Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 100 posts

Re: U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys

#21

Post by rgbrenner »

adrianN wrote: post #8
erikb wrote: post #7

"Afghan soldiers told to ignore American Allies' eating pork" Well, reading this you might think "how can that compare to raping boys? Boys are human beings and human beings have rights, just like you and me? But at the same time a Muslim may consider refusing to eat pork a law by god which is way higher than anything considering humans. The point I try to make is this: In an intercultural environment you need to acc…

So were does cultural acceptance stop? If it were common not to rape boys but to eat babies after torturing them to tenderize the meat, should we also be accepting of that? There has to be a point where we draw the line. Most people here I think would agree that rape is on the other side of that line.

Just to be completely impartial, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was agreed to by Afghanistan and the US in 1948. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Rape violates several of those rights.. while eating pork violates none of those rights.

So there is a line that was already drawn years ago.. and rape is clearly on the other side of it.

Re: U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys

#22

Post by inDigiNeous »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #14
erikb wrote: post #7

"Afghan soldiers told to ignore American Allies' eating pork" Well, reading this you might think "how can that compare to raping boys? Boys are human beings and human beings have rights, just like you and me? But at the same time a Muslim may consider refusing to eat pork a law by god which is way higher than anything considering humans. The point I try to make is this: In an intercultural environment you need to acc…

I downvoted because that's a bad analogy. Here's why: Animal rights aside (because that has nothing to do with the restriction of pork), only the person eating pork is harmed . When Americans consume pork, it doesn't harm the Afghans who don't consume pork. Meaning, everyone eating pork is freely volunteering to do so. No one involved in eating of pork is involved against their will. Whatever the punishment might be…

How can you say this when you very well know, eating pork means killing innocent animals, keeping them locked down, in the same way these people are holding small children locked down and abusing them.

Eating pork is as much abuse as is abusing little children, or even more, as the animal is brutally killed, a thinking, living being. You cannot just put animal rights aside like that, this is probably along the lines people who abuse children are thinking, that it is their right to abuse children, like the western world thinks "It is our right to kill, slaughter and eat animals".

Maybe if we wouldn't think that we can just raise, kill and eat other living, conscious, thinking, feeling beings, just like we are, all the time, then we would have less abuse of ourselves too?

Compassion goes a long way. If we cannot have compassion to other living beings inhabiting this planet, how can we have compassion to other people inhabiting this planet. Can you see the analogy ?

And if you're making the comparison to intelligence as being the factor that limits what we should eat and kill, then I can remind that it has been studied that pigs are as intelligent or even more intelligent than dogs even. Now, what do you think such intelligent beings are thinking when they are being held captive and tortured in their poor living conditions, just to be force fed, force breeded and then violently killed just to fill our bellies ?

Re: U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys

#24

Post by eru »

coldtea wrote: post #16
afarrell wrote: post #4

This has been known since 2009. This US Army Human Terrain Team report is interesting reading, if you find strange & violent forms of misogyny and pederasty morbidly fascinating https://info.publicintelligence.net/HTT-PashtunSexuality.pdf """ Another example of cultural misinterpretations of Islamic tenants, bent to support homosexuality over heterosexuality, comes from a U.S. Army medic completing a year-long tour i…

> She and her male colleagues were approached by a local gentleman seeking advice on how his wife could become pregnant. When it was explained to him what was necessary, he reacted with disgust and asked “How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean? Surely this must be wrong. The dialogue sounds fishy and constructed to me. Local "gentlemen" surel…

Oh, hang out on reddit.com/r/sex or /r/relationship, and you'll see that people come up with the strangest questions.

(Might still be fake, of course. But I wouldn't bet on it.)

Re: U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys

#25

Post by cm2187 »

inDigiNeous wrote: post #22
MichaelApproved wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted because that's a bad analogy. Here's why: Animal rights aside (because that has nothing to do with the restriction of pork), only the person eating pork is harmed . When Americans consume pork, it doesn't harm the Afghans who don't consume pork. Meaning, everyone eating pork is freely volunteering to do so. No one involved in eating of pork is involved against their will. Whatever the punishment might be…

How can you say this when you very well know, eating pork means killing innocent animals, keeping them locked down, in the same way these people are holding small children locked down and abusing them. Eating pork is as much abuse as is abusing little children, or even more, as the animal is brutally killed, a thinking, living being. You cannot just put animal rights aside like that, this is probably along the lines…

Islam doesn't ban eating pork to protect the life of these innocent creatures.

Re: U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys

#26

Post by coldtea »

Qantourisc wrote: post #12
erikb wrote: post #7

"Afghan soldiers told to ignore American Allies' eating pork" Well, reading this you might think "how can that compare to raping boys? Boys are human beings and human beings have rights, just like you and me? But at the same time a Muslim may consider refusing to eat pork a law by god which is way higher than anything considering humans. The point I try to make is this: In an intercultural environment you need to acc…

If you don't care about humanity, and are going to ignore abuse. Why send soldiers there in the first place? Culture is NOT an excuse! Locally normal and immoral don't exclude each other. In my opinion immoral doesn't differ all that much depending on culture. The biggest factor in defining what things are immoral would depend on some believes: do animals have right, are you an extremist in your believe, are there an…

>If you don't care about humanity, and are going to ignore abuse. Why send soldiers there in the first place?

To secure control of the area, friendly allied governments and cheap oil.

Why they'd sent soldiers there, for "humanity"? They could send them to Emirates or Palestine if that was the issue (if we ignore the whole "not their business in the first place" thing).

Re: U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys

#27

Post by yardie »

inDigiNeous wrote: post #22
MichaelApproved wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted because that's a bad analogy. Here's why: Animal rights aside (because that has nothing to do with the restriction of pork), only the person eating pork is harmed . When Americans consume pork, it doesn't harm the Afghans who don't consume pork. Meaning, everyone eating pork is freely volunteering to do so. No one involved in eating of pork is involved against their will. Whatever the punishment might be…

How can you say this when you very well know, eating pork means killing innocent animals, keeping them locked down, in the same way these people are holding small children locked down and abusing them. Eating pork is as much abuse as is abusing little children, or even more, as the animal is brutally killed, a thinking, living being. You cannot just put animal rights aside like that, this is probably along the lines…

This is literally the stupidest thing I've read on HN in a very long time. Bravo intrepid commenter for declaring the consumption of meat to be worse than the sexual abuse of small children.

You've done a disservice to vegans and vegetarians, everywhere.

Re: U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys

#28

Post by MichaelApproved »

yardie wrote: post #27
inDigiNeous wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you say this when you very well know, eating pork means killing innocent animals, keeping them locked down, in the same way these people are holding small children locked down and abusing them. Eating pork is as much abuse as is abusing little children, or even more, as the animal is brutally killed, a thinking, living being. You cannot just put animal rights aside like that, this is probably along the lines…

This is literally the stupidest thing I've read on HN in a very long time. Bravo intrepid commenter for declaring the consumption of meat to be worse than the sexual abuse of small children. You've done a disservice to vegans and vegetarians, everywhere.

Don't be rude.

Re: U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys

#29

Post by crpatino »

cup wrote: post #23

The sad irony here is that the Taliban gained a lot of public support for abolishing this practice, and with the international communities diminishing engagement, the Taliban is set to return and gain more grass rooots support for putting this practice down again.

Has to make you wonder if the Taliban have not been the "good guys" from the very beginning?

Re: U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys

#30

Post by garrettgrimsley »

crpatino wrote: post #29
cup wrote: post #23

The sad irony here is that the Taliban gained a lot of public support for abolishing this practice, and with the international communities diminishing engagement, the Taliban is set to return and gain more grass rooots support for putting this practice down again.

Has to make you wonder if the Taliban have not been the "good guys" from the very beginning?

Or do people not neatly fit into little boxes marked "Good" and "Bad?"
Post reply on HN