Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Are you, beside being an insulting asshole, dense as well?
The topic is about children, right? Children in the Abu Ghriab prison, right?
Maybe you don’t care how children grow up. I do.
Jeesus. I didn’t even know people like you excisted.
Because if the allegations are true, would this not be a huge deal? And aren’t “huge deals” discussed on message boards?
(I also don’t think that people have been posting greedily in this thread, at least compared to the other threads in the Pit.)
The topic is about whether they were raped and what the significance is for the US. What the fuck difference does it make how the victims were raised? Even if they were guilty of something, what difference does it make?
I missed a few posts.
I don’t think the children are guilty of anything. 
Where did I said that? Have you all gone nuts?
Thanks to expanded education and the global economy, english has become the most widely misunderstood language in human history.
Gentlemen, it is a breath mint. When you realize this, you’re probably both gonna feel kinda silly.
What’s a breath mint? In this context?
What the fuck is a war country?
How long has Iraq been a war country?
Who made Iraq a war country?
How long does it take, once a nation becomes a war country, for it’s children to become war children?
If the pentagon has video of these war-country-child-rapers in action, why haven’t they filed charges? Is there an international convention making child-rape a misdeamenor in war countries?
Gum,
I don’t know what you were implying, that’s what I’m trying to find out.
-The topic is about whether children were raped at Abu Ghraib.
-You posted some stuff about how kids in Iraq are able to blow stuff up and kill people
-I’m trying to assertain why that has relevance to either the factual accuracy of the reports or to the moral significance.
It sounded like you were intimating some sort of mitigating circumstances for the rapes or suggesting that victims maybe weren’t so innocent. If that’s not what you meant, then why mention anything at all about their upbringing or their alleged capacity for violence?
Maybe it was this:
Bolding mine (quotation marks yours).
Reading the above plus the original post that set off DtC and I, it is clear you were trying convey something else besides “Child rape is bad”. If you aren’t willing to explain what your point is, then you can’t blame us for “misunderstanding” you.
He got caught supporting the rape of children. When confronted with this, he chose to plug up his ears and pretend it wasn’t happening rather than retract or defend his statement. What’s to understand, and more over, what’s to be gained by continuing the discussion with the scumbag?
I went to bed thinking you might have found your minds back, by now. [No. I didn’t sleep well] Apparently you haven’t.
Originally posted by monstro
Kindly don’t twist my words. You know perfectly well I was describing children in war territories in answer to Diogenes the Cynic’s “kind” questions.
Is it?
I wonder what kind of person would think that?
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
:rolleyes: There can never be mitigating cicumstances for rape.
I was explainging the situation in which the children live.
Yes, kids blow up people in that region *- because they’re in a fucking war-zone - the poor basterds - * No, rape is NEVER acceptable even if they blew up every goddam person in sight.
Is this clear?
I shall not anser 'laigle’s notes. They’re beyond contempt.
Some futher thoughts: I had a reasonably fun time here. I think I’ll take a break.
People here apparently don’t care about children in war zones. I do. And I totally don’t understand the necessity and eagernes *talking * of them, being raped.
Fucking assholes.
Of course we care about the children.
All we want to know is why you think the fact that they live in a war zone has anything to do with the topic. How is it relevant? I’m not attacking you here, but please explain what you meant.
Here’s my take, right or wrong.
gum doesn’t seem to believe the underage humans who were said to have been raped at Abu Ghraib were “children.”
I assume it’s because the word “children” generally conjures up under 11-year olds, while 12 to 17-year olds seem like slightly younger adults.
2a. (gum indicates as an aside that children of war of all ages are different from children of peace. Their entire mindset is different, and some of them are violent, by themselves, or are easily manipulated into violence. This has nothing to do with AG, and was the throwaway line that caused the confusion.)
3a. It’s unclear if gum has heard of any older children or adults being raped at AG.
gum doesn’t seem to accept our definition of “children” as being anyone under the age of 18, or perhaps 16.
gum, like Chastain86, doesn’t seem to think there’s enough proof for us to go around starting threads and posting willy-nilly about it. Without hard-core (pun not intended) proof, and unless it’s reported by several outlets of the mainstream media, this thread should never have been started.
5a. The many, mostly reputable, sources of the story so far are not good enough to even entertain the possibility of child rape.
Not mentioned by gum or anyone else (correct me if I’m wrong) is that no one should be posting in this thread anyway, since the subject line is, as far as we know, wrong. All the indications are that Americans stood by and watched/videotaped while Iraqis did the raping. The Subject Line is very misleading and should be changed.
gum likes to call people who misunderstand what he’s saying names.
How’d I do?
That sounds about right, Equipoise. Thank you for laying it out for us…I have to say, that despite the efforts of DtC, monstro, et al, the last dozen posts have read like ‘Who’s on First.’
gum- please understand that, whatever your intentions, your off the cuff remarks about the differences between ‘children’ (still not sure what the quotes mean) reads like a rationalization of what has happened to them.
You might as well have said, ‘children in war torn countries are known to dress more provocatively that their peaceful counterparts, so we really can’t be too surprised that this happens to them.’
If this is not what you meant, you need to offer some clarification- but the idea that there are just a few isolated posters willfully misinterpreting your words is patently untrue.
Eh.
Maybe only slightly misleading. Not enough to change the actual effect of the acusations.
Maybe it should have been:
“Americans Condone Raping Iraqi Children.”
Certainly, the alleged Americans who allegedly made the alleged child porn movie are as much guilty as the Iraqi men actually who put their penises into the anuses of children.
If the events actually occured, turn any Americans even remotely involved over to either an Iraqi court or the ICC, and get anybody else who’s incompentent management and planning made it possible the fuck out of office.
I’d like to correct this…
I was wrong. Liberal had brought it up 2 pages earlier but I didn’t read back far enough. My apologies to Liberal for not catching it and commenting on it. You were right.
The thread title should be changed. I don’t really want to start a new thread, but this topic shouldn’t get lost either.
The OP writer was a guest. Can only the OP request to a mod that the thread title be changed?
I agree with all of that .
Sorry about the misinterpretation. Moderators: if you would, please modify the thread title to ‘Americans Condone Rape of Iraqi Children’…
I’m not sure how to contact someone with the ability to change the subject line, so that’s about the best I can do at the moment.
The age of consent in Iraq is (was?) 18. IANAL, but I think we can safely say that rape in Iraq of anyone under 18 would be considered child rape. For comparison, the age of consent in the US varies by state, from 14-18, but most states say 16. Worldwide average is also 16.
Just trying to help define what we mean by children in Iraq – since that may have been a sticking point for some. Under 18 = child.
Thanks for that Danalan.