It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
60
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull




We don't need allies like this. Period. How were the Taliban worse, again?


No we don't.

Well according to this they were no better...


Nematullah, a former would-be suicide bomber, told Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS) that young men, including himself, endured sexual abuse by their trainers, according to a September 23 NDS statement.

Militant leader Mullah Ahmad (aka Mullah Akhtar), who trained the young man to carry out a suicide attack on his motorcycle in Adraskan District of Herat Province in September, also sexually abused him, Nematullah said.



Doctors and activists in Pakistan and Afghanistan have medically confirmed that such abuse occurs.

“We have examined at least five teenage boys … who were sexually abused by the Taliban in South Waziristan,” Dr. Muhammad Hashim at the Khalifa Gul Nawaz Teaching Hospital in Bannu District, told Central Asia Online.


www.redflagnews.com...




posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I don't think so.

If they want our help, they need to change. If not, bring our kids home. I'm not sure a people who condone this sort of thing are worth the blood and treasure spent to protect them. Actually, I am sure. They aren't, if they aren't willing to deal with this sordid and disgusting act.

No alliance is worth looking the other way. We allied with a devil during WWII to defeat another lesser, as it turns out, devil. Both irredeemably evil, all in the name of political expediency. Look what it brought us. Nearly half a century of proxy warfare.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Didn't mean to imply they were better. Fairly obviously, they weren't. Just another brand of evil.

That's why political expediency is not the best way to decide on alliances. It may, in fact, be the worst.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: CTRTCTRT




you're feeling sorry for the wrong people...


Why because I didn't say I was feeling sorry for the young boys? I do.

Look I feel sorry for those soldiers that know this is happening, but know they really can't stop it.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: CTRTCTRT

Thing is, I wouldn't ignore it. Or protect it. But I'm also fifty years plus old. I'm fairly experianced in the world outside, both the dark, and the light.

Some of these soldiers, though not all of them, are much, much younger, and not nearly so experienced. They shouldn't be ignoring it, but I'm not going to condemn an 20 year old boy, ten thousand miles from home, for not condemning it. I will, however, condemn his political masters for even considering those sorts of orders, much less giving them.


We condemned plenty of 20 year of Nazis, without any question, and with pure, "moral clarity".

We have no problem using drones and killing civilians, because of that same moral clarity, but when it comes to OUR troops protecting pedophiles, for YEARS, and even letting them rape children on our bases, we suddenly start seeing that things aren't black and white... I'm sure there's plenty of dead nazi's that wish we'd been as subtle in our thinking in the 1940s...



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

No, that 20 year old squaddie, or his fellows can't. The line officers can't. They don't have the oomph necessary to even try to change things, or stop it. They simply don't.

Their political higher ups do, however.

...and it's past time to make 'em aware that we want them to.

Our entire ME policy needs to be re-evaluated. Not just Afghanistan. All of it.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Of course they can't stop all of it, but you know what, they CAN do something, like sit in a cell instead of facilitating it.

They had choices and they made the wrong ones... following orders isn't defence. And I don't feel sorry for anyone that was unwilling to stand up for children being raped on their watch, because it's "hard".

What kind of cowards are we talking about?



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: CTRTCTRT




it was culturally acceptable to lynch blacks in America until a few decades ago, we found a way...


No it wasn't...


From 1882 to 1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."


en.wikipedia.org...

If it was culturally accepted why on Earth did they try and make it a law to stop them?



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: CTRTCTRT

Really? How many of those twenty year old Nazi's were put on trial at Nuremberg? For simply being there. If they carried out atrocities, of what ever sort, then yes, condemn them...hang them, even.

But for simply not acting? No. That we can not, nor should we, do. We didn't put German civilians on trial, officially. Though they were condemned very loudly for not doing anything when they knew something horrific was going on. Not acting because they can't, or don't dare, isn't a crime.

Very easy for you and I, ten thousand miles away, or seventy plus years away, to say this or that should be done to punish. Quite another when you are a twenty year old who has to depend upon his fellows to make it home alive.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
That's right following orders isn't an excuse for a soldier to look the other way at an atrocity. That was well established after WW2. I hope more of our men and women serving over there have the balls to stand up and do something about it, no matter what the consequences. There's no excuse for us to be over there and abide by this.

These are the same monsters fleeing into Europe by the millions right now. Obama just agreed to let hundreds of thousands of them into the US over the next few years.

They aren't going to stop doing this just because they are in another country either.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: CTRTCTRT




Of course they can't stop all of it, but you know what, they CAN do something, like sit in a cell instead of facilitating it.


Sound easy until you are in a cell.

Also know that we weren't there to change their culture...we have other priorities.



They had choices and they made the wrong ones... following orders isn't defence.


I guess that depends on who you ask.



And I don't feel sorry for anyone that was unwilling to stand up for children being raped on their watch, because it's "hard".


That's just it we didn't go to Afghanistan to change the way they have been culturally brought up, and it is hard to know this is happening and know you can't do anything to change it.



What kind of cowards are we talking about?


One's who like young boys.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I'd leave Afghanistan. I'd pull the troops, remove all support and funding. I'd also be very vocal as to why. Afghanistan doesn't provide allies. These are people that will side with you as long as it benefits them. There is no moral imperative to win against the war on terror there.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

Ahhhh how I love that ideology.

"My god that is horrible! YOU should do something about it, otherwise you obviously have no balls!"

Flights into Kabul leave daily. Surely you have your ticket booked already?



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: CTRTCTRT




it was culturally acceptable to lynch blacks in America until a few decades ago, we found a way...


No it wasn't...


From 1882 to 1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."


en.wikipedia.org...

If it was culturally accepted why on Earth did they try and make it a law to stop them?


I don't think you wanna go down this road...

the LAW of the land and what's culturally acceptable are TWO different things...

"the Equal Justice Initiative in 2015 found that nearly 4,000 black men, women and children were lynched in the Southern states alone between 1877 and 1950"...

en.wikipedia.org...

BlacK US veterans were lynched in the military uniform

"Ironically, the Ku Klux Klan became reenergized by the returning black veterans, who wore their uniforms and seemed to know no fear, and thought they could assert their equality. The response of the KKK was a renewal of violence. Some of the more egregious examples:

Sergeant Isaac Woodward, a twenty-seven-year-old black veteran, upon being honorably discharged from Camp Gordon in Augusta, Georgia, was pulled from a public bus (still in his uniform), incarcerated, and during the night, he was beaten so badly that he was blinded in both eyes (one was gouged out).

In Alabama, when a black veteran removed the Jim Crow sign on a trolley, an angry streetcar conductor unloaded his pistol into the ex-Marine. The Chief of Police found him staggering away and administered a single bullet to his head, finishing the job.

In South Carolina, another veteran complaining about Jim Crow transportation had his eyes gouged out with the butt of the sheriff’s billy club.

In Louisiana, a black veteran who defiantly refused to give a white man a war memento was dismembered, castrated, and blow-torched.

In Monroe, Georgia, two black men (one a veteran who did not show proper obeisance and the other accused of flirting with a white woman) and their wives were surrounded by a lynch mob of over thirty who tied the victims to trees and then fired close-range into their faces. One of the men was also castrated. One of the women had her spine severed by force of the sixty bullets that entered her body. The other woman was seven months pregnant. Outrageously, newly released files in 2007 reveal that the FBI investigated suspicions that the three-term governor of Georgia, Eugene Talmadge, sanctioned the murders to sway rural white voters during a tough election campaign. No one was ever arrested."

Socially accepted and that was in the 1940s.

rhapsodyinbooks.wordpress.com...



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
So the commander in chief is ok with this?



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: CTRTCTRT




Of course they can't stop all of it, but you know what, they CAN do something, like sit in a cell instead of facilitating it.


Sound easy until you are in a cell.

Also know that we weren't there to change their culture...we have other priorities.



They had choices and they made the wrong ones... following orders isn't defence.


I guess that depends on who you ask.



And I don't feel sorry for anyone that was unwilling to stand up for children being raped on their watch, because it's "hard".


That's just it we didn't go to Afghanistan to change the way they have been culturally brought up, and it is hard to know this is happening and know you can't do anything to change it.



What kind of cowards are we talking about?


One's who like young boys.


IT doesn't sound EASY - nothing about being a soldier sounds EASY, but they weren't there to do EASY, were they?

You know what sounds SIGNIFICANTLY HARDER? Going to sleep next to the sound of someone raping children, while I cover my own ass... Jail sounds easy compared to that.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: CTRTCTRT

But US soldiers have been trained to fight the evil taliban and al qaeda that burn women with acid. But raping kids are ok because of the racists in bygone time. Sorry, I don't feel any better.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
So the commander in chief is ok with this?


The commander in chief is the top dog on what the military does.

Meaning that decision to IGNORE pedophiles comes straight from him.

So apparently he is. Apparently we can't upset them pedo's.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: deadeyedick
So the commander in chief is ok with this?


The commander in chief is the top dog on what the military does.

Meaning that decision to IGNORE pedophiles comes straight from him.

So apparently he is. Apparently we can't upset them pedo's.


We knew about this Under Bush as well... pretty much everyone that could know, including ALL the national media, does know...



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Don't be so quick to throw hussian under the bus cause he takes his orders from michelle.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join