That's true, but as you can see by Rebecca endorsing GTech's position, she only cares about rape when it's convenient and ideologically consistent, with her own ideological inconsistencies.
Like you, you mean? People generally are disgusted by rape whenever it occurs. Unlike you who condemns it when the government are responsible yet when the government intervene you hold the filthy opinion that children should be able to consent to sex and consent to appearing in pornography. I guess it's a result of you being a one trick pony and a parody of yourself who can only post on a forum if you are a) fawning over ron paul b) saying tax is bad or c) being outraged about something the government are doing. When your views force you to consider the option of making child pornography legal it's probably time to have a day off.
Guerilla never 'approved' of children with sex, or anything that you're trying to twist it to. He more fought for the protections of everyone under the law, once you let one groups protections/rights under the constitution erode it sets up the government to do it to everyone. I stayed out of that argument for the most part, I however far and large agree with him on the merits. Perhaps not every single point, I however will stick up for the protections under the law 'constitution' of even the most vile individual as once you strip his/her rights away the stage is set to strip all of our rights away. There is also a huge difference from being upset of what may or might not of occurred, to legally investigating, compared to that of simply mass removing children away from their parents without any charges and or proof.
I was just going write something like that. You did it before me. Guerilla never told that he support child porn. How many times do Guerilla need to post that he doesnt support it ? Guerilla I will advice you create new thread " I dont support child porn" , Hope it will help
The crimminal actions of one individual do not reflect on the honor of the American armed forces. US soilders are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Individuals in violation face trial by a military tribunal. However terrorists commit unspeakable atrocities and they are praised by millions in the Middle East.
I'll admit I did not read every post in that thread, what I did read though was him pointing out differences in the age limit from one state to another, to country, etc. Inconsistencies, not pro child sex with older adults.
can you show some examples? when a USA soldier commits it, he is either an individual or a bad apple, when a terrorist commit something, he is "Millions in the Middle East" you know of course that you can't keep using the bad apple or such terms forever, as it looks really silly now for some, The leaders in an army are responsible for their soldiers actions, terrorists are not a part of any of the organized armies of any of Middle East countries? I think you know that already, they are responsible for their actions, and they been condemned, and I m sure you have read the latest surveys which were funded by unbiased organizations ( non-USA)
In America, there are over 500,000 children in foster care; Approximately 300,000 kids are taken out of their homes every year because of neglect and abuse, and put in foster care; http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26102&page=1
USA Children Torture Not sure about accurecy of information there. You can read stories of turtured childeren
The terrorists in the middle east are members of militias, hamas, hezbollah and al qaeda ect The leaders of the US military prosecute members of the military that commit crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a military court martial.
“If you don’t violate someone’s human rights some of the time, you probably aren’t doing your job,†an American official told the Washington Post According to International Justice Network Litigation Director and Stanford Human Rights Professor Barbara Olshansky, “International law and practice clearly prohibits holding children in such terrible and terrifying prisons, and there does not appear to be any legitimate purpose for holding these children without access to their families or lawyers. http://humanrights.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/05/20/children-torture-us-prisons-abroad/ http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo05042004.html I really dont believe that violence, turturing case of "bad apples"
Thats good to know they prosecute members who commit crimes and who been caught mostly on cameras so there was nothing much to do to hide it, I m sure you too know that Bin Laden, is wanted in many Middle Eastern countries long before 2001, and maybe you also heard about the role Jordan intelligence played to catch Al-Zarqawi, who planned for the terror attack in Jordan and who also been planning for another bigger attack there. but of course you like to keep mixing, and painting, and as your country Government had interest in Iraqi oil they linked in someway Iraq to Al-Qaeda, you seem to have some interest in making a formula: Arab=Muslim=Terrorists=War
The terrorists are killing thousands of children. It's just not reported. 3 Iraqi children killed by terrorists’ mortar fire while playing soccer, 7 injured (Balad) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=600_1203529997&c=1
That's nice but the USA has killed many many many more children, why are you not ashamed? Groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas are milita, but milita does not equal terrorists. (Mabye to simpletons it does) Also why does the USA support terrorists groups which goal is to attack Iran? Why do you never mention this?
The US does not use children as human shields like the terrorists. Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorists that target civilians with sucide bombers and rocket attacks.
Are you going to answer, you just totally ignored my questions? Why does the USA support terrorist groups which attack Iran, why are you quiet about it? But i do agree with you that the terrorists do use human shields, mabye their mother, USA, should tell them to stop.
This is not totally correct. I tried to ask the question, with regards to who can consent. Obviously a 15 year old can decide to have sex. The question is whether or not they actually have the right to provide consent for themselves. If not, who? Parents? The government? Some of the posters in that thread made it clear that a 15 year old having sex with a 40 year old was abhorrent, but a 15 year old having sex with an 18 year old was not. Which was another unanswered question. Is it about the 15 year old not being mature enough to consent (in which case they could not consent to any age, regardless of the gap) or is it about what people personally find distasteful? Because I find gay sex distasteful personally. But that doesn't mean I have a right to impose those views on others by way of law. This is correct. In fact, I made a point of spelling out that I find adults having sex with teenagers disgusting personally. That whole conversation got a lot more complicated and personal, when the people screaming rape, started to realize that they may not have a case.