Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about "Obama" or "Democrats" or "PC crap" or any of the other frothing nonsense that various posters have spouted here.

The problem is that a soldier took the matter into his own hands, rather than following military protocols and due process. He violated longstanding rules in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which precede Obama. Our Armed Forces are not supposed to be a band of vigilantes, where anything goes.

"Excuse me little boy. I'm sorry you are being brutally raped, but I must go up the chain of command to free you from this animal"

Are you FUCKING kidding me?

These men stop this shit out of HUMAN DECENCY. Where is Obama's?

This stuff was going on when Bush was Commander In Chief overseeing our troops in Afghanistan. But somehow we are to understand that this is about Obama.

Riiiiiiiight. Partisan bullshit.

Yep, it was indeed going on. The difference? Bush did not dishonorably discharge those who sought to stop it. In fact, he had a 'have at it' policy when it came to these rapists. He let the commanders on those bases handle it and they damn well put a stop to it. Any commander that didn't? That was on him. But Bush would not have thrown these men out of the military for stopping the rape of little children.

PP, how do you know this?

Because the men on the ground knew they had the power to stop it without fear of prosecution. And many did. Obama put in new rules of engagement and apparently punishes for 'cultural insensitivity'.

Anonymous wrote:Another reason why women should serve on the front lines: we wouldn't put up with this for a second.

There are women on these bases. Many soldiers reported these practices. One is being prosecuted right now form intervening. This has nothing to do with women in the military..this rests with the top brass and Obama. This Pentagon has been overrules many times when they tell him what he doesn't want to here. I think the surviving generals have learned to play their parts too well and simply do what's expedient, not make the case for what's right. Of course expediency is important - but we are simply talking setting a bar for the behaviors of those we partner with, train and give money to. Not even prosecuting them. Just telling them to stop or severing the cash spigot. Would it disrupt some training yes. But the word would get around and I'm pretty sure the rest would be able to grandfather this practice for the amount of money they're getting from us. One last word, this terrible practice is due to the stunted male female sex relations in Afghanistan. There was a huge article in the post about how facebook is abetting that by not yanking false facebook pages targeting outspoken women there. Please voice your disapproval with them.

Anonymous wrote:basically the obama administration is covering up sex crimes against children.

Yes, this Pentagon has done everything the president asked. They have gone out of their way to serve his vision in all matters as they are constitutionally bound to do - including expediency in Afghanistan (which is what this is). And by the way, this stuff gets 'reported'. The soldiers doing the reporting are told "thank you very much" and nothing is done. But I want to emphasize the tone is set from the top-the very top- the generals and the president. The irony being this all is going down at the same time we had a massive campus rape initiative spearheaded by this administration.

Anonymous wrote:I've been sickened by this story all day. Suck for the little boys and ANGRY that our military is allowing this to happen on our bases. I'm pissed that our military who tried to protect these poor children have been dismissed.

I want to do something about it. Who can I call, write, yell at? What can we do to fight this issue?

This is the most unacceptable thing I've heard in awhile.

If there is any way to draw this to the attention of one of the Republican presidential candidates who have high profile and would be willing to take it up even if it is to further his/her campaign, you'd see it get publicity on a large scale immediately and you'd see some sort of action.

Although I am not a supporter of his, Trump is someone who would likely take it up.

It is cynical but even though the article was given prominence in the NYT, there has been remarkably little outrage expressed over it that I have seen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many of the Post Traumautic Stress Disorder cases are due to troops witnessing this abhorrent behavior??

You're a very, very creepy person.

How is the poster "creepy?"

WTF is wrong with you? Are you saying that child rape is not traumatic to those who have witnessed it under these sick circumstances?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the dcum world this doesn't matter because they were only little boys. Now if it had been little girls all kind of hell would break loose on the thread. Sickening.

Get real, man. We are talking about violating and torturing children. It's unforgivable whatever the gender of the child being treated like a piece of meat.

I am "getting real." Look at all of the posters defending the pres action.

This war started under "W". I don't understand your connection between the current president and defending the violation of girls over the boys.

Please don't be dense. Try reading the comment in context of the thread.

I guess I am dense. I don't see a partiality to girls over boys. Posters are referencing children, not girls over boys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about "Obama" or "Democrats" or "PC crap" or any of the other frothing nonsense that various posters have spouted here.

The problem is that a soldier took the matter into his own hands, rather than following military protocols and due process. He violated longstanding rules in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which precede Obama. Our Armed Forces are not supposed to be a band of vigilantes, where anything goes.

"Excuse me little boy. I'm sorry you are being brutally raped, but I must go up the chain of command to free you from this animal"

Are you FUCKING kidding me?

These men stop this shit out of HUMAN DECENCY. Where is Obama's?

This stuff was going on when Bush was Commander In Chief overseeing our troops in Afghanistan. But somehow we are to understand that this is about Obama.

Riiiiiiiight. Partisan bullshit.

Yep, it was indeed going on. The difference? Bush did not dishonorably discharge those who sought to stop it. In fact, he had a 'have at it' policy when it came to these rapists. He let the commanders on those bases handle it and they damn well put a stop to it. Any commander that didn't? That was on him. But Bush would not have thrown these men out of the military for stopping the rape of little children.

PP, how do you know this?

Anonymous wrote:And having fucked up Afghanistan and Iraq, there are those who want us to take military action against Iran!

No, Afghanistan was already fucked up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many of the Post Traumautic Stress Disorder cases are due to troops witnessing this abhorrent behavior??

You're a very, very creepy person.

Why? This subject was being covered on Chris Plante's show this morning and soldiers were calling in stating they were traumatized listening to the screams of kids being raped. Said that in Bush's day, it also occurred but they could intervene and a commander could absolutely say "not on this damn base you don't". And they listened because they knew damn well our military would come down on them in ways they didn't want to think about. Under Obama, you get dishonorably discharged for doing the honorable thing and stopping these horrific acts.

I know quite a few men who would gladly sit in jail cells if it meant stopping a child from being hurt by these animals. And that's how it should be.

This makes me even more angry. Why did it change under Obama. So much for hope and faith and assertion of human rights by closing "Guantanamo bay" when he allowed atrocities like this to occur

My personal feeling? There's an element of vindictiveness - it's a way of neutering our military in front of our enemies. If it were just about PC feels, the Marine would not be dishonorably discharged. Doing that sends a very specific message.

The Afghan warlords that we're training to be police are not our enemies. That's the point.

The point, my friend, is that this custom is also practiced by ISIS and Obama is showing them that it is allowed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the dcum world this doesn't matter because they were only little boys. Now if it had been little girls all kind of hell would break loose on the thread. Sickening.

Get real, man. We are talking about violating and torturing children. It's unforgivable whatever the gender of the child being treated like a piece of meat.

I am "getting real." Look at all of the posters defending the pres action.

This war started under "W". I don't understand your connection between the current president and defending the violation of girls over the boys.

Please don't be dense. Try reading the comment in context of the thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the dcum world this doesn't matter because they were only little boys. Now if it had been little girls all kind of hell would break loose on the thread. Sickening.

Get real, man. We are talking about violating and torturing children. It's unforgivable whatever the gender of the child being treated like a piece of meat.

I am "getting real." Look at all of the posters defending the pres action.

This war started under "W". I don't understand your connection between the current president and defending the violation of girls over the boys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the dcum world this doesn't matter because they were only little boys. Now if it had been little girls all kind of hell would break loose on the thread. Sickening.

Get real, man. We are talking about violating and torturing children. It's unforgivable whatever the gender of the child being treated like a piece of meat.

I am "getting real." Look at all of the posters defending the pres action.

Yes and everything to the contrary is being called partisan bullshit. They can't even put aside their politics and realize something terrible is going on and our top brass condones it due to "strategic interests"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the dcum world this doesn't matter because they were only little boys. Now if it had been little girls all kind of hell would break loose on the thread. Sickening.

Get real, man. We are talking about violating and torturing children. It's unforgivable whatever the gender of the child being treated like a piece of meat.

I am "getting real." Look at all of the posters defending the pres action.

Afghanistan is even more of a shit hole than I already believed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many of the Post Traumautic Stress Disorder cases are due to troops witnessing this abhorrent behavior??

You're a very, very creepy person.

Why? This subject was being covered on Chris Plante's show this morning and soldiers were calling in stating they were traumatized listening to the screams of kids being raped. Said that in Bush's day, it also occurred but they could intervene and a commander could absolutely say "not on this damn base you don't". And they listened because they knew damn well our military would come down on them in ways they didn't want to think about. Under Obama, you get dishonorably discharged for doing the honorable thing and stopping these horrific acts.

I know quite a few men who would gladly sit in jail cells if it meant stopping a child from being hurt by these animals. And that's how it should be.

This makes me even more angry. Why did it change under Obama. So much for hope and faith and assertion of human rights by closing "Guantanamo bay" when he allowed atrocities like this to occur

My personal feeling? There's an element of vindictiveness - it's a way of neutering our military in front of our enemies. If it were just about PC feels, the Marine would not be dishonorably discharged. Doing that sends a very specific message.

The Afghan warlords that we're training to be police are not our enemies. That's the point.