[Newsbot]

Title: Afghan children raped with \'impunity,\' U.N. official says
Category: Political
Posted By: DerbyX
Date: 2008-08-07 11:59:45

[Bacardi4206]

Is this a soldier accusation? or a Afghan Civilian accusation? Either way, hopefully whoever did it has whats coming to him.

[Arctic_Menace]

Twelve...No child should ever have to suffer anything that horrible at that age...

[Arctic_Menace]

Oh God, I just read the part where a three year old was raped...WTF?!

[PENATRATOR]

Some of these ANP bastards are just as guilty of this shit

[BartSimpson]

The thing here is that Afghanistan is a closeted islamic republic that employs sharia law in most circumstances. While women may have "rights" they still must have the full measure of sharia law to assert a claim of rape. In the case of a rape victim with three attackers it is their word against hers and as men their word means more than hers. It will be of no surprise to me to see the girl be either stoned for adultery or lashed for allowing herself to be raped.

[romanP]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

Is this a soldier accusation? or a Afghan Civilian accusation? Either way, hopefully whoever did it has whats coming to him.

The article says "gunmen".. so we don't really know who did it, except for the fact that they had guns, which is just about everyone in Afghanistan. But it sounds like it was warlords, who are still at large in the northen region, where this happened.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The thing here is that Afghanistan is a closeted islamic republic that employs sharia law in most circumstances. While women may have "rights" they still must have the full measure of sharia law to assert a claim of rape. In the case of a rape victim with three attackers it is their word against hers and as men their word means more than hers. It will be of no surprise to me to see the girl be either stoned for adultery or lashed for allowing herself to be raped.

hence it wasn't the evil Taliban holding peaceful people hostage that we freed. The violence of tha region was endemic to everybody caused by their religious views and tempered in the continual warfare they visit upon each other and fueled often by us foreigners.

Our "allies" are as guilty of these atrocities as anybody else yet we cling to some BS notion of war against the Taliban because they were somehow at fault all the while we ignore the same vicious actions by the people we are training to be better "soldiers". We are arming them with better weapons to boot.

While we waste lifes and a shitload of money the russians are knocking on our very own doorstep while we put off purchasing equipment needed to counter them.

Afghanistan is nothing less then us forcing our military on people who need to figure out how to live in peace themselves.

[BartSimpson]

Afghanistan has not ever and likely will never know peace. If left to their own devices they'll go back to killing each other like they usually do.

The Taliban were unseated not because of their odious religious views, but because they openly sheltered Al Qaeda after 9/11 and miscalculated that the USA would do nothing to them.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Afghanistan has not ever and likely will never know peace. If left to their own devices they'll go back to killing each other like they usually do.

The Taliban were unseated not because of their odious religious views, but because they openly sheltered Al Qaeda after 9/11 and miscalculated that the USA would do nothing to them.

They'll have a better chance without country after country interfereing. Don't forget the US cared nothing for the people when they deliberatly set about giving the USSR its own vietnam and openly formented a long drawn out war.

The bottom line is its none of our buisness and its up to them to decide to live in peace.

As for the US invading because of Al Qaeda, that doesn't excuse regime change nor our continued presence and it makes the US guilty on Iraq. If Al Qaeda attacking (NOT the Taliban) the US permitted them to invade then the US attacking and invading Iraq means that they (and whoever they get as allies) are fully justified in invading the US.

That means if the Iraqis cobble togeather 20 countries (russia, china, whatever) and invade the USA I expect you to fully support such an action right?

[commanderkai]

DerbyX DerbyX:

They'll have a better chance without country after country interfereing. Don't forget the US cared nothing for the people when they deliberatly set about giving the USSR its own vietnam and openly formented a long drawn out war.

And the Chinese/Russians didn't care about what would of happened to the North Korean/Vietnamese civilians either. Don't make this some sort of emotional argument.

$1:

As for the US invading because of Al Qaeda, that doesn't excuse regime change nor our continued presence and it makes the US guilty on Iraq. If Al Qaeda attacking (NOT the Taliban) the US permitted them to invade then the US attacking and invading Iraq means that they (and whoever they get as allies) are fully justified in invading the US.

Once again you're posting irreverent information. What the Americans did in Iraq has nothing to do with why they went into Afghanistan. Stop with the nonsense about somebody invading the United States too. The world isn't fair, anybody attempting to invade the United States will see their cities glow, same goes with most other nuclear powers.

$1:

That means if the Iraqis cobble togeather 20 countries (russia, china, whatever) and invade the USA I expect you to fully support such an action right?

Zzz...zzz...If the Iraqis want to try, please let them. Russia might want a new Cold War, and I bet the Americans wouldn't mind it either. China wouldn't want to lose out on US investments, or they'll have 20 million Hotwheels and Bratz dolls in a giant East Beijing warehouse.

$1:

The bottom line is its none of our buisness and its up to them to decide to live in peace.

Since this seems to be the only actual issue about the current invasion that can be discussed without emotional pandering, let's see. That argument is way too...idealist for the real life situation we have around the world. Didn't the Americans do exactly what you want after getting involved in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? So...not only do you attack the Americans for not getting involved in their internal affairs after the Soviet invasion was repelled, you attack them for staying involved after they removed the Taliban. So tell me, should the Taliban be unpunished for what happened on 9-11? That seems to be your argument. So the Americans should have ignored Pearl Harbor as well. They should of stayed out of the Second World War, and pfft, it was just a few damn ships, who cares?

Sure the situation is somewhat different, but so what? It's still close enough if you want to keep comparing different historical events to this one.

[DerbyX]

$1:

And the Chinese/Russians didn't care about what would of happened to the North Korean/Vietnamese civilians either. Don't make this some sort of emotional argument.

You keep making the wrong argument. Their wrong doesn't excuse ours. Stop making the wrong argument.

$1:

Once again you're posting irreverent information. What the Americans did in Iraq has nothing to do with why they went into Afghanistan. Stop with the nonsense about somebody invading the United States too. The world isn't fair, anybody attempting to invade the United States will see their cities glow, same goes with most other nuclear powers.

Yes it does. They cannot use high-minded principles to defend their actions in one country then ignore them in the next.

Your argument is incorrect again.

$1:

Zzz...zzz...If the Iraqis want to try, please let them. Russia might want a new Cold War, and I bet the Americans wouldn't mind it either. China wouldn't want to lose out on US investments, or they'll have 20 million Hotwheels and Bratz dolls in a giant East Beijing warehouse.

So might makes right? The US can do what it wants because it can forcibly get away with it?

$1:

Since this seems to be the only actual issue about the current invasion that can be discussed without emotional pandering, let's see. That argument is way too...idealist for the real life situation we have around the world. Didn't the Americans do exactly what you want after getting involved in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? So...not only do you attack the Americans for not getting involved in their internal affairs after the Soviet invasion was repelled, you attack them for staying involved after they removed the Taliban. So tell me, should the Taliban be unpunished for what happened on 9-11? That seems to be your argument. So the Americans should have ignored Pearl Harbor as well. They should of stayed out of the Second World War, and pfft, it was just a few damn ships, who cares?

You really need to do a little research. The US did get involved in afghanistan because they wanted to keep the USSR in a long drawn out conflict. Peace was never their goal. Afterwards when they mught have helped them establish (note I said help, not invade and prop up) some sort of govt they abandoned them because they no longer had any vested interest in draining their resources trying to help.

The taliban had nothing, nada, zip, to do with 9/11. Understand? Continually that lie is no different then the tin-foilers saying it was an inside job. The all-Saudi Arabian hijackers may have been hiding out in a country we cannot even control but they had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Your arguments are simply wrong. You argue that the US was justified in Afghanistan yet complain if anybody attacks them for Iraq as if they should be given a pass.

They and we are wrong to be in afghanistan. Wrong. Period. No matter what good we say we are doing we invaded a foreign country that was never any threat to us and our presence their allows the US to commit troops and equipment to Iraq thereby making us a defacto acomplice.

We had no right to arbitrairly invade and subject them to our will and fighting some made-up war against the taliban while our so called allies commit atrocities, the very atrocities we allegedly invaded because of just mires us in their guilt.

Life isn't fair? I can use that argument too and beat up children and old ladies to take their stuff. Try "lead by example".

[commanderkai]

DerbyX DerbyX:

You keep making the wrong argument. Their wrong doesn't excuse ours. Stop making the wrong argument.

Oh but our wrong always must come up whenever people think we're doing right today? Someone is being hypocritical here. The past is the past. What the Americans did 20 years ago hit them on 9-11. They're trying to correct a wrong committed 20 years ago.

$1:

Yes it does. They cannot use high-minded principles to defend their actions in one country then ignore them in the next.

Your argument is incorrect again.

No it doesn't. Iraq and Afghanistan are two different situations that happened a few years from eachother. The Americans have full justification for Afghanistan, and arguing otherwise by using historical faults is not an argument but a baseless attack. We might as well judge everything Germany does by what Hitler did, or whatever Russia does by what Stalin did too. Doesn't seem too fair.

$1:

So might makes right? The US can do what it wants because it can forcibly get away with it?

Did I say that? No. But throwing around bullcrap scenarios doesn't make an argument at all. People did what they did, saying that the Iraqis should get themselves nuked by invading the United States because they have some moral high ground is not an argument but someone's wetdream.

$1:

You really need to do a little research. The US did get involved in afghanistan because they wanted to keep the USSR in a long drawn out conflict. Peace was never their goal. Afterwards when they mught have helped them establish (note I said help, not invade and prop up) some sort of govt they abandoned them because they no longer had any vested interest in draining their resources trying to help.

Help would of been putting in their own tinpot dictator. That's worked REAL well in the past, hasn't it? Please, if you think Afghanistan would of been sunflowers and rainbows if the Americans helped, you're the one who needs to do their research. Because those fighters the American helped fought AGAINST a secular government, why the hell would they stop fighting after the Americans supported another secular government that was in their interests? All that would have done is have another long, drawn out Vietnam esque conflict.

$1:

The taliban had nothing, nada, zip, to do with 9/11. Understand? Continually that lie is no different then the tin-foilers saying it was an inside job. The all-Saudi Arabian hijackers may have been hiding out in a country we cannot even control but they had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Is someone putting words in my mouth. Why yes he is...Everybody freaking knows the Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11. The Taliban supported and harbored the organization that CAUSED 9-11. That is what condemned them to their fate.

$1:

Your arguments are simply wrong. You argue that the US was justified in Afghanistan yet complain if anybody attacks them for Iraq as if they should be given a pass.

Attack their invasion of Iraq in an INVASION OF IRAQ TOPIC. Is that so difficult? No, its not. You support your arguments by comparing them to the Invasion of Iraq and I'm sick of it. Nobody wants to really stop you anymore, so its my turn.

Stop shoving words in my mouth too. I argue that they were justified in Afghanistan. STICK TO THAT ISSUE. Stop posting about Iraq. If you want to make a topic about Iraq, I'll meet you there and we can discuss Iraq. Deal?

$1:

They and we are wrong to be in afghanistan. Wrong. Period. No matter what good we say we are doing we invaded a foreign country that was never any threat to us and our presence their allows the US to commit troops and equipment to Iraq thereby making us a defacto acomplice.

They harbored an organization that caused a devastating terrorist attack on our ally's soil. Both that organization and the government that was giving them shelter needed to be punished. They took the risk of holding AQ, and after a decade of the Americans sitting on their ass after the embassy bombings, the 93 World Trade Center attack, the USS Cole, and who knows what other attacks I forgot to list, and they reaped what they sowed. They took the calculated risk of letting AQ operate in their soil and they paid for it.

Beyond that, talking about Canada and NATO being defacto accomplices...isn't that what the Taliban were? Accomplices to 9-11 for enabling AQ to operate without any hindrance? So you just justified my own argument. Outside of that, NATO had no prior knowledge of the war in Iraq. If you want to make an argument on that, sure, but that does not discount that we have a treaty to oblige, so the War in Iraq does not discredit the reason for the War in Afghanistan, which was 9-11.

$1:

We had no right to arbitrairly invade and subject them to our will and fighting some made-up war against the taliban while our so called allies commit atrocities, the very atrocities we allegedly invaded because of just mires us in their guilt.

I'm going to show you the NATO treaty, and point you to Article V of that treaty.

$1:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

I believe Canada was a part of NATO when 9-11 occurred. So therefore, as the treaty states, that we were obliged to ASSIST the United States in whatever action they saw fit, and they saw the invasion of Afghanistan to remove a harborer of a known terrorist organization, as well as such destruction of already stated terrorist organization.

$1:

Life isn't fair? I can use that argument too and beat up children and old ladies to take their stuff. Try "lead by example".

Yeah, and then when you get your ass thrown in jail and you watch as all your assets lost to lawsuits by those parties, then we can argue fairness as you rot away in jail. You'll be complaining life isn't fair then, I bet.

Edit 1: I added a bit too much of the Treaty.

[robmik43]

"We" control nothing, when it comes to how humans
believe they can control and subject other humans...BOTH of you
believe in fairness...the subjects if your debate do not.

[DerbyX]

$1:

Oh but our wrong always must come up whenever people think we're doing right today? Someone is being hypocritical here. The past is the past. What the Americans did 20 years ago hit them on 9-11. They're trying to correct a wrong committed 20 years ago.

Again with the wrong argument. They did something bad so we are entitled to do so as well.

$1:

No it doesn't. Iraq and Afghanistan are two different situations that happened a few years from eachother. The Americans have full justification for Afghanistan, and arguing otherwise by using historical faults is not an argument but a baseless attack. We might as well judge everything Germany does by what Hitler did, or whatever Russia does by what Stalin did too. Doesn't seem too fair.

Iraq and Afghanistan are undeniably linked because of the US and all the other countries involved in both conflicts.

The getaway driver isn't just some guy giving his friends a ride and innocent of the robbery. By allowing the US to commit more troops to one theatre we are complicit.

In addition, the Americans have absolutely no justification in Afghanistan. They demanded the Taliban hand over OBL (as if they could) and they simply demanded proof first, a very reasonable demand we would have made. The US not getting instant gratification simply invaded only on the pretext of getting OBL and not any govt change. Then we all decided "since we are here anyway......"

Not in any way shape or form a justification.

$1:

Did I say that? No. But throwing around bullcrap scenarios doesn't make an argument at all. People did what they did, saying that the Iraqis should get themselves nuked by invading the United States because they have some moral high ground is not an argument but someone's wetdream.

Yes you did make the argument might makes right. You keep thinking that we are justified because we have the ability to pull it off.

You keep thinking that the Americans were attacked and therefore had the "right" to invade Afghanistan yet the US attacked Iraq and you suddenly say the Iraqis (justified using your very argument) will get nuked if they truy it.

In other words the Iraqis are too weak to invade the US. They do not have the might so therefore they do not have the right.

$1:

Help would of been putting in their own tinpot dictator. That's worked REAL well in the past, hasn't it? Please, if you think Afghanistan would of been sunflowers and rainbows if the Americans helped, you're the one who needs to do their research. Because those fighters the American helped fought AGAINST a secular government, why the hell would they stop fighting after the Americans supported another secular government that was in their interests? All that would have done is have another long, drawn out Vietnam esque conflict.

You don't even understand what happened do you? The US would have been helping the very people they helped all those long years of war against the USSR. Are you saying that when they were gloriously fighting the evil commies they were freedom fighters but after having won the war they are reduced to the level of tinpot dictators? That means the US helped those tinpot dictators overthrow a legitamite govt right.

Afghanistan would not have been S&Rs by any means but by helping them in their war and involving themselves in something they should have stayed out of they bore responsibility, a responsibility they abandoned.

You keep thinking that back then the US should have stayed out because of the character of the very people they helped win. Ludicrous made all the worse because you now seem to think the US is perfectly justified in propping up another tinpot dictator whos members, police, and military are all exactly the same as the people we deposed only this time we are training and equiping them and turning a blind-eye to all their heinous crimes because "its more important to focus on a single group of tinpot dictaors". What a joke.

$1:

Is someone putting words in my mouth. Why yes he is...Everybody freaking knows the Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11. The Taliban supported and harbored the organization that CAUSED 9-11. That is what condemned them to their fate.

NO they did not. OBL was living among them but did the Taliban control them? We can't even control the country so how can we expect them to have that ability.

In fact the US tried to negotiate (thereby legitamizing their govt) for them to hand over OBL as the US knew they weren't involved. The Taliban demanded proof which the US wasn't going to give and without any honest negotiation they invaded.

I doubt the Taliban had any knowledge of the attack at any planning stage and I bet that they were all really pissed off that OBL pulled it off and brought this trouble on their doorstop.

All the hijackers were Saudis yet who is the USs closest ally in the region?

As far as jusitifications go you are simply trying to force one where there is none and even if you manage to make your justification fit then you have no choice but to admit that the USSR would have been completely justified in attacking the US in the 80s becasue the US was supporting people attacking them. Somehow I doubt you'd agree.

$1:

Attack their invasion of Iraq in an INVASION OF IRAQ TOPIC. Is that so difficult? No, its not. You support your arguments by comparing them to the Invasion of Iraq and I'm sick of it. Nobody wants to really stop you anymore, so its my turn.

Stop shoving words in my mouth too. I argue that they were justified in Afghanistan. STICK TO THAT ISSUE. Stop posting about Iraq. If you want to make a topic about Iraq, I'll meet you there and we can discuss Iraq. Deal?

They are connected. You can't argue one war is justified and another is not for a country that claims the very justification of one war while dening its reciprocal argument in the other.

You want to avoid Iraq because it simply invalidates your argument but you don't get it both ways. In both the laws of Canada and the US (the very set of laws we claim to uphold on the internation level thereby allowing us to sit in judgement of others) there are a whole slew of arguements dealing with credibility of the witness, conspiracy, connectivity of crimes, and such all of which can be used to connect both wars. In fact the main stated principle of both wars has been "removal of an oppresive govt and the installation of a democratic one".

Hell, it took years just to even convince a large number of Americans that the Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11 (a previous justification using your very argument) and just as that argument was destroyed so too is yours.

$1:

They harbored an organization that caused a devastating terrorist attack on our ally's soil. Both that organization and the government that was giving them shelter needed to be punished. They took the risk of holding AQ, and after a decade of the Americans sitting on their ass after the embassy bombings, the 93 World Trade Center attack, the USS Cole, and who knows what other attacks I forgot to list, and they reaped what they sowed. They took the calculated risk of letting AQ operate in their soil and they paid for it.

Beyond that, talking about Canada and NATO being defacto accomplices...isn't that what the Taliban were? Accomplices to 9-11 for enabling AQ to operate without any hindrance? So you just justified my own argument. Outside of that, NATO had no prior knowledge of the war in Iraq. If you want to make an argument on that, sure, but that does not discount that we have a treaty to oblige, so the War in Iraq does not discredit the reason for the War in Afghanistan, which was 9-11.

No they didn't. Sure loads of such groups operated there but so what? The Taliban had no ability to police even a fraction of the country. That does not make them willing accomplises anymore then Canada is in the grow-op trade because we won't deal with drugs the way the US wants us too.

On a related note AQ is operating out of pakistan on a level far exceeding Afghanistan. Are we justified in invading them? How about all those countries that were drawn into long conflicts because the CIA or other US group deliberalty helped bring war to them in order to ferment regieme change? The US is "harbourering" groups attacking their country which brings us back to the undeniable right that half the countries in the world are entirely justified in invading the US (if they can manage it) under your argument.

$1:

Yeah, and then when you get your ass thrown in jail and you watch as all your assets lost to lawsuits by those parties, then we can argue fairness as you rot away in jail. You'll be complaining life isn't fair then, I bet.

Thats because our society has rule of law. I can fight being tossed in jail in a court of law but we have installed ourselves as dictators in a foreign country accountable to noone but ourselves.

We kill their children and they have no choice but to accept it. Why? Because we can thats why. We posted signs telling them how to drive in their own coutnry and if we fuck up and kill their people they have no possible means of holding us accoutable by their laws and their standards. If we decide we were "justified" (as we always do) they they simply have to accept that. We made ourselves judge, jury, and executioner yet claim we are there "for them" and "its there country and they run it".

What a crock. The bottom line is that for your justification to be upheld then a whole shitload of other pissed off countries are fully justified in attacking us.