U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by steven2012 » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 9:01 AM UTC

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…

Your analogy is utterly wrong and broken, because you are mistakenly calling raping young boys "cultural". It's not cultural, and it's not something that happens across all of Afghanistan, otherwise all Afghani males could be considered pedophiles. It's a select group of pedophiles that have attained military status such that they won't be prosecuted for their crimes. That's not culture, that's corruption.

It's the same thing with the Catholic Church. Widescale sexual abuse of young boys by priests occurred, but not because it's a cultural aspect of the Catholic Church. It's a disgusting corruption that somehow manifested itself by pedophiles that infiltrated the Church and abused their positions, just like in Afghanistan. So there's no lens of morality to view things with. What happened in both cases is that it's a crime that has grown due to widespread corruption. I'm sure you will find that a lot of money was stolen by the Afghani military as well, but theft is not cultural as well, that's corruption and abuse.

The same thing happened in the British government where a widespread sexual abuse ring was discovered recently. Is that also "cultural" aspect of British people? No, it's corruption and a heinous crime.

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

#42

Post by erikb » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 9:04 AM UTC

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.

I love your first question.

How many lives can be saved right now and in the next X years just because you achieve this cooperation? How many things the other side has to accept from you that they consider really bad? Do you help the boys by not agreeing to cooperate and going home or do you help them more by accepting what happens and providing medical/psychological help afterwards? How many of them are even like that? Maybe most of them also disagree with raping boys but somehow can't enforce it? Can you even choose to not cooperate or will the people above you not allow it? It is very complex and should not be answered in general. Sometimes even every decision is bad. How many of them are even like that? Maybe most of them also disagree with raping boys but somehow can't enforce it?

I'm happy that you open up for that question, because that's really the point. When should we stop? Thanks!

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

#43

Post by okasaki » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 9:05 AM UTC

eru wrote: post #24

coldtea wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

There's a lot of fake posts on r/sex and r/relationships too.

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

#44

Post by erikb » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 9:08 AM UTC

crpatino wrote: post #31

sahreeg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I am wrong, but while your argument might have some legitimacy, in this particular case it sounds as if you believe that rape is actually something culturally acceptable in these parts of the world. It is not, and FYI, Islam forbids 1- homosexuality, 2- rape. This phenomena SHOULD be fought against -because it is wrong, and the child is being abused here- especially by the people who are there to spread…

Not that I disagree with you on the morals of this comment, but a lot of confusion would be avoided if everybody just accepted that the US is a normal empire; an empire with geopolitical interest in the region and every reason to keep happy the cadre of monsters they got themselves as alleys. It is not that they hate the local population, but they don't gain anything by defending them and may loose a lot by playing t…

That's also a good point. Gaining access to trade routes and natural ressources might be more important than protecting innocents to the agenda givers.

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

#45

Post by erikb » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 9:14 AM UTC

nivel wrote: post #32

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…

Your cowardly attempt at legitimizing an abhorrent practice that violates individual rights by attaching it to the mystical word "culture" is downright disgusting. If this is not a troll post, you are the most despicable human being I have ever personally encountered. To even debate the merits of your argument is an insult to humanity and only an ad hominem will suffice. Fuck you.

Do I really attempt to legitimize anything?

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

#46

Post by simonh » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 9:20 AM UTC

sidcool wrote: post #2

It's a sad world we live in. Looks like countries who ban stuff the most, have the most offenders...

Buses in London used to have signs saying 'No Spitting'. They don't have them anymore, but not because it's now OK to spit on buses. You don't make rules against things that nobody does.

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

#47

Post by ZeroGravitas » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 9:25 AM UTC

Second time in a few days I get to recommend Adam Curtis' documentary Bitter Lake (available on iPlayer in the UK).

One of its themes is that simplistic tales of good versus evil are an issue with the recent US (with their UK side-kick) wars.

It touches on this issue, though without specific talk of sexual abuse. It does suggest that the "police" were basically just a bunch of warlord militias and so when the west turned up and started helping them, they were immediately seen as part of the problem not the solution by many of the locals.

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

#48

Post by berntb » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 9:29 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #19

cturner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Culture is a distraction. The actions in the articles against boys and girls fail the live-and-let-live principle on the most basic levels. The word 'uncivilised' gets thrown around a bit, and loses weight. Here we see it in the raw. These practices are uncivilised behaviour. They favour might-is-right over the freedom of the victims. People should not be slaves. Humans should be able to live their lives to pursue th…

> The key issue is individual rights vs might-is-right. Culture is a distraction. Your very conception of "individual rights" (and what they should be) is cultural itself. (Not to mention abused all the time to support hypocritical interests).

No, the "individual rights" are declared by UN. And ratified by Afghanistan, as another commenter noted.

I think you are trolling.

(This would probably not be deleted, I'm hellbanned. Too easily trolled.)

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

#49

Post by simonh » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 9:30 AM UTC

erikb wrote: post #35

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…

Thanks for giving the reasoning for your downvote. But your argument is exactly the point of view that I already responded to in my initial comment. Not a single line shows that you try to accept that other people follow another moral codex. You say "No, because in my moral codex that's a really bad thing, therefore I can't be tolerant." and that is exactly what Muslims argue if we talk about eating pork, dressing of…

First of all this practice has nothing whatever to do with Islam> This has been pointed out to you several times already and your persistent linking of this practice with that religion is at this point a pretty obviously deliberate slur. Please stop. Secondly, considering whether a practice has unwilling victims is a perfectly reasonable objective measure to apply when evaluating a practice. As a matter of fact, the kinds of abuse we are discussing are illegal in Afghanistan and are widely considered illegal and immoral abuse in the Muslim world, so your argument lacks merit because it is based on several false premises.

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

#50

Post by simonh » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 9:33 AM UTC

erikb wrote: post #45

nivel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your cowardly attempt at legitimizing an abhorrent practice that violates individual rights by attaching it to the mystical word "culture" is downright disgusting. If this is not a troll post, you are the most despicable human being I have ever personally encountered. To even debate the merits of your argument is an insult to humanity and only an ad hominem will suffice. Fuck you.

Do I really attempt to legitimize anything?

Yes. You are advising that these practices should be accepted, and therefore imply that they are acceptable and therefore in some way legitimate.