should have just made him "dissapear" into the mountains. As news of this was breaking, the USFOR-A Commander sent a theater wide email out establishing how we were to act in such a situation. It was not to assault the person, as this man did. Our responsibility as Service Members is to report any suspected cases of child abuse up our chain of command, so that the people in our military who have the power to legally do something about it can get involved. Back when this event took place, that was no different.

I feel for this man. The job they do is insane, and it is not fair to him that he has been treated this way, especially for showing the restraint that he did in not simply killing the man, as he truly deserved. In the end though we are all expected to follow the rules that we are bound by.

To translate this into civilian.

Just because two US soldiers had moral cause to act against someone doesn't mean there are not political repercussions.

The local soldier allegedly committing these offences and has been assaulted by two US servicemen was causing a stink that has repercussions on relations between the forces involved. This is too important to be placed at (further) risk so the soldiers were cycled out.

Had the soldiers acted to prevent an actual child rape in progress things would be different, however what actually appears to have happened was an extrajudicial 'punishment beating' of a known paedophile, which is very different. Even if the assault was well intentioned and restrained.

One soldier, but apparently not the other was effectively dismissed over the accusations.

Right so far?

1. The two US servicemen possibly had different levels of culpability in the assault.

2. The two servicemen possibly had equal culpability but one got off with a warning because his career path had taken different turns.

3. Perhaps one serviceman was complaining about it too much, and the other took his punishment quietly.

4. The actions of the soldiers also embarrassed the local commander, especially now the story has gone viral. While it is one of his own soldiers fault this is not how it will be seen.


There is a dilemma here, the dismissed soldier can write his meal ticket on the back of his dismissal over this cause. He might get a press deal or a job out of it.
However by not remaining quiet he brings disgrace on his superiors who had to act as they did for strategic reasons. This is not what a good soldier should do.

I'd say you're pretty spot on Orlanth.

Yeah... that makes sense now.

Glad ya'll cleared that up.