US military covering up and condoning the rape of Afghani boys...

so according to tom.....all those who are not "brave" enough to speak out on it are condoning it.....according to tom those who live in a drug filled neighborhood, but cannot do anything to stop the drugs, are condoning the drugs....

why can't you see the difference between being able to do something and condoning...

tell me....what could the US have done that it didn't do that rises to the level of condoning the behavior? do you even have a clue what condoning means? if you have a gun to your head and are asked for your wallet, and you give your wallet, are you condoning that behavior because you could have fought back and taken the gun away, possibly, and denounced such behavior.....give a break.....the US never condoned this behavior, to state such is a total and complete fantasy

Yet the Bush admin had no problem going after BAE for alleged baksheesh payments to the Saudi government, even though they were doing exactly the same thing themselves. I frankly don't give a shit for your narrow legalistic interpretation of the word condone, the old saying that money talks and bullshit walks has never been more true. The US has never had any problem applying laws outside it's boundaries, when it suited it to so do. The Helms-Burton act is just one that immediately springs to mind.

Helms–Burton Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png
 
Last edited:
Yet they had no problem going after BAE for alleged baksheesh payments to the Saudi government, even though they were doing exactly the same thing themselves. I frankly don't give a shit for your narrow legalistic interpretation of the word condone, the old saying that money talks and bullshit walks has never been more true.

ok....i don't give a shit for you simplistic posts that are nothing more than - i'm right because i say i am....
 
if you read the link....it says the us could legally do nothing

thats a far leap from condoning....

tell me...legally....what could the us do? keep in mind a war is being fought on the ground....

What could the US government do?

Ohh........how about...

Severing ALL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS with the company committing these atrocities?

Keep up the obfuscation...it makes you look oh so petty to be CONDONING what that company did.
 
Last edited:
so according to tom.....all those who are not "brave" enough to speak out on it are condoning it.....according to tom those who live in a drug filled neighborhood, but cannot do anything to stop the drugs, are condoning the drugs....

why can't you see the difference between being able to do something and condoning...

tell me....what could the US have done that it didn't do that rises to the level of condoning the behavior? do you even have a clue what condoning means? if you have a gun to your head and are asked for your wallet, and you give your wallet, are you condoning that behavior because you could have fought back and taken the gun away, possibly, and denounced such behavior.....give a break.....the US never condoned this behavior, to state such is a total and complete fantasy

Oh the hyperbole required for Yurt to try and defend sex with little boys!!

According to himk...the US has gone from not being legally capable of doing anything aout the situation...TO HAVING A GUN TO ITS HEAD.

Keep up the ridiculous spinning, oh pedantic one!
 
Oh the hyperbole required for Yurt to try and defend sex with little boys!!

According to himk...the US has gone from not being legally capable of doing anything aout the situation...TO HAVING A GUN TO ITS HEAD.

Keep up the ridiculous spinning, oh pedantic one!

wow...you truly are pathetic and extremely dishonest...to twist my words and claim i'm defending sex with little boys....what a sick individual you are
 
charver's definition does nothign to help show the us "condoned" the behavior

once again, we have a failed zappa thread...i don't know if its a reading comprehension problem or a willful disregard of the facts in order to push your world view

its pretty comical that charver claims to have me on ignore, yet he responds to my posts in this thread
Maybe the ignore is in his head and he doesn't use the option on this site!
 
if you read the link....it says the us could legally do nothing

thats a far leap from condoning....

tell me...legally....what could the us do? keep in mind a war is being fought on the ground....

What could the US government do?

Ohh........how about...

Severing ALL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS with the company committing these atrocities?

Keep up the obfuscation...it makes you look oh so petty to be CONDONING what that company did.



Didn't want to answer this one, did ya??

What the matter Yurt? Don't want to have to admit I'm right once again, eh?

Don't worry, I understand.

I've had to deal with the same type of ridiculous childishness from other angry conservatives who can't admit they were wrong all the time.
 
lord....must you continue the lies zappa....the "company" did not commit the atrocities...

did you read your own link....it doesn't appear you did or you, as has been shown before, have a serious reading comprehension issue

the cables clearly indicate that it was only certain employees involved and the involvement is not even fully clear....

you're jumping all around on allegations at this point and falsely proclaiming the US is condoning this...

here are the cables, read that instead of your left wing tripe

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/213720
 
wow...you truly are pathetic and extremely dishonest...to twist my words and claim i'm defending sex with little boys....what a sick individual you are

so zappa can't find a single thing to support his disgusting claim i defended sex with little boys...

you're a fucking disgusting person zappa....when you start losing the debate you resort to purely disgusting ad homs in order to deflect from your inadequacies

you're alone in your sick world view
 
so zappa can't find a single thing to support his disgusting claim i defended sex with little boys...

you're a fucking disgusting person zappa....when you start losing the debate you resort to purely disgusting ad homs in order to deflect from your inadequacies

you're alone in your sick world view

You have YET to call for any punishment to be wrought on those involved in the Afghan Government or the corporation involved and THAT is tantamount to defending, not to mention CONDONING sex with little boys.

:good4u:
 
wow...another zappa thread down the toilet due to his perverted insults and world view

me taking issue with your false characterization of the us "condoning" such disgusting actions is somehow me "defending" and "condoning" them....

i've seen dishonest and disgusting ad homs before, but this takes cake

this thread is over

lord....must you continue the lies zappa....the "company" did not commit the atrocities...

^yep^ that is really defending them and condoning their actions...you're a sick perv zappa
 
Last edited:
What could the US government do?

Ohh........how about...

Severing ALL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS with the company committing these atrocities?

Keep up the obfuscation...it makes you look oh so petty to be CONDONING what that company did.

You might wish otherwise, but until you answer the question put to you previously, this thread will continue.

Keep ducking me, it keeps your stupidity front and center.
 
Another example of how Wikileaks is "endangering the lives of our troops"...

NOT!

Our military covering up and condoning the rape of Afghani boys...


US contractor bought Afghan policemen drugs, little boys, cable reveals


US State Dept. called ownership of Afghan 'dancing boys' a 'culturally sanctioned form of male rape'

The Afghanistan interior minister was so concerned about an incident where DynCorp, a US contractor charged with training Afghan police, bought drugs and paid for young "dancing boys" that he asked the US embassy to work to "quash" the story, a secret US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks indicates.

In Afghan society, "dancing boys" are little boys dressed as girls, commonly abused and kept by some men as possessions.

As Joel Brinkley reported for SFGate.com, many Afghan Pashtun tribal men take boys age 9 to 15 as lovers. The US State Department recently called "dancing boys" a "widespread, culturally sanctioned form of male rape."

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan men cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can't even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle.

"How can you fall in love if you can't see her face," 29-year-old Mohammed Daud told reporters. "We can see the boys, so we can tell which are beautiful."

"Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover," wrote Brinkley. "Literally it means 'boy player.' The men like to boast about it."

"Everyone tries to have the best, most handsome and good-looking boy," a former mujahideen commander told Reuters in 2007. "Sometimes we gather and make our boys dance and whoever wins, his boy will be the best boy."

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai is Pashtun. Brinkley's sources say that one or two members of Karzai's family had taken boy lovers, but that was unconfirmed.

According to the newly leaked cable, the then-Ministor of Interior Hanif Atmar worried that if the story became public then lives would be in danger. Atmar also warned that a video of the incident might be released by the media,

"On the Kunduz Regional Training Center (RTC) DynCorp event of April 11 (reftel), Atmar reiterated his insistence that the U.S. try to quash any news article on the incident or circulation of a video connected with it," the cable said.

"Atmar said he insisted the journalist be told that publication would endanger lives. His request was that the U.S. quash the article and release of the video," the cable continued. "Amb Mussomeli responded that going to the journalist would give her the sense that there is a more terrible story to report."


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/contractor-bought-afghan-policemen-drugs-boys-cable-reveals/

Its a good thing we have gays in the military, right liberal?
 
Don't even know the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual, and you consider yourself an educated man, 'tis a pity.
Apparently you don't know the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual pedophile. The issue here is clearly homosexual pedophilia, and that would go away completely if there were no homosexuals.
 
Apparently you don't know the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual pedophile. The issue here is clearly homosexual pedophilia, and that would go away completely if there were no homosexuals.
you were the one to lump them all together, not I.
 
Apparently you don't know the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual pedophile. The issue here is clearly homosexual pedophilia, and that would go away completely if there were no homosexuals.

You continue to drive down this same road and hitting the same potholes.
Hopefully some day you'll learn. :palm:

There are Heteroxexuals, Homosexuals, Bisexuals, and podophiles.
There is no such thing as a combination.
 
You continue to drive down this same road and hitting the same potholes.
Hopefully some day you'll learn. :palm:

There are Heteroxexuals, Homosexuals, Bisexuals, and podophiles.
There is no such thing as a combination.

That's just what the APA tells you, based on their pro-gay agenda.
 
Back
Top