U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies

  • metta

    Posts: 39154

    Sep 21, 2015 3:18 PM GMT
    U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies


    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 21, 2015 4:53 PM GMT
    article:
    "The policy has endured as American forces have recruited and organized Afghan militias to help hold territory against the Taliban. But soldiers and Marines have been increasingly troubled that instead of weeding out pedophiles, the American military was arming them in some cases and placing them as the commanders of villages — and doing little when they began abusing children."


    Are older RJers allowed to voice their disgust or will hottjoe and company be calling hypocrite. Is there a maximum age beyond which no comments will be acceptable to the twink-minded?

    article
    "The American policy of nonintervention is intended to maintain good relations with the Afghan police and militia units the United States has trained to fight the Taliban. It also reflects a reluctance to impose cultural values in a country where pederasty is rife, particularly among powerful men, for whom being surrounded by young teenagers can be a mark of social status."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 21, 2015 10:58 PM GMT
    Obama's the CIC - where's he on this one? And no, the answer isn't hanging out - YUK! - at "Man's Country" in Chicago w/ Rahm Emmanuel. That was then, this is now. Leave it to the NYT not to ask the right question of the right person.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2015 1:00 AM GMT
    metta saidU.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies


    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0


    You're a little late

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4116164
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2015 1:26 AM GMT
    ^ I know metta is slipping.
  • Sincityfan

    Posts: 409

    Sep 22, 2015 4:28 AM GMT
    theantijock said

    Are older RJers allowed to voice their disgust or will hottjoe and company be calling hypocrite. Is there a maximum age beyond which no comments will be acceptable to the twink-minded?


    What?

    As disturbing as a 16 year old dating a 30+ year old is, it's still legal....in most places.
  • NursePractiti...

    Posts: 232

    Sep 22, 2015 8:34 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]Sincityfan said[/cite]
    theantijock said

    Are older RJers allowed to voice their disgust or will hottjoe and company be calling hypocrite. Is there a maximum age beyond which no comments will be acceptable to the twink-minded?


    Why are older RJers being asked about this? Rape is rape no matter the age involved. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong but it sounds as if sincityfan is accusing anyone 40 and over of pedophilia for dating or being interested in anyone younger than them of legal and consensual age.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2015 1:01 PM GMT
    Awful. Will the news shows pick this up or will it just interfere with their coverage of Trump?

    Is there anything that can be done?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2015 1:23 PM GMT
    nursemuscle said[quote][cite]Sincityfan said[/cite]
    theantijock said

    Are older RJers allowed to voice their disgust or will hottjoe and company be calling hypocrite. Is there a maximum age beyond which no comments will be acceptable to the twink-minded?


    Why are older RJers being asked about this? Rape is rape no matter the age involved. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong but it sounds as if sincityfan is accusing anyone 40 and over of pedophilia for dating or being interested in anyone younger than them of legal and consensual age.


    Well, besides that there are many ageists on RJ, I don't know what the sincityfan poster had in mind. Don't recall reading him before so I don't have much to judge. Looks like he's saying it disturbs him but it is legal & I don't know if he's commenting on how aesthetics seem to him or if he's being judgmental of others. Not sure why he commented on my post. Could be he didn't know the
    backstory to my comment which can be found here http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4110540

    In any case, the story in the OP certainly did not sound as if it was about a legal, consensual relationship, particularly about the kid chained to a bed, I think it said. Yikes.

    I'd have made for a bad soldier because I'd either have violated orders and saved the kid or have them shoot me as deserter because I can't imagine seeing that and allowing it to continue as if I didn't see it.

    I guess this is an aspect of war. That in order to fight the greater evil, the Taliban or Isis or whatever, the Americans allow allies a leniency--for lack of a better word--for a horrible act that we'd never put up with on our own soil without interfering, protecting or at least protest. I don't know how soldiers come out of that intact. I don't think I could do that; I can't imagine myself turning my back on that, not without shooting myself in the head.

    Chains? Seems a slight violation of the prime directive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2015 4:58 AM GMT
    Obama celebrates deserter Beau Bergdahl with a Rose Garden Ceremony but won't support decorated Green Beret Charles Martland who struck an admitted child rapist who is an Afghan Police Officer.

    I think Obama's daughters should go to Afghanistan and tour the Afghan Police forces especially after using his daughters as political props to meet the Pope today.