First of all, no, I don’t want to watch video of a child being raped, assbag. And I’ll thank you not to take that tone with me. Internet anonymity isn’t a license to act like a douchebag, so keep it civil.
But let me get this straight – you’re willing to believe the word of a select few, simply because you couldn’t bear the burden of proof?
In that case, we should bomb your parent’s home, because I’ve got video of your mother being raped by your father. Of course, since it’s so damaging to anyone to watch, it will be sealed in a vault where its presence can never be verified. :rolleyes:
I require proof beyond that of a handful of people I don’t know in order to believe something. Why are you here at the Straight Dope if not to fight ignorance? Christ. :rolleyes:
In fact, that deserves another :rolleyes:.
What’s so wrong with not wanting to believe something that isn’t verified by reputable sources?
Look, Chas, none of us want to believe this. I thought I made that clear from the git-go. But when people like Rummy refer to “worse stuff” what do you think they’re talking about? We’ve already got those god-awful pictures of adults being abused in disgusting and shameful ways. Where do you go for “worse?”
And whether you or I believe it or not, its a damn good bet that Achmed Six-pack believes it, and that’s where the real trouble is.
Chastain86, you took my post much worse than I meant it. I didn’t really think you wanted to see a child raped, but my “c’mon, I know you’re kidding here” tone didn’t come through and I apologise.
A Republican senator isn’t reputable to you?
Cite in my post #37
Well, never mind. I don’t trust Republican senators either. Doesn’t matter. It’s all coming out yet. There’s a lot more to come out, assuming the American media quit being cowering pussys and deign to tell us.
Just out of curiousity, who would you trust as a reputable source that would make you come back in this thread and join our complaining?
That was knee-jerk. I take that back. I’d probably trust John McCain. I would’ve trusted Jim Jeffords, I think. There might be a couple of others that haven’t gone to the totally dark side.
AHunter3, I wish I could answer your question, but I have a pessimistic side that thinks this will be buried until after the election.
Reputable news agencies? What will qualify for you?
You think NBC made up the rape of young boys Weekly World News-style, and attibuted the claim to imaginary U.S. miltary officials in the interest of a sensationalist ratings boost?
You think Pulitzer prize winning journalist Sy Hersh is disreputable, and suspect that he’s pulling stuff out of his ass? Do you have any examples of things that he’s made up in his forty-year career?
You think the senators and congressmen who have seen the unreleased material are all so anxious for the U.S. to look really, really bad that not one of them has contradicted Hersh’s account of the tape?
Do you think that the existence of a videotape of young men actually being raped is terribly unlikely, given that the U.S. military’s own investigations into Abu Ghraib have documented that prisoners were threatened with rape and sexually assaulted, and multiple independent witnesses have testified that they saw teenaged boys being raped with cameras present?
The evidence for the video’s existence, from reliable sources, is pretty solid, and the absence of any denial is telling.
What constitutes a reputable source for you?
(previews)
[quote=elucidator]
]Look, Chas, none of us want to believe this.[/qutoe]
Listen, BBC News [England] was about the first to publicize the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
Not that I want to - and I hope, together with you, that it isn’t true, but : I haven’t heard anything about raped *“children”?
[*Sadly, ‘children’ in a different form than kids in war-free countries , imho. Not kids who listen to the latest rap, buying new Nikes at the mall and worry how their math test went.
But ‘children’ who are raised in a war and are capable of blowing up tanks, the enemy and themselves]
And I’m curious to knowwhy this thread was opened and so greedily posted in?
Ah…I see. If a kid is theoretically old enough to commit violence then that makes it ok to fuck him up the ass. Thanks for clearing that up. Silly me, I thought it was still an attrocity.
What was the point of inserting a bunch of gratuitous insinuations about the children of Iraq in the middle of a thread about children being raped? What is the relevance to the topic?
What gratuitous insinuations? You want proof that kids grow up differently in war countries than those lucky ones living in peace?
Put on your fucking telly and watch how 10/12 year olds throw molotov cocktails at tanks.
See that litlle line on top of the page? That’s the topic line. It says: ‘Americans rape Iraqi children’.
We are talking about ‘children’ in the Abu Ghraib, are we not?
I find your accusations that I’m less sick than you about child rape pretty sick.
It’s beneath a human being to say that.
Why don’t you go fuck yourself for a while. Maybe your spilled sperm might do so good to this world.
I don’t CARE that they grow up differently. I want to know what relevance it has to this topic. What fucking bit of difference does it make as to whether kids were raped at AG or whether that constitutes an attrocity
You made a statement about their ability to “blow up tanks, the enemy and themselves.” I’m saying so the fuck what? What does that have to do with the topic?
[quote=gum]
[*Sadly, ‘children’ in a different form than kids in war-free countries , imho. Not kids who listen to the latest rap, buying new Nikes at the mall and worry how their math test went.
But ‘children’ who are raised in a war and are capable of blowing up tanks, the enemy and themselves]]
Say what? I want to give you more benefit of the doubt than Diogenes did, but this surely sounds like you’re saying that twelve-year-olds in Iraq are not as innocent and worthy of protection as twelve-year-olds next door.
Say what? I want to give you more benefit of the doubt than Diogenes did, but this surely sounds like you’re saying that twelve-year-olds in Iraq are not as innocent and worthy of protection as twelve-year-olds next door.