Gang-Rape Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR [Archive]

skunk

Dec 11, 2007, 12:45 PM

Were they 22 year old women? They put interns at the front of the line or something? What are you saying?I'm saying this:The State Department will order as many as 50 U.S. diplomats to take posts in Iraq next year because of expected shortfalls in filling openings there, the first such large-scale forced assignment since the Vietnam War.

On Monday, 200 to 300 employees will be notified of their selection as "prime candidates" for 50 open positions in Iraq, said Harry K. Thomas, director general of the Foreign Service. Some are expected to respond by volunteering, he said. However, if an insufficient number volunteers by Nov. 12, a department panel will determine which ones will be ordered to report to the Baghdad embassy next summer.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102602417.html

As for the state department, unless their job descriptions have changed greatly in the past couple weeks, they aren't standing around the location where this gal supposedly was.It was in the Green Zone. Where else in Baghdad would the State Department stand around? :confused: And why are you referring to her as a "gal"? Are you trying to belittle her?

Well, the burden of proof is on her to corroberate her story. Good luck to her.What a ridiculous stance! It is NOT up to her to prove anything. It is up to the authorities to investigate her allegation and find what evidence they can. You probably know this, but I suppose you think more similarly than you might admit to this charmer:
Australia's most senior Muslim cleric has been forced to apologise after provoking widespread outrage with a speech in which he appeared to blame women for rape, comparing them with "uncovered meat" that attracts animals.

Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali reportedly made the remarks in a religious address to 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, during Ramadan. The speech was translated by The Australian newspaper, which ran excerpts yesterday.

Sheik Hilali, Australia's Mufti since 1989, was quoted as saying: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the back yard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem."

He added: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab [Islamic headscarf], no problem would have occurred."

The Egyptian-born Sheik also appeared to refer to a series of notorious gang rapes in Sydney by a group of Lebanese Muslim men who received long prison sentences. He said there were women who "sway suggestively", and wore make-up and immodest dress, "and then you get a judge without mercy [who] gives you 65 years... but the problem all began with who?"http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article1932715.ece

Mullah Swarmlord, eh? Who would have guessed?

hayduke

Dec 11, 2007, 12:56 PM

The situation is unfortunate. All we can hope for is an efficient resolution and justice.

Oh, and someone in this thread is a *bit* callous. I hope you find someone, someday, that will love you and bake you cookies. You need them!

mactastic

Dec 11, 2007, 12:57 PM

And why are you referring to her as a "gal"? Are you trying to belittle her?
Of course he is. Unconsciously perhaps, but such is the nature of mysogeny.

pseudobrit

Dec 11, 2007, 01:19 PM

So she was asking for it?

Sounds (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=115294&s=143441&i=115276) like it.

hulugu

Dec 11, 2007, 02:22 PM

Were they 22 year old women? They put interns at the front of the line or something? What are you saying?

I challenge anyone to pick ANY 22 year old girl and get some civilian contractor to send her into that situation escorted by security or not. Not going to happen.

As for the state department, unless their job descriptions have changed greatly in the past couple weeks, they aren't standing around the location where this gal supposedly was.

Well, the burden of proof is on her to corroberate her story. Good luck to her.

So, what are you arguing here, that she wasn't actually at the KBR camp, or that she wasn't raped? Because, there is substantial evidence to prove that she was at the camp during that time, including documentation from an Army doctor who checked her out.

If you take the time to review the case documents you'll see that KBR and Haliburton aren't disputing that she was there, instead they're demanding arbitration (Haliburton is actually trying to refuse responsibility entirely.)

KBR had a 21-year-old girl working in the Green Zone, this is undisputed, what is disputed is whether she was raped and whether there was a conspiracy to cover it up.

You are arguing a red herring based on your own assumptions about KBR and contractors in the Green Zone.

solvs

Dec 11, 2007, 09:30 PM

Sad- they better get prosecuted to the fullest extent.
They can't be due to the loopholes setup to let them get away with every other horrible thing we keep hearing the contractors over there are doing.

Thats funny, this is the first time I've heard the gang rape halliburton story.
But not the first story about someone over there getting raped by contractors. Not to mention all the other things we've been hearing about that they can do and get away with (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec07/blackwater_10-10.html) because they can't be prosecuted. Either you haven't been paying attention, or you're trying to distract from the real issue here for some reason.

I would link you to "Photos Show Rape of Iraqi Women by US Occupation Forces" but the images are kinda graphic, so one can Google that if one would want to.

Not surprised? Anyone should be surprised. If the story is true its terrible.
We should be, but we aren't, and the why should be obvious (see above, and I can post more if you really don't know).

Is there anything that can be done? Or are these guys immune from prosecution?
Lots of kerfuffle, but nothing will come of it unless she wins a civil suit. Those responsible are protected, as are the higher ups still trying to cover it up. Same with those responsible for the things I mentioned above.

A 22 year old woman with a job as a civilian in a war zone located in the Middle East? Something about her even being there stinks to high heaven.
Really? This is what you're going with? And I see it gets better for you:

I challenge anyone to pick ANY 22 year old girl and get some civilian contractor to send her into that situation escorted by security or not. Not going to happen.
I don't know if you didn't read the article, or you're just trying to somehow excuse this, or what, but you do know there are women that age in the military right? And in support staff. It is happening, and did. Are you trying to somehow excuse what happened to her because she shouldn't have been there in the first place? You'd think she could feel safe among our own people, people we pay a ton of money to in order to protect others. People who should be held accountable for such things but aren't because people like you excuse it. Or are you actually saying not that she shouldn't have been there, but that she wasn't? Because, um, she was.

As for the state department, unless their job descriptions have changed greatly in the past couple weeks, they aren't standing around the location where this gal supposedly was.
Actually they are, but if you RTFA you would see this was in '05.

Well, the burden of proof is on her to corroberate her story. Good luck to her.
You are a terrible, terrible person.

The situation is unfortunate. All we can hope for is an efficient resolution and justice.
There won't be either. Things are set up to protect them, not help her. Nor will anything come of the attempted cover up. They might pay her hush money, or lose a civil case, but I suspect they'll spend more fighting her and trying to bury the story as they have been.

But the talking heads will likely blame the victim and either say she shouldn't have been there or that she wasn't, which as we see above, will work on a small amount of people who it seems will excuse anything away for the war they support.

If you take the time to review the case documents
If he did that, he wouldn't have been saying the ridiculous and awful, even for him, things he did.

Maybe he can tell me the silver lining I'm missing in this little cloud. :rolleyes:

Rodimus Prime

Dec 11, 2007, 10:09 PM

Why? She has as much right to be there as a man, and Haliburton should suspend the staff in question, while a full investigation takes place.

Haliburton can not do anything about this any more. They do not own KBR they spun the off a while ago and KBR is its own company.

While everyone bashing Swarmlord he does make some points. He never said anything about the lady being wrong. Now he is stating some very cold hard facts.

She has to prove she was raped and right now they do not have any proof. I do not see her winning because of that reason. It is her word verse their word and they out number her.

KBR/Haliburton never made any one go over their. It was completely optional. Now they did give them a huge pay increase in the form of hazard pay and all money they earn over their is completely Tax free.

Now lets look at some over facts. KBR is a construction company. Construction is a very heavily male dominated field. On top of that their would be even fewer women wanting to go to IRAQ just because it more of the male nature to take life risking things like that. Unlike the army where one woman would not be alone with out another near by and in a more control environment of reporting and checking in. She could easily of been the loan woman in the area. No one really keeping a huge eye on things. Personally I think it was a mistake allowing her to go over there because of the environment. the chances of her getting raped like she was are greatly increased in that area plus little other over site.

As of the government. It goes back to burden of proof. They do not have any. They made a mistake giving the rape kit back to KBR should of stayed in military hands and moved around that way. Which also explains why KBR hands are tied on this one. They fire the people they get sued for wrongful termination and have no proof to back their claim. It he said she said. They need hard evidences.

I might like to point out I think the guys are scum and need to be punished. I am just stating some facts.

hulugu

Dec 11, 2007, 10:25 PM

Haliburton can not do anything about this any more. They do not own KBR they spun the off a while ago and KBR is its own company.

While everyone bashing Swarmlord he does make some points. He never said anything about the lady being wrong. Now he is stating some very cold hard facts.

Now, he's not. Rather he's arguing that she wasn't there.

She has to prove she was raped and right now they do not have any proof. I do not see her winning because of that reason. It is her word verse their word and they out number her.

That's not how this case should play out, it's not a matter of numbers, but rather evidence. If this really happened, we should be ashamed

KBR/Haliburton never made any one go over their. It was completely optional. Now they did give them a huge pay increase in the form of hazard pay and all money they earn over their is completely Tax free.

Now lets look at some over facts. KBR is a construction company. Construction is a very heavily male dominated field. On top of that their would be even fewer women wanting to go to IRAQ just because it more of the male nature to take life risking things like that. Unlike the army where one woman would not be alone with out another near by and in a more control environment of reporting and checking in. She could easily of been the loan woman in the area. No one really keeping a huge eye on things. Personally I think it was a mistake allowing her to go over there because of the environment. the chances of her getting raped like she was are greatly increased in that area plus little other over site.

And, not one wit of this matters. What matters is, was she raped? Was it covered up? Who was responsible? Everything else is just framing, but Haliburton/KBR had a duty to their employees to protect them. Everything else is just excuses.

As of the government. It goes back to burden of proof. They do not have any. They made a mistake giving the rape kit back to KBR should of stayed in military hands and moved around that way. Which also explains why KBR hands are tied on this one. They fire the people they get sued for wrongful termination and have no proof to back their claim. It he said she said. They need hard evidences.

Let me put it this way, if I ran the company and this happened on my watch I would have submitted to an official investigation while running my own in parallel. I would have made sure that evidence was protected and that decisions were made in a transparent manner, in order to protect the victim, witnesses and the company. If the evidence showed the women was raped, I would immediately dismiss those responsible and hand them over to US officials to be prosecuted in the United States for the offense. Anything else is a stupid, dangerous, and possibly criminal mistake.

Furthermore, the amount of legal loopholes that surround the contractors in Iraq is simply ridiculous, and some legal framework must be established in order to protect the employees. The fact that a women could have been gang-raped and yet the only way she can find justice is through is through the civil court system is utterly outrageous.

solvs

Dec 11, 2007, 11:12 PM

Let me put it this way, if I ran the company and this happened on my watch I would have submitted to an official investigation while running my own in parallel. I would have made sure that evidence was protected and that decisions were made in a transparent manner, in order to protect the victim, witnesses and the company. If the evidence showed the women was raped, I would immediately dismiss those responsible and hand them over to US officials to be prosecuted in the United States for the offense. Anything else is a stupid, dangerous, and possibly criminal mistake.
Which is the problem. They covered it up from the beginning. They had evidence, they have testimony, but they won't even launch an investigation. And all we can say is our hands are tied, because for some reason they don't seem to fall under any authority or oversight, other than their own (and not even that) which is in and of itself a problem we should be dealing with.

And for anyone else who wants to say she shouldn't have been there, I hope you really think about that comment, because she (as well as any other young woman there, some of whom have also been threatened (http://donklephant.com/2006/01/31/ignoring-rape-in-iraq/)) should be able to be there. Don't excuse the behavior, no matter what the situation, which is exactly what you're doing when you say they shouldn't be allowed to be in that situation. It was the fault of those who raped her, who should have been punished. Instead, to protect themselves, she was told to say nothing or be fired. Last I checked that was illegal, as well as being wrong, which it should be.

Swarmlord

Dec 12, 2007, 06:55 AM

Now, he's not. Rather he's arguing that she wasn't there.

No, I'm not. I said that the scenario doesn't sound right to me given my experience living and working in the Middle East.

However, the burden of proof is on her whether anyone likes it or not. She better have saved some DNA or this isn't going anywhere.

skunk

Dec 12, 2007, 07:12 AM

No, I'm not. I said that the scenario doesn't sound right to me given my experience living and working in the Middle East.Whatever experience you claim to have had in the Middle East is completely irrelevant, so why bring it up?

However, the burden of proof is on her whether anyone likes it or not. She better have saved some DNA or this isn't going anywhere.Your knowledge of legal process is as shallow as your humanity. I wonder if your attitude would be so smug if your own daughter had been raped instead of someone else's.

edesignuk

Dec 12, 2007, 07:22 AM

I'm not about to get in to any arguments, doesn't seem worth it, but after reading many posts in many threads Swarmlord I just have to say that you're quite a piece of work :rolleyes:

pseudobrit

Dec 12, 2007, 08:25 AM

I'm not about to get in to any arguments, doesn't seem worth it, but after reading many posts in many threads Swarmlord I just have to say that you're quite a piece of work :rolleyes:

I've been called a piece of something before myself.

skunk

Dec 12, 2007, 08:32 AM

Unllke you, Swarmlord will probably take it as a compliment.

mactastic

Dec 12, 2007, 12:17 PM

She could easily of been the loan woman in the area.
:eek:

hulugu

Dec 12, 2007, 03:29 PM

Swarmlord

Dec 12, 2007, 09:16 PM

Maybe you're just not being clear.

Evidently not. They would just read into my posts what they want to see anyway.

I forgot to mention what I think of parents that would allow their daughter of that age to go to the Middle East to work in that capacity too.

mactastic

Dec 12, 2007, 09:18 PM

Evidently not. They would just read into my posts what they want to see anyway.

I forgot to mention what I think of parents that would allow their daughter of that age to go to the Middle East to work in that capacity too.
What age would you find appropriate for a woman to go to the Middle East to work in that capacity?

obeygiant

Dec 12, 2007, 09:27 PM

What age would you find appropriate for a woman to go to the Middle East to work in that capacity?

considering how they treat women there.. no age.

mactastic

Dec 12, 2007, 09:29 PM

considering how they treat women there.. no age.
So Condi is too young (or too female) to be doing her job?

obeygiant

Dec 12, 2007, 09:32 PM

So Condi is too young (or too female) to be doing her job?

No way. I love condi. :)

mactastic

Dec 12, 2007, 09:36 PM

considering how they treat women there.. no age.
I suppose the other question here is, why would the location matter if she was raped by "our" boys?

Seems to me she would have been just as vulnerable anywhere; the only difference is, in Iraq her male compatriots are aware that they are outside US legal jurisdiction, and are protected from the Iraqi justice system.

hulugu

Dec 12, 2007, 10:11 PM

considering how they treat women there.. no age.

You do realize that her allegations are aimed at the American men she worked with? It wouldn't have mattered if they were in Tierra Del Fuego, much less Iraq. She was in the "Green Zone" and was attacked, according to her, by male colleagues from KBR. The country in question is completely and utterly irrelevant in this regard, except in the notion that the fellows at KBR exist in a legal loop-hole where they can't be prosecuted by US or Iraqi law.

Swarmlord seems stuck on this point as well.

solvs

Dec 13, 2007, 01:25 AM

I said that the scenario doesn't sound right to me given my experience living and working in the Middle East.
That has nothing to do with anything, and if you read the article (or knew anything about this case) you'd know what really happened here.

However, the burden of proof is on her whether anyone likes it or not. She better have saved some DNA or this isn't going anywhere.
Again, if you knew anything about it, you'd know there was proof, but most of it has been covered up and even with what we do have, they can't prosecute because of the rules set up to prevent them from having any oversight or being under anyone's jurisdiction.

Evidently not. They would just read into my posts what they want to see anyway.
Well, if you didn't mean that, what you do mean is actually far worse.

I forgot to mention what I think of parents that would allow their daughter of that age to go to the Middle East to work in that capacity too.
Again, this happened in a green zone. Our contractors did this. She had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else, and should have been just as safe as anywhere else our people are. I know you'd like to be a racist and as usual blame it on "those Muslims", but they didn't do it.

considering how they treat women there.. no age.
RTFA.

I suppose the other question here is, why would the location matter if she was raped by "our" boys?
Because it happened in the middle east and rather than actually read the story, it's just easier to talk about how bad middle easterners are.

Seems to me she would have been just as vulnerable anywhere; the only difference is, in Iraq her male compatriots are aware that they are outside US legal jurisdiction, and are protected from the Iraqi justice system.
You do realize that her allegations are aimed at the American men she worked with? It wouldn't have mattered if they were in Tierra Del Fuego, much less Iraq. She was in the "Green Zone" and was attacked, according to her, by male colleagues from KBR. The country in question is completely and utterly irrelevant in this regard, except in the notion that the fellows at KBR exist in a legal loop-hole where they can't be prosecuted by US or Iraqi law.
Which is why we warned about this in other threads, like when they killed a bunch of innocent people just driving by. Also something they're getting away with. But some people will still support them and the war no matter what. And still wonder why we're hated so much over there.

Swarmlord seems stuck on this point as well.
What do expect, he's not actually going to read about the case. He's not going to criticize anything that has to do with the war. He'd rather blame the victim, then make some comment about how bad Muslims are, even though that has nothing to do with anything. Ignoring reality is pretty much the only way to excuse things like this.

skunk

Dec 13, 2007, 01:32 AM

You do realize that her allegations are aimed at the American men she worked with? It wouldn't have mattered if they were in Tierra Del Fuego, much less Iraq. She was in the "Green Zone" and was attacked, according to her, by male colleagues from KBR. The country in question is completely and utterly irrelevant in this regard, except ...... that it presents an opportunity after only a cursory reading to trot out a pre-packaged bundle of prejudices, blaming the victim, treating women as property, demonising the Ayrabs without due cause and making a pompous generalisation as someone who knows the ways of the world, especially the uncivilised, brown and foreign bits, where they don't know how to behave, unlike good christian Americans.

obeygiant

Dec 13, 2007, 08:02 AM

You do realize that her allegations are aimed at the American men she worked with? It wouldn't have mattered if they were in Tierra Del Fuego, much less Iraq. She was in the "Green Zone" and was attacked, according to her, by male colleagues from KBR. The country in question is completely and utterly irrelevant in this regard, except in the notion that the fellows at KBR exist in a legal loop-hole where they can't be prosecuted by US or Iraqi law.

Swarmlord seems stuck on this point as well.

No no. I realize that it could have happened anywhere and that the crime was not committed by "Ayrabs". But I was unaware of the legal bubble that exists in the green zone. How is it possible to commit a crime there and not be prosecuted?

skunk

Dec 13, 2007, 08:26 AM

No no. I realize that it could have happened anywhere and that the crime was not committed by "Ayrabs". But I was unaware of the legal bubble that exists in the green zone. How is it possible to commit a crime there and not be prosecuted?
Because, in the same way that the WH thinks that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the US, and that signing up to the ICJ would expose US service personnel to prosecution, Bremer & Co managed to negotiate exemption from both Iraqi law and US law for all US "contractors" in Iraq. In effect, they can do what they bloody well like with impunity, as can be seen from the Blackwater Massacre case recently. Shameful, isn't it?

Swarmlord

Dec 13, 2007, 11:33 AM

<snip>
Again, this happened in a green zone. Our contractors did this. She had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else, and should have been just as safe as anywhere else our people are. I know you'd like to be a racist and as usual blame it on "those Muslims", but they didn't do it.
<snip>

Well, using that logic I have the right to exercise my free speech rights and waltz through the middle of Harlem and sing racially repugnant songs then. I guess using your logic I shouldn't expect to be beat up or shot either.

leekohler

Dec 13, 2007, 11:44 AM

Well, using that logic I have the right to exercise my free speech rights and waltz through the middle of Harlem and sing racially repugnant songs then. I guess using your logic I shouldn't expect to be beat up or shot either.

What in the hell does getting raped by your own while working as a contractor in the Green Zone have to do with that? If I wouldn't get banned for it, I'd call you what you are. :mad:

obeygiant

Dec 13, 2007, 11:52 AM

Well, using that logic I have the right to exercise my free speech rights and waltz through the middle of Harlem and sing racially repugnant songs then. I guess using your logic I shouldn't expect to be beat up or shot either.

Well, Swarm, it depends on if she was waltzing around in lingerie. I doubt if she wanted to be gang raped or was even expecting it.

Does the article say what her job was while in country?

hulugu

Dec 13, 2007, 12:55 PM

...Does the article say what her job was while in country?

I haven't been able to find out what her job was, it's not in the court documentation or the ABC news story.

hulugu

Dec 13, 2007, 12:59 PM

Well, using that logic I have the right to exercise my free speech rights and waltz through the middle of Harlem and sing racially repugnant songs then. I guess using your logic I shouldn't expect to be beat up or shot either.

You must be joking. Please tell me you're messing with us.

However, in your scenario the perpetrators would still be prosecuted for aggravated assault and murder since there isn't an "obnoxious guy" mitigation clause in the law.
Thus, there's no "she was asking for it" escape for rape charges.

imac/cheese

Dec 13, 2007, 01:03 PM

Well, using that logic I have the right to exercise my free speech rights and waltz through the middle of Harlem and sing racially repugnant songs then. I guess using your logic I shouldn't expect to be beat up or shot either.

Of course she has a right not to be raped. Rape is never a woman's fault. There are things women can do to minimize the possibility of a crime being perpetrated against them, but it is never their fault that someone else decides to commit one of the most horrific crimes in existence.

You are really sick to make that analogy.

Well, Swarm, it depends on if she was waltzing around in lingerie. I doubt if she wanted to be gang raped or was even expecting it.

Does the article say what her job was while in country?

Even in lingerie, a woman has the right to waltz around without being raped. Any rapist using the excuse that the woman was wearing lingerie is still a filthy rapist.

skunk

Dec 13, 2007, 01:40 PM

LethalWolfe

Dec 13, 2007, 01:42 PM

Well, using that logic I have the right to exercise my free speech rights and waltz through the middle of Harlem and sing racially repugnant songs then. I guess using your logic I shouldn't expect to be beat up or shot either.

But that's irrelevant. Assault is still a crime. Attempted murder is still a crime. Rape is still a crime. If there is an accusation there should be an investigation.

Lethal

Swarmlord

Dec 13, 2007, 02:06 PM

Swarmlord, your posts are beginning to display a degree of misogyny which is repugnant. Please make more considered responses. Imagine if this case involved your own daughter or wife, or those of a friend. Would this callous attitude still be appropriate? Is it ever?

My wife or daughter taking a job in the Middle East - now that's funny!

I guess a lot of you just think that rights we enjoy here in the states are portable everywhere. Why should it be any different working the perfume counter at Macy's and working in a war zone? Silly me.

I wish I lived in the same fantasy world as some of you here. Actually, no I don't. I'm a lot happier than some of you apparently.

hulugu

Dec 13, 2007, 02:10 PM

My wife or daughter taking a job in the Middle East - now that's funny!

I guess a lot of you just think that rights we enjoy here in the states are portable everywhere. Why should it be any different working the perfume counter at Macy's and working in a war zone? Silly me.

I wish I lived in the same fantasy world as some of you here. Actually, no I don't. I'm a lot happier than some of you apparently.

Now, I'm sure you're messing with us. No one could be this dense.

skunk

Dec 13, 2007, 02:15 PM

Naimfan

Dec 13, 2007, 02:24 PM

Are you saying that you find rape acceptable?

Dude, let it go already!

Swarmlord

Dec 13, 2007, 02:24 PM

Are you saying that you find rape acceptable?

Are we speaking the same language? How do you get that out of what I wrote?

skunk

Dec 13, 2007, 02:38 PM

I guess a lot of you just think that rights we enjoy here in the states are portable everywhere. Why should it be any different working the perfume counter at Macy's and working in a war zone? Silly me.The clear implication of this post is that "rights we enjoy here in the states" - such as a woman's right not to be raped - are NOT "portable everywhere", and that "working in a war zone", unlike "working the perfume counter at Macy's", one should not be so naive as to expect such rights. The fact that she and her alleged attackers were in the Green Zone, and that her alleged attackers were not "the enemy" but US government employees, seems to be an irrelevance to you. What I read from your responses is that she should not be surprised to be gang-raped by US personnel, and if she is foolish and presumptuous enough to take matters further, it is up to her to investigate the case, provide the proof and bring the prosecution. Have I got you completely wrong? Were you just incredibly inept at putting your point across?

And Naimfan, I will not "let it go". This needs to be answered. I'm particularly surprised that you as a lawyer are happy to leave such a travesty of due process unquestioned.

leekohler

Dec 13, 2007, 02:53 PM

The clear implication of this post is that "rights we enjoy here in the states" - such as a woman's right not to be raped - are NOT "portable everywhere", and that "working in a war zone", unlike "working the perfume counter at Macy's", one should not be so naive as to expect such rights. The fact that she and her alleged attackers were in the Green Zone, and that her alleged attackers were not "the enemy" but US government employees, seems to be an irrelevance to you. What I read from your responses is that she should not be surprised to be gang-raped by US personnel, and if she is foolish and presumptuous enough to take matters further, it is up to her to investigate the case, provide the proof and bring the prosecution. Have I got you completely wrong? Were you just incredibly inept at putting your point across?

And Naimfan, I will not "let it go". This needs to be answered. I'm particularly surprised that you as a lawyer are happy to leave such a travesty of due process unquestioned.

Seconded. Swarmlord- it seems to be you who has no expectations of US personnel when they are outside the US. According to you, US personnel can rape their own as long as they aren't in the US. If that's truly what you think, it is you who needs to wake up.

carbonmotion

Dec 13, 2007, 03:06 PM

"the little slut deserved what she got"
not she didn't
yes she did
no she didn't
yes she did
no
yes
no
no no no
yes yes yes
no!
yes!

ad nauseum...

skunk

Dec 13, 2007, 03:08 PM

ad nauseum...It's ad nauseam, actually, but thanks for the contribution anyway.

Swarmlord

Dec 13, 2007, 03:56 PM

Seconded. Swarmlord- it seems to be you who has no expectations of US personnel when they are outside the US. According to you, US personnel can rape their own as long as they aren't in the US. If that's truly what you think, it is you who needs to wake up.

And I'm surprised that you would attribute such humane qualities to employees of Haliburton considering it's run behind the scenes by Darth Chaney and a cabal of blood sucking non-humans.

LethalWolfe

Dec 13, 2007, 03:59 PM

Since so many of the posts in this thread seem to have been made w/o reading the article I figured I'd drop in some facts to help clear things up.

1. Jamie Leigh Jones was raped and then held against her will, under KBR guard, in a shipping container w/a table, lamp, and mattress.

2. She was able to convince a guard to loan her a cell phone so she could call her dad in TX.

3. Her dad called their Congressman Ted Poe. Poe called the State Dept. who sent agents from the US Embassy in Iraq to free Jones from the shipping container KBR was holding her in.

4. An Army doctor did an exam and confirmed that Jones had been raped vaginally and anally, but KBR lost the rape kit.

5. For the past two years the US government and KBR have been stonewalling.

Lethal

Naimfan

Dec 13, 2007, 04:09 PM

Lethal--

Good work. A couple more:

6. She has filed a civil lawsuit in federal court.

7. Her employment contract may contain a clause requiring arbitration.

leekohler

Dec 13, 2007, 04:10 PM

And I'm surprised that you would attribute such humane qualities to employees of Haliburton considering it's run behind the scenes by Darth Chaney and a cabal of blood sucking non-humans.

Regardless- they are US citizens. You seem to think that they are to be given a pass for just about anything as long as they aren't in the US, no? Answer that directly and quit dodging the issue or get out of here. Your attitude about this whole thing is hideous.

skunk

Dec 13, 2007, 04:18 PM

mactastic

Dec 13, 2007, 04:30 PM

No no. I realize that it could have happened anywhere and that the crime was not committed by "Ayrabs". But I was unaware of the legal bubble that exists in the green zone. How is it possible to commit a crime there and not be prosecuted?
See CPA Order #17. The Iraqis can't prosecute them. And the Republicans successfully blocked a measure aimed at bringing mercenaries under US legal jurisdiction, so US law doesn't apply to these guys either.

Well, using that logic I have the right to exercise my free speech rights and waltz through the middle of Harlem and sing racially repugnant songs then. I guess using your logic I shouldn't expect to be beat up or shot either.
You disgust me.

toontra

Dec 13, 2007, 04:53 PM

I put Swarm on my ignore list over a year ago when it became clear how offensive and ignorant his posts were. I've suggested several times in this forum that others do likewise, or at least stop quoting him, because I'm still subject to reading his bile included in other's posts. My plea went unheeded.

Please reconsider. Don't you see the more you try and reason with him the more offensive he becomes. Please don't give him the oxygen of publicity that he craves.

mactastic

Dec 13, 2007, 05:01 PM

Please reconsider. Don't you see the more you try and reason with him the more offensive he becomes. Please don't give him the oxygen of publicity that he craves.
Ah but he's also exposing himself for what people like him truly are.

Even his fellow righties are having a hard time accepting what he says these days.

skunk

Dec 13, 2007, 05:08 PM

Ah but he's also exposing himself for what people like him truly are.

Even his fellow righties are having a hard time accepting what he says these days.Absolutely. I detect an area of clear water opening up between him an an erstwhile ally as we speak. I have anyway successfully resisted the Ignore function so far, and would like to continue to do so.

solvs

Dec 13, 2007, 06:30 PM

No no. I realize that it could have happened anywhere and that the crime was not committed by "Ayrabs". But I was unaware of the legal bubble that exists in the green zone. How is it possible to commit a crime there and not be prosecuted?
This has been going on for awhile now. We set up a system where there is not oversight for them. They are free to do what they want, and under no jurisdiction from either us nor the Iraqi gov. And they have been exercising that freedom, to the detriment of the Iraq people as well as our own. Read the links I posted above. Women being raped, innocent people being shot for no reason. This is why we have such a problem with them and want oversight.

Well, using that logic I have the right to exercise my free speech rights and waltz through the middle of Harlem and sing racially repugnant songs then. I guess using your logic I shouldn't expect to be beat up or shot either.
Are you actually saying she was asking for it? Or that she didn't have a right to be there? Or that that somehow excuses it? Whatever you are trying to say, it certainly seems disgusting.

I hope you post doesn't get deleted, because I want people to see what you're really like.

What in the hell does getting raped by your own while working as a contractor in the Green Zone have to do with that? If I wouldn't get banned for it, I'd call you what you are. :mad:
I already called him a terrible person and stand by it after this. One of us deserves to be banned and it isn't either of us. I've seen some pretty terrible things he's said, but this one... God I don't know how he can even attempt to excuse it. Even worse, he's still trying to blame it on Muslims and their country.

You must be joking. Please tell me you're messing with us.
What's sad is that he isn't.

My wife or daughter taking a job in the Middle East - now that's funny!

I guess a lot of you just think that rights we enjoy here in the states are portable everywhere. Why should it be any different working the perfume counter at Macy's and working in a war zone? Silly me.
Since it happened on American territory over there, and it was America contractors, yeah, pretty much. But you don't, do you? You see that it happened in the ME, say she shouldn't have been there in the first place, and completely ignore everything else about the case, just so you can keep supporting the war and your guys. Disgusting, absolutely disgusting.

Yes, she should have felt safe in the GZ with her fellow Americans, and the fact that she couldn't speaks volumes about what we're doing over there, and about how far you'll go to support your cause and defend your "side".

I wish I lived in the same fantasy world as some of you here. Actually, no I don't. I'm a lot happier than some of you apparently.
Ignorance is bliss apparently.

Dude, let it go already!
Absolutely not. He has to be called out for these things. Saying nothing just makes it ok for him to continue. Same as with this. If we allow them to do things like this, they will, and we shouldn't let that happen.

How did you interpret what he's saying if you disagree with us?

And I'm surprised that you would attribute such humane qualities to employees of Haliburton considering it's run behind the scenes by Darth Chaney and a cabal of blood sucking non-humans.
This is why we don't like them. Why they need oversight. Because of things like this and the shooting of innocent Iraqis just a few months ago. Sadly, no, I'm not surprised, because you reap what you sew, and this is what we've allowed to happen over there.

I put Swarm on my ignore list over a year ago when it became clear how offensive and ignorant his posts were. I've suggested several times in this forum that others do likewise, or at least stop quoting him, because I'm still subject to reading his bile included in other's posts. My plea went unheeded.
I tried and suggest others do the same, but I still saw his posts and had to comment on them. This type of behavior should not be tolerated, and I refuse to turn a blind eye. Ironic since he criticized me for not wanting to see the other side of arguments like these, and I purposely left him off of the ignore list because of I do. But if this is an example of his version of "the other side", maybe I'm better off. I'd have no problem arguing with someone over facts or logic, but you can't argue with logic like this can you.

"the little slut deserved what she got"
not she didn't
yes she did
no she didn't
yes she did
no
yes
no
no no no
yes yes yes
no!
yes!

ad nauseum...
Can you blame us for wanting to argue that? Do you think she "deserved what she got"? I'm guessing (hoping) no, so you can see why we'd want to keep saying that, no, it isn't acceptable. I can't believe someone actually thinks it is, or at least tries to excuse by saying she shouldn't have been there in the first place, completely ignoring where there actually is and who did this to her.

I can't believe there's even a debate about this, but there it is.

Naimfan

Dec 13, 2007, 07:25 PM

Absolutely not. He has to be called out for these things. Saying nothing just makes it ok for him to continue. Same as with this. If we allow them to do things like this, they will, and we shouldn't let that happen.

The only problem is that he did not say what people claim he did. Other people may think he meant to imply it, but nowhere has Swarmlord, or anyone else, said that rape is acceptable. Rather, the question posed appeared simply as a goad.

mactastic

Dec 13, 2007, 07:41 PM

solvs

Dec 13, 2007, 11:39 PM

The only problem is that he did not say what people claim he did. Other people may think he meant to imply it, but nowhere has Swarmlord, or anyone else, said that rape is acceptable. Rather, the question posed appeared simply as a goad.
What did he mean then? He hasn't expanded on it at all, merely saying we're seeing what isn't there. Ok. So what, other than she "shouldn't have been there in the first place" (because apparently women should expect to be raped if they're there, even if they're in the GZ with our people) and an attempt to blame it on Muslims, despite repeatedly being told it was actually our contractors, what could he mean?

No, I see it as more than goading. He supports the war, no matter what. He confuses hired guns with our troops when he defends them, and confuses them with "Arabs" when they do something wrong like this. He obfuscated in the last thread like this too, when we had tape and other evidence showing them killing innocent people for no reason, then getting no punishment. He's fine with that for some reason and doesn't seem to think they need any oversight. He's also made misogynistic and racist comments in the past, so as I said, it's part of a larger pattern.

I want to know if that's what he's really trying to say.
Pretty much what we think he is. There's no excuse for what happened, so all he can do is blame the victim for being there because things are bad in the ME for women, even though it was our mercs who did it, in a green zone (read: supposed to be safe area, technically American territory) and should be held to higher standards, but since they apparently can't have any oversight for some reason, we let them do whatever they want and they do. Not that this happened of course, because the proof that wasn't "misplaced" and testimonies of several people, some of them Republicans, aren't good enough. And since she can't prove they threatened her or kept her locked up the way they did, even though she can, we should just take this with a grain of salt and not have an investigation or anything. Frankly, I'm surprised we're not getting a "support the troops" type comment along with the "how dare liberals be mad our contractors raped a pretty blond girl, then tried to cover it up".

If I missed anything, or that wasn't what you meant SL, feel free to correct me, preferably with more than just telling me I'm seeing what isn't there.

skunk

Dec 14, 2007, 01:30 AM

The only problem is that he did not say what people claim he did. Other people may think he meant to imply it, but nowhere has Swarmlord, or anyone else, said that rape is acceptable. Rather, the question posed appeared simply as a goad.If the learned counsel for the defence of the indefensible would care to read my posts and those of his client, he would notice that I have not claimed that Swarmlord said rape was acceptable. Rather, I have asked him to clarify his position, since my reading of his position does certainly give me - and others, it seems - the impression that he is implying it, nor has he denied it since. For a legal eagle such as yourself, to characterise my asking for such clarification as "an immature goad" is rich indeed. Perhaps your talents would be better employed asking your client a few searching questions instead of casting aspersions elsewhere.

Badandy

Dec 14, 2007, 02:03 AM

...Everything else is just framing, but Haliburton/KBR had a duty to their employees to protect them. Everything else is just excuses.

Let's be clear. KBR.

iBlue

Dec 14, 2007, 02:08 AM

LethalWolfe

Dec 14, 2007, 02:21 AM

Let's be clear. KBR.

Let's be more clear. The rape happened in 2005 and the Halliburton/KBR split happened in 2007.

Lethal

Naimfan

Dec 14, 2007, 02:22 AM

And Naimfan, I will not "let it go". This needs to be answered.

The question of whether Swarmlord thinks rape is acceptable? Absurd. Nowhere does he suggest that rape is acceptable. That was a question you posed, apparently hoping to goad him into a response. His choice to not directly answer does not make his answer "yes." Did you take his question "How do you get that out of what I wrote?" as anything other than a "no?" Then why later ask if you should take a later post as a yes? Besides, you've admitted that you think he thinks rape is acceptable.

I'm particularly surprised that you as a lawyer are happy to leave such a travesty of due process unquestioned.

What travesty of due process are you talking about? Swarmlord's choosing not to answer your question? I hate to break it to you, but due process is not applicable.

What did he mean then? He hasn't expanded on it at all, merely saying we're seeing what isn't there.

Perhaps he simply meant what he said? My point, and I mean no offense when I say this, is that you and Skunk are reading things into what Swarmlord wrote that are not supported by his actual text. I have yet to see a single comment from Swarmlord in this thread that suggests he believes rape is acceptable.

There's no excuse for what happened . . .

I agree with this completely. It is outrageous that no criminal investigation was pursued, and the conduct of the investigation that was performed was abominable. I hope her civil suit survives and that she prevails, fully understanding that nothing will turn undo the hurt and harm she has suffered. Why not write to your Senators and Representative and ask them to push for a serious investigation?

If the learned counsel for the defence of the indefensible would care to read my posts and those of his client, he would notice that I have not claimed that Swarmlord said rape was acceptable. Rather, I have asked him to clarify his position, since my reading of his position does certainly give me - and others, it seems - the impression that he is implying it, nor has he denied it since. For a legal eagle such as yourself, to characterise my asking for such clarification as "an immature goad" is rich indeed. Perhaps your talents would be better employed asking your client a few searching questions instead of casting aspersions elsewhere.

You really do need to go to law school--you could learn about all sorts of cool things, like due process.

Actually, you said "Are you saying that you find rape acceptable?" followed by "Should I take that as a 'yes'?" Clearly you believe Swarmlord thinks rape is acceptable, as you yourself admit above, or you wouldn't have asked the question. His choice, as of this writing, to not answer your questions does not make his answer "yes" just because you seem to want it to be. Perhaps your talents would be better served by directing your energy in a constructive direction? Like asking your elected representatives what they are doing to right the wrong to this woman? Instead of casting sad aspersions on others on an internet forum? I'm sure it would be much more rewarding.

Badandy

Dec 14, 2007, 02:44 AM

Let's be more clear. The rape happened in 2005 and the Halliburton/KBR split happened in 2007.

Lethal

Let's me the most clear. Point taken.

Also, is the rape still alleged, or was there a guilty verdict?

skunk

Dec 14, 2007, 03:25 AM

His choice to not directly answer does not make his answer "yes." Did you take his question "How do you get that out of what I wrote?" as anything other than a "no?"Your double standards are showing, m'lud.
What travesty of due process are you talking about? Swarmlord's choosing not to answer your question? I hate to break it to you, but due process is not applicable. Clearly, the due process he denies to the victim by saying that she must prove her allegation.

solvs

Dec 14, 2007, 04:09 AM

Perhaps he simply meant what he said?
Which is what exactly?

My point, and I mean no offense when I say this, is that you and Skunk are reading things into what Swarmlord wrote that are not supported by his actual text.
Even ignoring past remarks, we both started by asking him to clarify because it sounded like he either meant it didn't happen, or that she shouldn't have been there in the first place, which can have a couple of meanings, all not so good. He still hasn't clarified, and neither has anyone trying to defend him. Either way, both positions are pretty bad, especially when he made it seem like it was Middle Easterns responsible, which we know it wasn't.

We know it happened, despite the evidence that was "lost", there's still other evidence and testimony. Not to mention the big coverup, which while I'm sure isn't admissible in court, makes them look pretty bad. They wouldn't even investigate. And this is not the first time something like this has happened. But no, instead he has to crack lame jokes, which he knows we're going to get angry about, then after he thread bombs, he stops posting and goes on to pull the same thing in another thread.

I have yet to see a single comment from Swarmlord in this thread that suggests he believes rape is acceptable.
I have yet to see him respond either way and to say what he actually meant if that's not it. Though I'm not directly saying he is, again, I'm pointing out that he supports these people and the war itself and will excuse anything away to defend it. So he says it might not have happened, alluding to not believing it happened, or possibly that she wasn't even there. Which we know it did and she was. Then he says if she was, she shouldn't have been there in the first place (alluding to how they treat women over there, even though it wasn't them), and a comparison to putting himself in a situation where he'd get hurt. Or that the women he knows wouldn't be over there. Sure sounds bad to me.

So she shouldn't have been there? Why? Why should she not have felt safe in a place like that, at least from our own people? Doesn't excuse what happened, and it sure sounds like he's saying it is if that's what he means. She should have been fine there because they shouldn't be doing that. This should be obvious. But he'll just keep talking in circles, telling us he didn't mean that, but refusing to say what he did mean. Which, again, I don't see a good, even joking (especially joking), excuse for.

I agree with this completely.
Then why defend someone who doesn't seem to?

Actually, you said "Are you saying that you find rape acceptable?" followed by "Should I take that as a 'yes'?" Clearly you believe Swarmlord thinks rape is acceptable, as you yourself admit above, or you wouldn't have asked the question. His choice, as of this writing, to not answer your questions does not make his answer "yes" just because you seem to want it to be.
We've asked. He won't answer. He never answers. We'll be lucky to get another lame joke, or called "far-left liberals", or a reference to a Dem (mostly someone having something to do with the Clintons), or something else that has nothing to do with anything. Go read his responses again. Rather than just answer, or clarify, he chose to make more of the same types of comments. Maybe we shouldn't take it as a yes, but it doesn't seem to be a resounding no either, except for him to say we're reading too much into it.

Again, I have to ask though, if he didn't mean that, what did he mean?

Perhaps your talents would be better served by directing your energy in a constructive direction? Like asking your elected representatives what they are doing to right the wrong to this woman? Instead of casting sad aspersions on others on an internet forum? I'm sure it would be much more rewarding.
I doubt they'd listen anyway, but considering where he is, it's even less likely.

Also, is the rape still alleged, or was there a guilty verdict?
There won't be a trial, at least not a criminal one. They're trying for a civil suit, but they can't be prosecuted because we removed any oversight and they aren't under anyone's jurisdiction. Again, this is in the article and has been mentioned several times.

Rodimus Prime

Dec 14, 2007, 04:20 AM

Let's be more clear. The rape happened in 2005 and the Halliburton/KBR split happened in 2007.

Lethal

yes that is true but lets also add KBR was owned by Hallburton it ran like a seperate company. Reason for it is KBR does construction for the most part. Hallburton does not really do that. They have almost always turfed that work to KBR to handle.

KBR was mostly only linked to Hallburton by name only and the fact Hallburton owned the company. KBR functions mostly completely separated of their owners

pseudobrit

Dec 14, 2007, 07:18 AM

I have yet to see a single comment from Swarmlord in this thread that suggests he believes rape is acceptable.

Slippery fish lacks the courage of his convictions.

Swarmlord

Dec 14, 2007, 08:42 AM

The question of whether Swarmlord thinks rape is acceptable? Absurd. Nowhere does he suggest that rape is acceptable. That was a question you posed, apparently hoping to goad him into a response. His choice to not directly answer does not make his answer "yes." Did you take his question "How do you get that out of what I wrote?" as anything other than a "no?" Then why later ask if you should take a later post as a yes? Besides, you've admitted that you think he thinks rape is acceptable.
<snip>

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation of what I was trying to convey. It's a shame it will likely fall on deaf ears.

LethalWolfe

Dec 14, 2007, 11:08 AM

Let's me the most clear. Point taken.

Also, is the rape still alleged, or was there a guilty verdict?
There is no question of whether or not she was raped. She was examined by an Army doc after she was freed from the shipping container and the doc said she'd been raped and did a rape kit (which disappeared in the hands of KBR). The question is why has the investigation to bring her rapists to justice been stonewalled?

yes that is true but lets also add KBR was owned by Hallburton it ran like a seperate company. Reason for it is KBR does construction for the most part. Hallburton does not really do that. They have almost always turfed that work to KBR to handle.

KBR was mostly only linked to Hallburton by name only and the fact Hallburton owned the company. KBR functions mostly completely separated of their owners
Being a parent company typically can make you liable for what happens in the companies you own. Also, and this isn't clear in the original link, the rape victim is alleging both Halliburton (whom she worked for at the time) and KBR employees took part in the gang rape. Also if Halliburton took part in the cover up they should be brought to trial as well.

Lethal

EDIT: I don't see the point of all the petty quibbling and dancing around the issue at hand. A crime occurred and the investigation into that crime has been undercut by the US government and the company the alleged criminals work/ed for. I really don't see how anyone can take the position that it's okay for the Feds and a company to stonewall a criminal investigation.

Naimfan

Dec 14, 2007, 11:30 AM

Your double standards are showing, m'lud.
Clearly, the due process he denies to the victim by saying that she must prove her allegation.

Ah, yes. The double standard accusation when you realize you have nothing else. Perfect! I was wondering how long it would take you to get there.

You do realize Swarmlord is not in a position to deny "due process" to anyone? Clearly not.

And once you have taken some action to redress the outrage perpetrated on Ms. Jones I might begin to believe your motive here is something other than simply trying to bait Swarmlord.

leekohler

Dec 14, 2007, 11:38 AM

Ah, yes. The double standard accusation when you realize you have nothing else. Perfect! I was wondering how long it would take you to get there.

You do realize Swarmlord is not in a position to deny "due process" to anyone? Clearly not.

And once you have taken some action to redress the outrage perpetrated on Ms. Jones I might begin to believe your motive here is something other than simply trying to bait Swarmlord.

And yet, I and no one else here, still don't seem to know exactly what swarmlord was trying to say in the first place.

Swarmlord

Dec 14, 2007, 11:45 AM

And yet, I and no one else here, still don't seem to know exactly what swarmlord was trying to say in the first place.

And after realizing that I couldn't wish the likes of Skunk a good day without getting an argument, I gave up trying to explain my position.

skunk

Dec 14, 2007, 12:02 PM

Ah, yes. The double standard accusation when you realize you have nothing else. I have plenty more, but couldn't help noticing the inconsistency of your argument.
You do realize Swarmlord is not in a position to deny "due process" to anyone?Swarmlord's responses have indicated clearly that he holds her responsible for her plight, and holds her responsible for redressing her injury too. We are not in a court here, we are exchanging opinions.
And once you have taken some action to redress the outrage perpetrated on Ms. Jones I might begin to believe your motive here is something other than simply trying to bait Swarmlord.Swarmlord's entire raison d'être on this forum seems to be about baiting others, and although it has been pointed out to you already, I am English and living in the UK, so I have little opportunity to take any meaningful action. Frankly, I do not care what you believe, but you should probably leave Swarmlord to defend his own odious positions.

Badandy

Dec 14, 2007, 12:18 PM

Swarmlord's responses have indicated clearly that he holds her responsible for her plight..

Here's what I've noticed and what I think Swarmlord is saying. I'm not defending him/her per say, but I am just saying how I interpreted what Swarmlord said. I'll make an analogy.

It's 2 AM in downtown Detroit, the dangerous area, and a girl dressed very provocatively willingly struts down the street and gets raped/gangraped. Now, of course she wasn't "asking" for it and it certainly wasn't deserved AND someone should be able to walk outside however they want without the fear of getting assaulted and raped, but don't you think it was an unwise decision? I mean, still completely undeserved, but there are instances where certain things are illogical to do.

Now there's been some debate whether she was forced to go over there or whether she volunteered, but the above paragraph is the sentiment I got from Swarmlords post. However accurately that analogy can apply to this situation is what you are all arguing about right now, I just wanted to interject what I thought Swarmlord was thinking and meant, however right or wrong those assumptions were.

LethalWolfe

Dec 14, 2007, 12:33 PM

Here's what I've noticed and what I think Swarmlord is saying. I'm not defending him/her per say, but I am just saying how I interpreted what Swarmlord said. I'll make an analogy.

It's 2 AM in downtown Detroit, the dangerous area, and a girl dressed very provocatively willingly struts down the street and gets raped/gangraped. Now, of course she wasn't "asking" for it and it certainly wasn't deserved AND someone should be able to walk outside however they want without the fear of getting assaulted and raped, but don't you think it was an unwise decision? I mean, still completely undeserved, but there are instances where certain things are illogical to do.

That analogy doesn't work. A more accurate one would be this. She was at the company office, in the good part of Detroit, was gang raped by co-workers and then locked in a broom closet guarded by her fellow employees.

She was raped in the Green Zone, in her employer's compound, allegedly by American co-workers, and then held against her will, under guard in a shipping container by her employer.

A crime was committed. Those w/power and money are killing the criminal investigation. Why is this okay?

Lethal

Blue Velvet

Dec 14, 2007, 12:38 PM

It's 2 AM in downtown Detroit, the dangerous area, and a girl dressed very provocatively willingly struts down the street and gets raped/gangraped.

What an absurd and completely bogus analogy. She's the employee of a government-contracted company, protected under employment, criminal and possibly military law. The use of the words 'provocatively and 'willingly struts' clearly show the depth of misogyny in your statement.

Ugg

Dec 14, 2007, 01:02 PM

Here's what I've noticed and what I think Swarmlord is saying. I'm not defending him/her per say, but I am just saying how I interpreted what Swarmlord said. I'll make an analogy.

It's 2 AM in downtown Detroit, the dangerous area, and a girl dressed very provocatively willingly struts down the street and gets raped/gangraped. Now, of course she wasn't "asking" for it and it certainly wasn't deserved AND someone should be able to walk outside however they want without the fear of getting assaulted and raped, but don't you think it was an unwise decision? I mean, still completely undeserved, but there are instances where certain things are illogical to do.

Now there's been some debate whether she was forced to go over there or whether she volunteered, but the above paragraph is the sentiment I got from Swarmlords post. However accurately that analogy can apply to this situation is what you are all arguing about right now, I just wanted to interject what I thought Swarmlord was thinking and meant, however right or wrong those assumptions were.

swarmy has made it perfectly clear that he thinks women are responsible for being raped and men should never be put on trial for it. He seems to espouse a lot of the values that his arch enemies, the Muslims do. It's amazing that he's unable to see how hypocritical he is.

So, you're saying that a female employee, IN THE GREEN ZONE, must be prepared to be raped by male employees, simply because she is female?

Your total and utter lack of logic and empathy is astounding.

Naimfan

Dec 14, 2007, 01:09 PM

I have plenty more, but couldn't help noticing the inconsistency of your argument.

So you advance your weakest attempt first? Not a winning strategy! :D

Swarmlord's responses have indicated clearly that he holds her responsible for her plight, and holds her responsible for redressing her injury too. We are not in a court here, we are exchanging opinions.
Swarmlord's entire raison d'être on this forum seems to be about baiting others, and although it has been pointed out to you already, I am English and living in the UK, so I have little opportunity to take any meaningful action. Frankly, I do not care what you believe, but you should probably leave Swarmlord to defend his own odious positions. (Emphasis added.)

So your whole point has now devolved into trying to belittle Swarmlord? OK, just checking. That is exactly what everyone in my office thought, ranging from a lawyer who makes Bush look like Kennedy, to a lawyer who thinks Marx didn't go far enough.

So at least now you're admitting (in the emphasized text) you believe Swarmlord believes rape is acceptable?

Besides, living in England, (and kindly point out where that "has been pointed out to [me] in this thread, and further note I could care less where you live) you still can drop a note in the mail, or email Representative Poe, Ms. Jones' Senators, or, gasp, even President Bush. (As I did when I first read this thread.) But no, you would prefer to engage in a sterile debate on a web forum about what meaning you ascribe to something that someone did not say. As Swarmlord correctly pointed out, he could not wish you a good day without an argument in return. Why is that?

And yet, I and no one else here, still don't seem to know exactly what swarmlord was trying to say in the first place.

Lee--And you can count me in that. But that does not equal him saying that rape is acceptable, which is what Skunk, in particular, has been trying to bait him into saying.

Solvs--I think you took some of my comments that were not meant for you as being for you. I appreciate this: "Maybe we shouldn't take it as a yes. . ." That is part of my point--people are adding meaning to a written statement. If Swarmlord chose not to answer directly, then continued discussion is based on what people assume. And the manner in which skunk's original question was posed is nothing short of offensive--if someone asked skunk a similar question I can only imagine the reaction.

Finally, as to taking any kind of action not being likely to help, that's not the point. First, it might well help. Second, until you try, you don't know. And third, it's far more productive than arguing on an internet forum, don't you agree? Following is the text of a note I sent to my Senators. I'd encourage everyone here to email their Representatives and Senators, and for those who don't live in the US, to email Ms. Jones' Representative.

Web for Representative Poe: www.poe.house.gov

Text of message sent:

I write to you today to ask that you support an investigation into the rape of Jamie Lee Jones in 2005, by employees of Halliburton/KBR. Following is a link to ABC's coverage of the story: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1

I find, and I hope you share my feeling, what happened to Ms. Jones to be outrageous. Both for the rape itself and for the cover-up that has apparently followed. NO ONE deserves to be treated in such a manner.

Accordingly, I urge you to contact Representative Poe and to support a full and accurate investigation into Ms. Jones' rape and the subsequent cover-up.

I would also ask you to examine and support ways to modify the immunity from criminal prosecution that appears to exist.

Best Regards and Happy Holidays!

She's . . . protected under employment, criminal and possibly military law.

Unfortunately, apparently not.

Rodimus Prime

Dec 14, 2007, 01:22 PM

swarmy has made it perfectly clear that he thinks women are responsible for being raped and men should never be put on trial for it. He seems to espouse a lot of the values that his arch enemies, the Muslims do. It's amazing that he's unable to see how hypocritical he is.

So, you're saying that a female employee, IN THE GREEN ZONE, must be prepared to be raped by male employees, simply because she is female?

Your total and utter lack of logic and empathy is astounding.

where did he say that. As far as I can tell this is another example of his words getting twisted.

leekohler

Dec 14, 2007, 01:26 PM

Thanks for the links man!

Swarmlord

Dec 14, 2007, 01:55 PM

where did he say that. As far as I can tell this is another example of his words getting twisted.

Not only did I NOT say that, but somehow both Ugg and Skunk think that it's perfectly clear that I did say it. They missed my original points on the thread by such a great distance that it's not even possible to reorient the discussion. :rolleyes:

leekohler

Dec 14, 2007, 02:11 PM

Not only did I NOT say that, but somehow both Ugg and Skunk think that it's perfectly clear that I did say it. They missed my original points on the thread by such a great distance that it's not even possible to reorient the discussion. :rolleyes:

Still- further clarification on your part would not only be helpful, but also pleasantly unexpected. ;)

pseudobrit

Dec 14, 2007, 02:48 PM

Still- further clarification on your part would not only be helpful, but also pleasantly unexpected. ;)

His refusal to explicitly deny the sentiment which he conveyed speaks volumes.

Swarmlord, at some point, when you've managed to draw a reaction of near-universal revulsion, you might want to step back and think for a moment that it might be you and not everyone else who's completely mad.

But no, I'm sure the fact that you've sickened nearly everyone with your words is proof to you how well adjusted you are and how utterly stupid the rest of the world is; this is your modus operandi.

Any sign of altruism or empathy expressed on these forums is routinely exposed to your smug derision. It might surprise you then to learn that patently inhuman and antisocial behaviour might not be warmly accepted as just another opinion.

princealfie

Dec 14, 2007, 02:55 PM

I don't think anyone's surprised. This is Big Dick's former company after all. :rolleyes:

Sad- they better get prosecuted to the fullest extent.

You are awesome. Keep on going man!

pseudobrit

Dec 14, 2007, 03:00 PM

Politics are a strange beast. People rabidly defend their point of view and savagely attack those of another (and often skip right to attacking the person espousing the views), which is strange when you stop to think that the common goal of most politically charged discussion is identical: to benefit society and do what's right for the world.

Whether you detest abortion, think we should have universal healthcare, want prayers to be read in school, believe in a firearms ban or abolishing the estate tax, you're typically arguing your point because you genuinely believe it's right, ethical and will ultimately enhance humanity and our society.

When I see arguments expressing less noble ideals, reflecting narcissism, self-appreciation, active indifference or approval upon witnessing the suffering of fellow human beings, my stomach turns. I have to wonder about the psychological condition of the person saying such things, because by and large such attitudes are not considered normal and healthy in our civilization.

I have to also wonder if maybe they're just trolling the internet for a reaction.

skunk

Dec 14, 2007, 03:10 PM

So your whole point has now devolved into trying to belittle Swarmlord? OK, just checking.You can add whatever emphasis you like, but it will not change the meaning of my post. I tried to get Swarmlord to make a choice, either to take the logical next step along his seemingly misogynistic path, or to pull back and retract his utterly odious implications. No such luck.
So at least now you're admitting (in the emphasized text) you believe Swarmlord believes rape is acceptable?What I read from Swarmlord's answers is that she was asking for it, which in my view amounts to much the same. I am not "admitting" anything, I am seeking clarification in response to a most provocative statement.
As Swarmlord correctly pointed out, he could not wish you a good day without an argument in return. Why is that?To my knowledge, he has not tried.
And the manner in which skunk's original question was posed is nothing short of offensive--if someone asked skunk a similar question I can only imagine the reaction.It is up to Swarmlord to register his offence, not you. If someone asked me that question, I would and could answer quite unequivocally "no". Swarmlord's answers have all been equivocal.

skunk

Dec 14, 2007, 03:14 PM

Not only did I NOT say that, but somehow both Ugg and Skunk think that it's perfectly clear that I did say it.As I have pointed out above, the tenor of your responses indicates to me that your attitude was at best unclear, and at worst downright disgraceful. You have still signally failed to state your position. You may roll your eyes as much as you want, but a clear statement would be more helpful.

Naimfan

Dec 14, 2007, 03:25 PM

the tenor of your responses indicates to me . . . (Emphasis added.)

Exactly. End of story.

bartelby

Dec 14, 2007, 03:26 PM

(Emphasis added.)

Exactly. End of story.

Not just to skunk but to many, MANY people...

skunk

Dec 14, 2007, 03:28 PM

(Emphasis added.)

Exactly. End of story.It ain't my emphasis, and it ain't your story.

leekohler

Dec 14, 2007, 03:38 PM

(Emphasis added.)

Exactly. End of story.

Sorry Naimfan- go read through swarmy's posts- especially this gem which he used as a comparison in this thread:

Well, using that logic I have the right to exercise my free speech rights and waltz through the middle of Harlem and sing racially repugnant songs then. I guess using your logic I shouldn't expect to be beat up or shot either.

Badandy

Dec 14, 2007, 04:30 PM

is.

So, you're saying that a female employee, IN THE GREEN ZONE, must be prepared to be raped by male employees, simply because she is female?

That's exactly what I'm saying. :rolleyes:
See below.

The use of the words 'provocatively and 'willingly struts' clearly show the depth of misogyny in your statement.
Misogyny? Are you joking? It was an analogy. However incorrect you think it is, I said, MANY times within that post, that it absolutely wouldn't be the woman's fault, is completely the perp's fault, etc. You're being touchy and overly emotional, and it's not helpful to this discussion. First you warn me for attacking people a while ago when what I did was completely provoked, and then you go calling random people misogynistic when I present a hypothetical situation in which I CLEARLY said would still not be the woman's fault? Or do you not know what "provocative" and "strut" mean?

Rodimus Prime

Dec 14, 2007, 04:31 PM

As I have pointed out above, the tenor of your responses indicates to me that your attitude was at best unclear, and at worst downright disgraceful. You have still signally failed to state your position. You may roll your eyes as much as you want, but a clear statement would be more helpful.
see the problem is because Sparmy's post are cut and dry plus point out legal problems with her case. Nowhere did Sparmy say any of the things you accuse him of. No you just see the oh he disagree with me must attack.

As for the part about getting attack never did he say that it was right. I am willing to bet good money that he thinks it is wrong. What he did point out was going over Iraq means there are a lot of risk even in the green zone. The girl should of known about the risk and yes she made the mistake of going against those risk. This does not excuse the actions of being raped but does point out it is a known risk with going over there. It mean the women over there need to prepare for the real possiblelity of getting raped. The odds of it happening are a little to great for my taste.

Sorry Naimfan- go read through swarmy's posts- especially this gem which he used as a comparison in this thread:

The post you are using is a classic twisting of words. It was pointing out an action to an extreme end but does point out going over to Iraq as a young woman thinking you do not have a chance of getting raped is like doing the action he described.

pseudobrit

Dec 14, 2007, 04:35 PM

Misogyny? Are you joking? It was an analogy.

An analogy rife with misogynistic turns of phrase.

skunk

Dec 14, 2007, 04:38 PM

see the problem is because Sparmy's post are cut and dry plus point out legal problems with her case. Nowhere did Sparmy say any of the things you accuse him of.I have not accused "Sparmy" of saying anything whatever. My complaint is with what he did not say.
As for the part about getting attack never did he say that it was right. I am willing to bet good money that he thinks it is wrong. What he did point out was going over Iraq means there are a lot of risk even in the green zone.Why on earth should she expect to be gang-raped by her own co-workers and imprisoned by her employers? :confused:

leekohler

Dec 14, 2007, 04:39 PM

The post you are using is a classic twisting of words. It was pointing out an action to an extreme end but does point out going over to Iraq as a young woman thinking you do not have a chance of getting raped is like doing the action he described.

So- going to Iraq and not expecting to get raped by your own people is asking for it? That is what you just said.

pseudobrit

Dec 14, 2007, 04:41 PM

As for the part about getting attack never did he say that it was right. I am willing to bet good money that he thinks it is wrong. What he did point out was going over Iraq means there are a lot of risk even in the green zone. The girl should of known about the risk and yes she made the mistake of going against those risk. This does not excuse the actions of being raped but does point out it is a known risk with going over there. It mean the women over there need to prepare for the real possiblelity of getting raped. The odds of it happening are a little to great for my taste.

This is like an argument that starts of "now, I'm not a racist, but..." and proceeds into a stereotypical racist rant.

You can't say "I don't condone the rape" and then blame the victim in any way, because if you assign responsibility to the victim you are, at least in some capacity, condoning the crime.

Hopeless...

Blue Velvet

Dec 14, 2007, 04:44 PM

You're being touchy and overly emotional...

Yeah, because women are always emotional, aren't they? Such an unintentionally and hysterically ironic reply... Your abject choice of analogy was particularly revealing. Almost provocatively dressed, one might say.

Latest trend: Attack BV for being emotional when she's so clearly not. I'm starting to think some of you guys have got the hots for me... But please save it for the next Hillary thread when women's shortcomings will be so adeptly and dispassionately dissected by the finest logical minds of this forum.

skunk

Dec 14, 2007, 04:47 PM

Latest trend: Attack BV for being emotional when she's so clearly not. I'm starting to think some of you guys have got the hots for me... But please save it for the next Hillary thread when women's shortcomings will be so adeptly and dispassionately dissected by the finest logical minds of this forum.There's nowt so satisfying as a woman you can hate.

pseudobrit

Dec 14, 2007, 04:47 PM

Latest trend: Attack BV for being emotional when she's so clearly not. I'm starting to think some of you guys have got the hots for me...

Macrumors is full of horny men. You should have known better.

skunk

Dec 14, 2007, 04:48 PM

Yup. You knew the risks.

Blue Velvet

Dec 14, 2007, 04:51 PM

Macrumors is full of horny men.

There's a difference between being up for it, and being able to perform. ;)
Still, I know my place. Excuse me for straying into the smoking room...

Onwards.

Badandy

Dec 14, 2007, 05:42 PM

Yeah, because women are always emotional, aren't they?

No, but it appears you are always defensive.

Such an unintentionally and hysterically ironic reply... Your abject choice of analogy was particularly revealing.

Unintentional? You are being overly emotional. It had escaped my mind that you were a woman when I was typing as a matter of fact, I was just calling it as I saw it.

My analogy wasn't far fetched, nor was it a Freudian slip (omg, it reveals so much about Badandy that he chose that analogy!!111). It was an analogy trying to explain what I thought Swarmlord meant from one of his replies. I have stated that repeatedly since then.

An analogy rife with misogynistic turns of phrase.

Please point out how I was misogynistic.

skunk

Dec 14, 2007, 05:48 PM

It was an analogy trying to explain what I thought Swarmlord meant from one of his replies.Well, it really didn't help either Swarmlord's case or yours. The language was inappropriately loaded and the prejudice transparent.

It's 2 AM in downtown Detroit, the dangerous area, and a girl dressed very provocatively willingly struts down the street and gets raped/gangraped. Now, of course she wasn't "asking" for it and it certainly wasn't deserved AND someone should be able to walk outside however they want without the fear of getting assaulted and raped, but don't you think it was an unwise decision? I mean, still completely undeserved, but there are instances where certain things are illogical to do.The girl (not a woman, mind) is dressed "very provocatively" ( in a way calculated to "provoke" an uncharacteristically bestial reaction in normally well-behaved men), she "struts" down the street (how very dare she, the little hussy?) and "gets raped" (by nobody in particular, it's just Nature taking its course). Nor does this scenario bear any conceivable resemblance to the situation in question, any more than Swarmlord's "I have the right to exercise my free speech rights and waltz through the middle of Harlem and sing racially repugnant songs then. I guess using your logic I shouldn't expect to be beat up or shot either", where he is equating the woman's choosing to work with US personnel in the Green Zone with intentionally provoking a race-based attack, implying very clearly that such behaviour on her part is indeed "asking for it".

Those who choose to appoint themselves as apologists for such sentiments should probably indulge in a little careful introspection.

Blue Velvet

Dec 14, 2007, 06:02 PM

You are being overly emotional.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to achieve by this line of argument seeing as it's so patently clear that you're projecting something which isn't there.

Badandy

Dec 14, 2007, 06:05 PM

Well, it really didn't help either Swarmlord's case or yours. The language was inappropriately loaded and the prejudice transparent.

How was it inappropriately loaded and the prejudice transparent. And sorry, a reply of "If you can't see it then your prejudice is clear" is not going to suffice. That's just copping out of answering a question.

I merely presented an analogy (which you people have dismissed as prejudice) that laid forth a hypothetical situation. Here was the situation.

-Woman dressed provocatively
-Walking in a statistically very dangerous part of town
-Did not need to be there there late or in that fashion

I simply said those three things in addition to repeatedly stating how her getting raped would be the fault of the perpetrators. How dare you all accuse me of being misogynistic or prejudiced. You act like you're all high and mighty and are morally superior while you're throwing around baseless accusations in response to a hypothetical situation.

The girl (not a woman, mind) is dressed "very provocatively" ( in a way calculated to "provoke" an uncharacteristically bestial reaction in normally well-behaved men), she "struts" down the street (how very dare she, the little hussy?) and "gets raped" (by nobody in particular, it's just Nature taking its course).

Okay, let's get started. Girl and woman, from where I live, are pretty much interchangeable, and nothing sinister was meant by that substitution. Provocatively is a commonly used term. How should I make this clear? Ah yes. A woman dressed bearing lots of cleavage and leg. Struts would be a different way of walking than usual. It has more bounce and "attitude" to it. And excuse me for not including "gets raped...by a person" into it, because I was of course being so evil to think that no one was actually committing the crime.

And here is my original post

It's 2 AM in downtown Detroit, the dangerous area, and a girl dressed very provocatively willingly struts down the street and gets raped/gangraped. Now, of course she wasn't "asking" for it and it certainly wasn't deserved AND someone should be able to walk outside however they want without the fear of getting assaulted and raped, but don't you think it was an unwise decision? I mean, still completely undeserved, but there are instances where certain things are illogical to do.

Emphasis added.

skunk

Dec 14, 2007, 06:16 PM

And sorry, a reply of "If you can't see it then your prejudice is clear" is not going to suffice. That's just copping out of answering a question.Your "analogy" introduced many tendentious ornamental details which have no place in this narrative.

Blue Velvet

Dec 14, 2007, 06:17 PM

Girl and woman, from where I live, are pretty much interchangeable, and nothing sinister was meant by that substitution. Provocatively is a commonly used term. How should I make this clear? Ah yes. A woman dressed bearing lots of cleavage and leg. Struts would be a different way of walking than usual. It has more bounce and "attitude" to it...

Please stop digging. I mean, how dare women bare their legs? How dare they show some attitude? You make it sound like these things should be punishable.

Badandy

Dec 14, 2007, 06:21 PM

Your "analogy" introduced many tendentious ornamental details which have no place in this narrative.

I'll give you the fact that was somewhat of a witty reply (I'd expect nothing less of a resident of the UK, IIRC), but it hides the real issue: That you all are too easily offended at something which presents an edgy situation without even being sexist or misogynistic at all.

Please stop digging.

Please stop looking for a hole.

I mean, how dare women bare their legs? How dare they show some attitude? You make it sound like these things should be punishable.

They shouldn't be punishable, you're just manipulating my words. I guess I should have figured...:eek:

skunk

Dec 14, 2007, 06:23 PM

you're just manipulating my words.No manipulation necessary.

Badandy

Dec 14, 2007, 06:25 PM

No manipulation necessary.

Your intelligence and terse replies are nearly limitless! Impressive!

Blue Velvet

Dec 14, 2007, 06:33 PM

I merely presented an analogy (which you people have dismissed as prejudice) that laid forth a hypothetical situation. Here was the situation.

-Woman dressed provocatively
-Walking in a statistically very dangerous part of town
-Did not need to be there there late or in that fashion

Please tell us what the difference is between the analogy that you've presented as valid to this discussion, and more importantly, the language you've used to describe this fictional event, and the following statements:

• Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ...

• Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

• The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html

skunk

Dec 14, 2007, 06:40 PM

Badandy

Dec 14, 2007, 06:41 PM

Please tell us what the difference is between the analogy that you've presented as valid to this discussion, and more importantly, the language you've used to describe this fictional event, and the following statements:
No problem

• Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ...

Eh, not too much to say on this. Hilali seems to think it is inappropriate in general. I do not.

• Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

Never said anything like this. Of course, cats are innocent creatures who only exist for their immediate survival, and humans are vastly different. Equating this situation to that of nature's natural order is absurd, as cats wanting to eat does not equal people wanting to rape.

• The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He's stating the obvious. It wouldn't have occurred. However that does not excuse the fact that it did. It also does not excuse the fact that it shouldn't have happened.

Blue Velvet

Dec 14, 2007, 06:42 PM

Badandy

Dec 14, 2007, 06:45 PM

Rather than inventing an unsubstantiated back-story to reduce the outrage among those predisposed to mitigate the inexcusable

It's obviously unsubstantiated. It was a hypothetical.

Say I were to hypothetically kill you, how would you like me to do it?

Not only am I not a murderer, but me presenting that hypothetical does not mean I am predisposed to killing, hate you, or have any disposition to mitigate any crime.

, we would all be better employed in generating a unified and inexorable demand for the full investigation and effective correction of what appears to be a particularly vile incident, enabled by and symptomatic of the complete fustercluck that is the neo-conservative adventure in Iraq.

Agreed.

skunk

Dec 14, 2007, 06:53 PM

He's stating the obvious. It wouldn't have occurred. But of course, it probably would. If a woman is living among people who think like this, rape and/or assault is just as likely to be perpetrated at home, "in her room" and "in her hijab". The whole attitude of these judgmental, religiously punctilious primitives is bound up with fear and an imagined sense of honour - by which they mean ego. An uncontrolled, unregulated woman is a deadly threat both to their manhood and their standing. Any challenge must be dealt with, or their willies will wither away.

Badandy

Dec 14, 2007, 07:17 PM

But of course, it probably would. If a woman is living among people who think like this, rape and/or assault is just as likely to be perpetrated at home, "in her room" and "in her hijab". The whole attitude of these judgmental, religiously punctilious primitives is bound up with fear and an imagined sense of honour - by which they mean ego. An uncontrolled, unregulated woman is a deadly threat both to their manhood and their standing. Any challenge must be dealt with, or their willies will wither away.

I understand and completely agree with you.

pseudobrit

Dec 14, 2007, 07:29 PM

a hole.

Yes.

Badandy

Dec 14, 2007, 07:35 PM

Yes.

We'll leave the witty comebacks and insults to those who actually live in Great Britain.

Ugg

Dec 14, 2007, 08:13 PM

He's stating the obvious. It wouldn't have occurred. However that does not excuse the fact that it did. It also does not excuse the fact that it shouldn't have happened.

Are you saying that women aren't raped in their own homes? That their is some special inviolable law the protects women in their own homes?

It's hardly obvious, what it is is just another excuse to treat women like chattel.

LethalWolfe

Dec 14, 2007, 08:47 PM

Look, the point is that whatever this woman did or did not do is utterly irrelevant to the case, which is that she was gang-raped by a group of Halliburton and KBR employees, and that rather than suspend them all immediately pending investigation, the companies chose to imprison the victim and colluded with the US Government in attempting to suppress the case and deny the victim justice. Rather than inventing an unsubstantiated back-story to reduce the outrage among those predisposed to mitigate the inexcusable, we would all be better employed in generating a unified and inexorable demand for the full investigation and effective correction of what appears to be a particularly vile incident, enabled by and symptomatic of the complete fustercluck that is the neo-conservative adventure in Iraq.
Way to hop on the bandwagon I started 40 posts ago. ;)

EDIT: I don't see the point of all the petty quibbling and dancing around the issue at hand. A crime occurred and the investigation into that crime has been undercut by the US government and the company the alleged criminals work/ed for. I really don't see how anyone can take the position that it's okay for the Feds and a company to stonewall a criminal investigation.

Lethal

pseudobrit

Dec 14, 2007, 09:13 PM

We'll leave the witty comebacks and insults to those who actually live in Great Britain.

It's a state of mind, baby.

obeygiant

Dec 14, 2007, 09:22 PM

{deleted} sorry

pseudobrit

Dec 14, 2007, 11:45 PM

Here we go again. You know I'll bet she wore makeup and did her hair, too.

solvs

Dec 15, 2007, 03:00 AM

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation of what I was trying to convey. It's a shame it will likely fall on deaf ears.
But he didn't really explain it, so much as defend it without clarifying. You still haven't either. Maybe if you had in the beginning, things wouldn't have gone this far. But since this is pattern for you, it's hard not to think you do this on purpose.

I know, that was unsubstantiated, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The double standard accusation when you realize you have nothing else.
We have plenty thank you. It's all right there. He's the one with nothing. There's no excuse to this, no excuse to how badly this war is being handled and everything that's been going wrong there. So since he can't excuse it, he turns something that isn't debatable into a debate. And we keep falling for it.

Playing devil's advocate is one thing, but you really don't want to defend that.

And yet, I and no one else here, still don't seem to know exactly what swarmlord was trying to say in the first place.
I think that's the point.

And after realizing that I couldn't wish the likes of Skunk a good day without getting an argument, I gave up trying to explain my position.
Please. :rolleyes: You never tried to explain. You still could, but as usual, you'd rather thread bomb, then get defensive and play persecution. No one argues with you in the drug threads. As said, did you ever think that maybe it was you, your posts? Maybe they come off as portraying something that, if you really didn't mean, you'd at least try to correct us? We asked questions, you answered with obfuscation and more posts like the one above. Post what you mean. Clarify if we misunderstand. Otherwise, what do you expect?

It's 2 AM in downtown Detroit, the dangerous area, and a girl dressed very provocatively willingly struts down the street and gets raped/gangraped. Now, of course she wasn't "asking" for it and it certainly wasn't deserved AND someone should be able to walk outside however they want without the fear of getting assaulted and raped, but don't you think it was an unwise decision? I mean, still completely undeserved, but there are instances where certain things are illogical to do.
That wasn't apt at all. I see what you're trying to say, but yes, it does come off as misogynistic, whether you mean it to or not. She wasn't putting herself into any situation, nowhere near what you and SL are trying to say. It shouldn't have been something she should expect or worry about. Safe zone. Americans. For you to even say it might have been unwise or expected, yeah, you kinda are blaming the victim.

Now there's been some debate whether she was forced to go over there or whether she volunteered
No there isn't.

So your whole point has now devolved into trying to belittle Swarmlord?
No, we're trying to get him to explain himself. For once. Based on past experience especially, it fits a pattern with him. And he sure seemed to be blaming it on the Iraqis not the contractors, as per usual, where he explains away anything negative about the war in such a manner. Especially when he obviously doesn't actually read the article or know anything about the story, but posts things like this anyway. Had he clarified earlier, this could have been avoided. Can you really blame us for thinking there was nothing to clarify? Why even make such remarks or engage in debate over such a horrible and indefensible thing?

But no, you would prefer to engage in a sterile debate on a web forum about what meaning you ascribe to something that someone did not say.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I've signed petitions, sent e-mails, and was told my Representatives are looking in to it.

As Swarmlord correctly pointed out, he could not wish you a good day without an argument in return. Why is that?
He could. And has. But not like this. Why do you keep defending him? I suggest you read some past comments and see if you still want to continue doing so. Especially since he so often chooses not to himself.

Lee--And you can count me in that. But that does not equal him saying that rape is acceptable, which is what Skunk, in particular, has been trying to bait him into saying.
He seemed to be excusing it, and will not even attempt to clarify, I don't blame skunk for thinking this.

Solvs--I think you took some of my comments that were not meant for you as being for you. I appreciate this: "Maybe we shouldn't take it as a yes. . ." That is part of my point--people are adding meaning to a written statement. If Swarmlord chose not to answer directly, then continued discussion is based on what people assume. And the manner in which skunk's original question was posed is nothing short of offensive--if someone asked skunk a similar question I can only imagine the reaction.
Unlike SL, he would clarify, not obfuscate and play defensive/offended. That's been my experience at least. Unlike SL, who in my (and others) experience, goes the completely opposite direction. I may not take it as a yes, because I really don't want to believe anyone is really like that, but I'm still not hearing a simple "no, here's what I actually meant". Just more "that's not what I meant, and how dare you think that... now here's more of the same". If he chooses not to, I have to question his motives in doing so. Again. Don't you?

Finally, as to taking any kind of action not being likely to help, that's not the point. First, it might well help. Second, until you try, you don't know. And third, it's far more productive than arguing on an internet forum, don't you agree?
See above. I have. Doesn't mean I still can't bitch about it on a political thread and wonder why someone would even try to excuse it, or whatever he was doing, for partisan reasons. I still feel like there's not much that can be done, because they're still above reproach. Something SL was fine with when they were killing 17 innocent Iraqis.

Not only did I NOT say that, but somehow both Ugg and Skunk think that it's perfectly clear that I did say it. They missed my original points on the thread by such a great distance that it's not even possible to reorient the discussion. :rolleyes:
You could try. But you still won't. Any wonder why we think what we do.

Not just to skunk but to many, MANY people...
But it couldn't possibly be him, we're all just out to get him for no good reason.

see the problem is because Sparmy's post are cut and dry plus point out legal problems with her case.
What about them was cut and dry? Really, if we're all just missing the obvious, maybe someone can explain what his intentions were. And the legal problems are part of the issue, that they destroyed evidence and covered it up. She does still have evidence and testimonies of others than just herself. Please, read the article.

The girl should of known about the risk and yes she made the mistake of going against those risk. This does not excuse the actions of being raped but does point out it is a known risk with going over there. It mean the women over there need to prepare for the real possiblelity of getting raped. The odds of it happening are a little to great for my taste.
See, this is the same thing. Despite saying it doesn't excuse it, you are putting some of the responsibility on the victim. As said, they shouldn't have done it, so why should she have to be worried? Especially in a safe zone, with American contractors? The odds shouldn't be high, and if there was more oversight, they could be prosecuted and it probably wouldn't have happened in the first place. There was no known risk of that, because why should there be?

It was pointing out an action to an extreme end but does point out going over to Iraq as a young woman thinking you do not have a chance of getting raped is like doing the action he described.
Just because the safe zone is in Iraq, why should she be more worried than anywhere else? And again, that is blaming the victim. There's a chance she could be raped anywhere. Being in a area surrounded by those who are supposed to protect others (as I keep trying to point out) should have made her safer. She should have felt safe, and went over there to do a job many of you wouldn't. Yet all she's getting is the runaround, and all you guys keep saying is that maybe she shouldn't have been there in the first place, and wondering why we think you're excusing it. No matter how many times you say "not that she was asking for it, or that it makes it ok".

-Woman dressed provocatively
-Walking in a statistically very dangerous part of town
-Did not need to be there there late or in that fashion
She wasn't dressed provocatively, not that that should matter around those there to protect the area.
She was in the safe zone, just trying to do her job, surrounded by American contractors.
She had every right to be there that anyone else would.

You act like you're all high and mighty and are morally superior while you're throwing around baseless accusations in response to a hypothetical situation.
You seem to be saying she shouldn't have been there, or that she should have expected that, and we can't help but disagree.

Way to hop on the bandwagon I started 40 posts ago. ;)
Uh, you started? :p

{deleted} sorry
I don't want to know do I?

Wasn't just her BTW, more here:

Female ex-employees sue KBR, Hallburton -report (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=technology&storyID=nN29388999&from=business)

skunk

Dec 15, 2007, 04:13 AM

Way to hop on the bandwagon I started 40 posts ago. ;)We seemed to have fallen off it again since your post... :)

solvs

Dec 15, 2007, 04:31 AM

We seemed to have fallen off it again since your post... :)
Sorry, but I did have to get something in there before the powers that be shut us down.

At least I'm somewhat on topic. :o

obeygiant

Dec 15, 2007, 07:42 AM

I don't want to know do I?

I was just posting some excerpts from her journal..

http://www.jamiesfoundation.org/Jamie.htm

Naimfan

Dec 15, 2007, 11:25 AM

No, we're trying to get him to explain himself.

You do realize that this (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr109067.html) applies? ;)

Badandy

Dec 15, 2007, 01:47 PM

That wasn't apt at all. I see what you're trying to say, but yes, it does come off as misogynistic, whether you mean it to or not. She wasn't putting herself into any situation, nowhere near what you and SL are trying to say. It shouldn't have been something she should expect or worry about. Safe zone. Americans. For you to even say it might have been unwise or expected, yeah, you kinda are blaming the victim.

No, you don't see what I'm trying to say. I'm not blaming the victim, I was talking about a hypothetical situation. And that hypothetical situation was created in order to exemplify what I thought Swarmlord meant in one of his comments, as I've said repeatedly. It wasn't misogynistic and it is not a real situation and it does not reflect my views on this real issue and I don't know how many times I have to say this. I have no more "ands".

She wasn't dressed provocatively, not that that should matter around those there to protect the area.
She was in the safe zone, just trying to do her job, surrounded by American contractors.
She had every right to be there that anyone else would.

Again, I wasn't talking about what happened in this case.

skunk

Dec 15, 2007, 01:53 PM

Again, I wasn't talking about what happened in this case.Well, Swarmlord was, so I suggest you give up trying to explain what he meant to say. That was all too obvious.

skunk

Dec 15, 2007, 02:10 PM

Wasn't just her BTW, more here:

Female ex-employees sue KBR, Hallburton -report (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=technology&storyID=nN29388999&from=business)Not just that, either. From her own journal (thanks for the link, OG):
May 31, 2007- Lynn Falanga called me to tell me that the AUSA took on my case as an “intake” so that they could investigate my case diligently. In regards to the missing pictures and doctor's notes that were taken in Baghdad Lynn Falanga and I both called the doctor that performed the rape kit. The doctor stated to both of us that “I have no idea which rape victim you are because so many young contractor girls were raped after drinking with the guys” she also stated that “I performed so many rape kits in the six months that I was stationed there that there would be no way to recall whom yours was."http://www.jamiesfoundation.org/Jamie.htm

Why would the US Government be complicit in covering up such egregious abuse?

Badandy

Dec 15, 2007, 02:39 PM

Well, Swarmlord was, so I suggest you give up trying to explain what he meant to say. That was all too obvious.

You really just don't get it and can't let this go. I know that was what he was trying to say, that was the point of what I wrote originally. My god.

skunk

Dec 15, 2007, 02:48 PM

You really just don't get it and can't let this go. I know that was what he was trying to say, that was the point of what I wrote originally. You're right, I don't get it. If you weren't talking about this case, then what on earth were you talking about? :confused:

Badandy

Dec 15, 2007, 03:02 PM

I'm not going to say it again, because it's mentioned at least 3 times on this page and in almost every single one of my posts since my first post in this thread. Don't worry about it, I'm over it.

solvs

Dec 16, 2007, 06:57 AM

I was just posting some excerpts from her journal..

http://www.jamiesfoundation.org/Jamie.htm
That was horrifying, and I'm even more disgusted than I was before.

Er, not at you, at them... but now do you see what we mean?

You do realize that this (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr109067.html) applies? ;)
Why do you think we stopped trying? ;) Especially since he long ago gave up posting in this thread and went on to thread bomb elsewhere. I do wonder though why the rest of you kept defending him? Same thing, no?

I was talking about a hypothetical situation.
But whether you meant it to or not, the hypothetical situation you brought up and the way you presented it did have misogynistic undertones. I do get what you were trying to say. That even though she wouldn't have brought it on herself exactly or that it excused their behavior, she was in a dangerous situation. The problem is as skunk said SL was talking about this case, and in this case, Jaime didn't put herself into what turned out to be a dangerous situation.

She was working a job, as an uglier girl or male would have, in a safe zone around American contractors. She had the right to be there, and should have been kept safe by those who attacked her. This should not have been dangerous. Well, not that way. She might have been blown up or shot (which I'm guessing he wouldn't be excusing, but kinda has in the past with others who've been injured or killed over there). But what happened to her is something that shouldn't have happened. I mean, it shouldn't have happened under any circumstance, but there shouldn't have been more of a danger of it here. He was saying there was, and it came off sounding like it somehow excused it, as if she should have known better or that we should all have expected it. Apparently you aren't, but then, why the analogies?

Again, I wasn't talking about what happened in this case.
Well, we are. What happened was awful and completely uncalled for, and the cover up is even worse. Any other excuse or obfuscation is just being disingenuous, trying to distract from the real issue. Which is what SL was trying to do. And it worked. So now we're all arguing over the details and whether or not it was a dangerous place or circumstance. All because he supports the war no matter what.

I've already seen this become a partisan thing, but it really shouldn't be.

Why would the US Government be complicit in covering up such egregious abuse?
Because they can. Because their buddies in KBR and Blackwater and making money. Because they don't care. Lots of reasons, none of them good.

You really just don't get it and can't let this go. I know that was what he was trying to say, that was the point of what I wrote originally.
It still sounds to me like he was saying she put herself into a dangerous situation, that he was trying to blame on Iraqis because he didn't read the story. Or he was saying the contractors were dangerous, but he supports them and thinks they shouldn't have oversight, so that doesn't make sense. Maybe he was overtly excusing it, but he was blaming the victim for being there, which yeah, we do have a problem with. Shouldn't have been a situation where she brought it on herself at all. But again, this was all just a way to distract from the issue that these types of things are happening, as we see above far too frequently, and the gov is doing nothing about it, nor will they. All because he supports the war and the administration, and when we criticize things like this and he has nothing to defend it, he'll change the subject so it becomes an argument about something else.

And yet we keep falling for it, and there always seems to be those who will defend him, even long after he stops. Even if he won't clarify in the first place, or ever admit he was mistaken, even after proven so. I have to wonder why we bother, and I'm beginning to think it isn't worth it anymore. I used to think someone had to, but lately, I've been thinking his posts should just speak for themselves.

solvs

Dec 21, 2007, 01:32 AM

What the Jamie Leigh Jones Case Teaches Us (http://harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001948)

The title is pretty self explanatory. Note that the DOJ declined to send anyone. It also shows the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2WyitSWa0Y&eurl=http://harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001948) from her testimony. This is such a terrible case, and as she noted, it's only one of many.

solvs

Dec 23, 2007, 05:47 AM

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/12/cheney-no-justice-for-jamie-jones.html

On Wednesday, Jamie Leigh Jones told a House Judiciary Committee her now-famous story about having been allegedly drugged and gang-raped two years ago by several coworkers shortly after arriving in Iraq as a contractor for KBR, an engineering and construction firm contracted with the military to provide logistical support to the troops. Jones' story has prompted widespread outrage, partly because the Justice Department and the military failed to prosecute her attackers, but also because it appears that Jones can't sue KBR for placing her in harm's way.

When Jones went to work for KBR in Texas, and later for its subsidiary, Overseas Administrative Services, she signed contracts containing mandatory binding arbitration clauses, which required her to give up her right to sue the companies and any right to a jury trial. Instead, the contracts forced Jones to press her case through private arbitration, which she did in 2006. In that forum, the company that allegedly wronged her pays the arbitrator who is hearing the case. For that she can thank Dick Cheney.

At the time of the alleged attack on Jones, KBR was a subsidiary of Halliburton, the behemoth military-contracting and oil-technology firm. (KBR was sold off earlier this year.) So Jones is covered by the Halliburton dispute-resolution program, which was implemented when Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. The system bears the markings of Cheney's obsession with secrecy and executive power. On his watch, Halliburton, in late 1997, made it more difficult for its employees to sue the company for discrimination, sexual harassment, and other workplace-related issues.
Thanks again Uncle Dick!

Naimfan

Dec 23, 2007, 01:07 PM

Why do you think we stopped trying? ;) Especially since he long ago gave up posting in this thread and went on to thread bomb elsewhere. I do wonder though why the rest of you kept defending him? Same thing, no?

Clearly you're confused. I'm not defending him, I am pointing out that you, and others, have read into his words your own opinion of what he meant. Is that so hard to understand? Apparently it is, because it doesn't fit into your neat categories.

skunk

Dec 23, 2007, 01:17 PM

Since he refused to clarify his position unequivocally, there was little else to go on. Perhaps you have a more convincing interpretation?

Naimfan

Dec 23, 2007, 01:21 PM

Since he refused to clarify his position unequivocally, there was little else to go on.

Well, I'm at least glad you can admit it!

skunk

Dec 23, 2007, 01:31 PM

What have I admitted? His posts give the distinct impression that he assigns blame to the victim on the grounds that she somehow provoked the attack by presuming to be a woman in a man's world.

Naimfan

Dec 23, 2007, 01:37 PM

What have I admitted? His posts give the distinct impression that he assigns blame to the victim on the grounds that she somehow provoked the attack by presuming to be a woman in a man's world.

That was your interpretation of it. Not mine, not his, and not that of many other people. You've finally admitted to putting your own meaning on it when you say "What else was there to go on?" That is looking for meaning beyond the written words. He's under no obligation to "clarify" his position to you, or to anyone else.

Your pitiful attempts to nitpick are tiresome and do not advance the discussion. What happened was horrible (I, at least, don't doubt that she was raped, or that there was a cover-up). But you, and others, seem more interested in vilifying Swarmlord than in attempting to identify, discuss, and work to resolve the actual issue.

skunk

Dec 23, 2007, 01:47 PM

That was your interpretation of it. Not mine, not his, and not that of many other people. You've finally admitted to putting your own meaning on it when you say "What else was there to go on?" That is looking for meaning beyond the written words. He's under no obligation to "clarify" his position to you, or to anyone else.You can speak only for your own interpretation. Of course I interpret people's posts, that is the nature of discussion. The implication of his words was clear, and entirely in line with previous provocative opinions.

Your pitiful attempts to nitpick are tiresome and do not advance the discussion.Nice.

Naimfan

Dec 23, 2007, 01:50 PM

The implication of his words was clear

Wrong.

toontra

Dec 23, 2007, 03:37 PM

Wrong.

It's you that's wrong. And you are indulging in the worst (and most boring) kind of forum semantics, always the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Naimfan

Dec 23, 2007, 03:42 PM

It's you that's wrong. And you are indulging in the worst (and most boring) kind of forum semantics, always the last refuge of the scoundrel.

So apparently requesting facts and pointing out that people are placing their own meaning on what someone says is "forum semantics?" It must be wonderful to have all the answers..... :rolleyes:

And by the way--thank you for your substantive contribution.

solvs

Dec 24, 2007, 02:47 AM

I'm not defending him, I am pointing out that you, and others, have read into his words your own opinion of what he meant.
But you are continuing to argue on his behalf, long after he's stopped, which he always does after thread bombing. Which we've seen time and time again. He's still doing it in other threads. We interpreted based on what he seemed to mean, and based on past comments, he never clarified or corrected us. Maybe we're wrong, but it should have been up to him to defend his comments or at least clarify them.

Your pitiful attempts to nitpick are tiresome and do not advance the discussion.
But your's do?

But you, and others, seem more interested in vilifying Swarmlord than in attempting to identify, discuss, and work to resolve the actual issue.
He made a few comments that were not only not based on the facts of the case, but seemed to be trying to distract from the actual issue to defend a war and an administration he supports indefinitely. He got called on it, but when pressed for clarification, he further defended his comments but did not say what he actually meant if different than what we got from it. Now you want to further argue over semantics long after he's stopped even posting, only to do the same things in other threads. Why do you want to keep arguing about it, when you can't say for certain what he meant either (even he never did, and still won't)?

I would have preferred to talk about the real issue, apparently (as usual) he didn't, and now we've been reduced to talking about something that has nothing to do with anything, which is exactly what he does because he has no excuse for such things.

He's under no obligation to "clarify" his position to you, or to anyone else.
Obligation? No. Would be nice though. For once. Make a comment that seems pretty bad to most of us who know him, say we misinterpreted it, but not clarify, then have others argue that we're the ones who are wrong, even after he's stopped posting here? We're going to call him on what he says, if he can't clarify, we're going to keep thinking what we do. So tell me, if he had a problem with this as you say you do, why not just say so? Why not just say this was terrible and it was even worse that it was being covered up? Why say things like she shouldn't have been there in the first place? Why make it seem like he was blaming the Iraqis, and Middle Easterners in general, and not those really responsible, the American contractors? And most importantly, why am I asking you instead of him?

I can answer the last one, it's because he doesn't answer those questions. He makes comments like the ones he did, makes some more, then leaves the thread. If he did actually answer those question, or clarify, or even try to stay on topic, using the actual facts of the case involved, we wouldn't have such a problem with him. But he doesn't, so we do.

And I guess we don't understand why you're arguing, whatever it is you're arguing if you're apparently not arguing for him or his opinion. :confused:

hulugu

Dec 24, 2007, 04:03 AM

...He's under no obligation to "clarify" his position to you, or to anyone else....

I disagree here. The rules of a forum such as this require the cogent defense of a position, otherwise it's a kind of trolling. You cannot expect to lob in a hand-grenade and expect to scurry off, instead posters should stand and deliver.
Is he obligated? No, but in order for a meaningful conversation, yes, Swarmlord should have defended his comments.

Lastly, the phrase "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, you can be reasonably sure, it's a duck" seems apt. Swarmlord either wrote a poorly phrased post or he wrote a post that tried to wave away rape charges by blaming the victim, the family, and the Iraqis (I think). He was wrong, but rather than being honest and writing a quick mea culpa, or just editing the post, he's gone quiet.

And by the way--thank you for your substantive contribution.

That's a rather snide response, you may disagree with Toontra, but that seems unnecessary.

pseudobrit

Dec 24, 2007, 04:23 AM

swarmlord is reactionary. Any consensus the libtards down here come to must be opposed, even if it leaves one in the unreal position of defending the coverup of a vicious gang rape. I expect nothing less from his every post.

skunk

Dec 24, 2007, 04:34 AM

That was your interpretation of it. Not mine, not his, and not that of many other people. Perhaps you should rephrase the last part? Probably the middle part, too.

pseudobrit

Dec 24, 2007, 04:53 AM

Perhaps you should rephrase the last part? Probably the middle part, too.

wait, wait. what are we left with? ;)

mactastic

Dec 24, 2007, 12:02 PM

Wrong.
And I thank you for your substantive contribution. :rolleyes:

Naimfan

Dec 24, 2007, 12:18 PM

I disagree here. The rules of a forum such as this require the cogent defense of a position, otherwise it's a kind of trolling.

The problem is simply that the "position" was not advanced by the person accused of advancing it. Rather, skunk put those words in Swarmlord's mouth, so to speak. But he did not say what people seem to think he said. There's even been implicit agreement on it, since people are now saying in effect that "well, that's what we thought he meant."

Given that Swarmlord did not advance the point, there's no obligation of any kind to defend it.

As for the rest, there are a lot more people on this forum then those who post here who agree that the point seemed to be to try to vilify Swarmlord. Solvs didn't even bother trying to deny it.

And I guess we don't understand

That's obvious.

The efforts to paint this discussion as simply "semantics" are simply hilarious. If people don't understand the difference, I pity them.

hulugu

Dec 24, 2007, 04:50 PM

A 22 year old woman with a job as a civilian in a war zone located in the Middle East? Something about her even being there stinks to high heaven.

Were they 22 year old women? They put interns at the front of the line or something? What are you saying?

I challenge anyone to pick ANY 22 year old girl and get some civilian contractor to send her into that situation escorted by security or not. Not going to happen.

As for the state department, unless their job descriptions have changed greatly in the past couple weeks, they aren't standing around the location where this gal supposedly was.

Well, the burden of proof is on her to corroberate her story. Good luck to her.

No, I'm not. I said that the scenario doesn't sound right to me given my experience living and working in the Middle East.

However, the burden of proof is on her whether anyone likes it or not. She better have saved some DNA or this isn't going anywhere.

Evidently not. They would just read into my posts what they want to see anyway.

I forgot to mention what I think of parents that would allow their daughter of that age to go to the Middle East to work in that capacity too.

Well, using that logic I have the right to exercise my free speech rights and waltz through the middle of Harlem and sing racially repugnant songs then. I guess using your logic I shouldn't expect to be beat up or shot either.

My wife or daughter taking a job in the Middle East - now that's funny!

I guess a lot of you just think that rights we enjoy here in the states are portable everywhere. Why should it be any different working the perfume counter at Macy's and working in a war zone? Silly me.

I wish I lived in the same fantasy world as some of you here. Actually, no I don't. I'm a lot happier than some of you apparently.

Are we speaking the same language? How do you get that out of what I wrote?

And I'm surprised that you would attribute such humane qualities to employees of Haliburton considering it's run behind the scenes by Darth Chaney and a cabal of blood sucking non-humans.

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation of what I was trying to convey. It's a shame it will likely fall on deaf ears.

And after realizing that I couldn't wish the likes of Skunk a good day without getting an argument, I gave up trying to explain my position.

Not only did I NOT say that, but somehow both Ugg and Skunk think that it's perfectly clear that I did say it. They missed my original points on the thread by such a great distance that it's not even possible to reorient the discussion. :rolleyes:

Alright, here are all of Swarmlord's posts from this thread. We can see from the first few that he thinks the story is—well—bullsh*t. Then, he faults the parents in some way.

His next post is where I believe in got into trouble, here he equated the rape with "walking into Harlem" and not "expecting to be beat up or shot." This appears to be a defense of the rape, after all a women serving for a private contractor in the green zone should expect consequences for such risky behavior, and this is patently ridiculous.

I say appears, because he may not have meant it this way.

Now, Swarmlord does write that he's confused about why other posters believe he's written something wrong. Of course, rather than writing a new post, he ends up digging a deeper hole with the snide "Darth Cheney" post and letting you defend his words.

However, after reading all of Swarm's comments, I think that Solvs is wrong, Swarm' does not accept the rape, rather he didn't believe the story and thus offered a kind of defense.

skunk

Dec 24, 2007, 04:59 PM

The problem is simply that the "position" was not advanced by the person accused of advancing it. Rather, skunk put those words in Swarmlord's mouth, so to speak. But he did not say what people seem to think he said.Rather than wasting your pity where it is neither needed nor wanted, you would be better employed actually reading what your client posted.

First we have:A 22 year old woman with a job as a civilian in a war zone located in the Middle East? Something about her even being there stinks to high heaven.in which the veracity of the report is clearly questioned, as if, in the unlikely event that she was there at all, she brought it on herself by being where she had no business to be.

Then we have:I challenge anyone to pick ANY 22 year old girl and get some civilian contractor to send her into that situation escorted by security or not. Not going to happen.wherein the clear implication is that the rape, if indeed it happened, is the work of enemy individuals, despite any "security" she might be afforded by "our guys".

Next, we have:As for the state department, unless their job descriptions have changed greatly in the past couple weeks, they aren't standing around the location where this gal supposedly was.where more unfounded and sarcastic derision is poured on the notion that this might be a true event, on the grounds that the State Department do not frequent the Green Zone. Where this idea comes from I do not know, but Swarmlord will not let facts get it the way of a good put-down.

Next:Well, the burden of proof is on her to corroberate her story. Good luck to her.An outrageous statement which should have had you, as a lawyer, objecting straight away. But no, you choose to make some irrelevant comment about Swarmlord not being in a position to deny her due process, when it was quite obvious that my objection was to his assertion that in a case of assault it is up to the victim to prove the guilt of the attacker, which is a travesty of the truth.

Next, we get the classic:Well, using that logic I have the right to exercise my free speech rights and waltz through the middle of Harlem and sing racially repugnant songs then. I guess using your logic I shouldn't expect to be beat up or shot either.wherein he quite clearly likens her working in Iraq (with "our boys", mind) to willfully provoking an attack on herself, or "asking for it", in other words. What other possible construction can you put upon this post?

Finally, he saysI guess a lot of you just think that rights we enjoy here in the states are portable everywhere. Why should it be any different working the perfume counter at Macy's and working in a war zone? Silly me. wherein he implies that it is only us whingeing "libtards" who would even consider for a moment that she could imagine that her "rights" would be respected in Iraq (by "our boys", remember, not the "enemy"). Now, with your superior legal training you may well be clever enough to construe these statements otherwise than as a series of loathsome, prejudiced and misogynistic cheap shots. I can't, nor can many others.

Rodimus Prime

Dec 24, 2007, 05:58 PM

skunk

Dec 24, 2007, 06:20 PM

Shunk while you try saying Swarmy wrong for saying the girl has to prove the raped happen. Like it or not she has to be able to prove it in court. the burden of proof is on her. She has to proved she was wrong. The other side does not have to prove anything. If she can not prove the raped happen she does not have a case.Firstly, that is not true: I don't know what legal system you are talking about, but where I come from it is NOT up to the victim of a crime to prove the crime occurred, it is up to the law enforcement agency. Anyway, have you bothered to read the accounts of this? There is no dispute that the rape occurred.

Naimfan

Dec 24, 2007, 07:28 PM

Rather than wasting your pity where it is neither needed nor wanted, you would be better employed actually reading what your client posted.

Clearly you have not read what I've written, or, more likely, not comprehended it because you are too busy spouting off. You are the one who phrased the question so rudely:Are you saying that you find rape acceptable? I have simply pointed out that he did not EVER say rape was acceptable--those were YOUR words. I can suggest some reading comprehension specialists, if you'd like.

Oh, and for the record--if you had a clue you would realize that Swarmlord is not my client. ;) Oh, right--never mind.

Firstly, that is not true: I don't know what legal system you are talking about, but where I come from it is NOT up to the victim of a crime to prove the crime occurred, it is up to the law enforcement agency.

Presumably he is referring to the American legal system. In which case, where you come from is irrelevant. In the US legal system, "the law enforcement agency" is not responsible for proving the commission of a crime, it is the prosecutor. In an American civil suit the burden is indeed on the plaintiff to prove their case.

skunk

Dec 24, 2007, 07:33 PM

You appear to have avoided answering any of the substantive points of my post. Well done.

And since when was the victim the same as the prosecutor? Is rape a civil offence now?

Naimfan

Dec 24, 2007, 07:36 PM

You appear to have avoided answering any of the substantive points of my post. Well done.

And since when was the victim the same as the prosecutor? Is rape a civil offence now?

When you make a substantive point I'll respond to it. ;)

And yes, rape is actionable in the US as a civil offense. And if you read some legal history, you'll learn the answer to when the victim was the same as the prosecutor.

skunk

Dec 24, 2007, 07:40 PM

Naimfan

Dec 24, 2007, 07:45 PM

My post and that of Hulugu sets out the case quite nicely. Avoid as you see fit.
Of course rape is actionable as a civil offence. That does not mean it is not basically and primarily a criminal offence. Why don't you stop playing around?

Self-congratulation is SO nice, isn't it?

Hulugu agrees that Swarmlord does not find rape acceptable. You appear to be having a very difficult time recognizing that I simply pointed that out. Why?

As for "playing around," when you learn how to use language precisely, you'll realize it is not "playing around." You reactions are amusing when you get called out.

skunk

Dec 24, 2007, 07:50 PM

Clearly it's a waste of time waiting for a straight answer, from either you or Swarmlord.

Naimfan

Dec 24, 2007, 07:52 PM

Clearly it's a waste of time waiting for a straight answer from me.

Agreed!
:D:D:D:D

obeygiant

Dec 24, 2007, 08:06 PM

And if you read some legal history, you'll learn the answer to when the victim was the same as the prosecutor.

For someone who is not up on legal history, what the story on when the victim was the same as the prosecutor?

skunk

Dec 25, 2007, 03:26 AM

Agreed!
:D:D:D:DOK, I concede. Your rapier-like wit is far too acute for me.

solvs

Dec 27, 2007, 03:10 AM

Given that Swarmlord did not advance the point, there's no obligation of any kind to defend it.
As pointed out, there actually is. But I wonder why you keep trying to. Unless you just like an argument, which would constitute trolling.

As for the rest, there are a lot more people on this forum then those who post here who agree that the point seemed to be to try to vilify Swarmlord. Solvs didn't even bother trying to deny it.
I just wanted him to clarify. He didn't. He doesn't. You aren't either. I don't deny that I think the worst of him sometimes, but based on experience, that usually seems to be the case. The lack of follow up does kind of make me think we were at least partially right, and rereading the run down by the above posters reminds me why we thought what we did. Were we wrong, it should have been up to him to clarify. That's what you're supposed to do here. Otherwise you're just thread bombing, which is what he does.

That's obvious.
Then maybe you can explain it to us instead of continuing to argue without actually making any points.

The efforts to paint this discussion as simply "semantics" are simply hilarious. If people don't understand the difference, I pity them.
You're arguing that he didn't say what we think he did. You don't know what, since he didn't follow up once proven wrong about his first 2 hypotheses (that it didn't happen, and then that it was Middle Easterners) other than the insults. But you keep arguing that we're all wrong. And talking down to us for not understanding what you obviously do that we're all missing. All you've really proved is why people don't like lawyers. Bravo.

Maybe you can make an actual point, preferrably without being condescending, or expect frustration and sarcasm in return.

However, after reading all of Swarm's comments, I think that Solvs is wrong, Swarm' does not accept the rape, rather he didn't believe the story and thus offered a kind of defense.
Actually that was close to what I originally thought, which is why I asked for clarification. You're thinking of skunk again. Though I did wonder if he was excusing those who did it because he seemed to think, after accepting that it did happen (possibly, again, it's not clear), that she shouldn't have been there. Again though, he was blaming her being in the ME, implicitly blaming Iraqis (or somehow saying our people act like that when over there, again, I was asking and he never clarified). Of course he's defending the war though, that he's been clear about, so the motive for even trying to defend it is pretty obvious. Though I'm sure some here will argue even that, based on nothing of course.

Agreed!
:D:D:D:D
You shouldn't be so proud of your obfuscating, because it's bordering on trolling.

We should just be talking about how horrible this incident is, but someone had to do what he always does and confuse the issue because he supports the war and the administration no matter what. He might have been saying she wasn't there, or that she shouldn't have been there, or trying to blame it on the Iraqis. Doesn't matter, not the issue. He left without clarifying, again, as usual for him. But you have to keep arguing we're all wrong on his behalf. You still haven't said why, and are basically leaving us to pick apart his posts for clarification that will never come. I'd prefer a discussion, but apparently you and your client would prefer to turn it into something else to confuse the issue. You're right, I don't understand. Because frankly, unless you're just trying to be difficult, it doesn't exactly make sense now does it.

Swarmlord

Dec 27, 2007, 08:40 AM

<snip>
I just wanted him to clarify. He didn't. He doesn't. <snip>

"You can't always get what you want."

Rolling Stones

pseudobrit

Dec 27, 2007, 11:21 AM

"You can't always get what you want."

Rolling Stones

But if you try sometimes, you just might find you made my ignore list.

[/ignored]

Swarmlord

Dec 27, 2007, 12:06 PM

But if you try sometimes, you just might find you made my ignore list.

[/ignored]

"I'm all shook up."

Elvis Presley

skunk

Dec 27, 2007, 12:45 PM

Uh huh huh.

Naimfan

Dec 27, 2007, 01:51 PM

A I don't deny that I think the worst of him sometimes, but based on experience, that usually seems to be the case.

You're arguing that he didn't say what we think he did.

All I have pointed out is that nowhere did Swarmlord say, in his postings, that he found rape acceptable. I, and others here, find it incredible that anyone intelligent could possibly find that in his postings in this thread. What he may or may not believe, I neither know nor care.

As for thread bombing/trolling--you're killing me. Why is it so hard for people to admit that someone has not posted something, and that they are only putting their own meaning on it? The only reasonable explanation is that it's more convenient to claim he meant it so that you can continue to assault him. A classic and transparent attempt at a straw man argument.

You might also note that I've suggested people actually take action on the matter, and provided the text of the initial contact I made with legislators, as well as contact information for the House and the Senate. I don't recall you or skunk suggesting that people take action, or providing a concrete suggestion as to what could be done to prevent this horror from being repeated. A question--ever been in a war?

leekohler

Dec 27, 2007, 02:19 PM

All I have pointed out is that nowhere did Swarmlord say, in his postings, that he found rape acceptable. I, and others here, find it incredible that anyone intelligent could possibly find that in his postings in this thread. What he may or may not believe, I neither know nor care.

As for thread bombing/trolling--you're killing me. Why is it so hard for people to admit that someone has not posted something, and that they are only putting their own meaning on it? The only reasonable explanation is that it's more convenient to claim he meant it so that you can continue to assault him. A classic and transparent attempt at a straw man argument.

You might also note that I've suggested people actually take action on the matter, and provided the text of the initial contact I made with legislators, as well as contact information for the House and the Senate. I don't recall you or skunk suggesting that people take action, or providing a concrete suggestion as to what could be done to prevent this horror from being repeated. A question--ever been in a war?

Naimfan, now it's just getting ridiculous (thank you for the links, BTW). If you're going to deny that Swarmlord has made inflammatory and unclear statements, many listed in post #170, you're not going to get too far here.

Naimfan

Dec 27, 2007, 02:29 PM

Naimfan, now it's just getting ridiculous (thank you for the links, BTW). If you're going to deny that Swarmlord has made inflammatory and unclear statements, many listed in post #170, you're not going to get too far here.

Lee--

You're welcome on the links. :)

I've never said Swarmlord has not made inflammatory and unclear statements. All I have said, which is apparently difficult for some (not you) to comprehend, is that he has NOT posted that he finds rape acceptable.

leekohler

Dec 27, 2007, 02:34 PM

Lee--

You're welcome on the links. :)

I've never said Swarmlord has not made inflammatory and unclear statements. All I have said, which is apparently difficult for some (not you) to comprehend, is that he has NOT posted that he finds rape acceptable.

I got you. However, he has insinuated that he believes it should have been expected. I think that's what everyone is truly irritated with.

obeygiant

Dec 27, 2007, 02:49 PM

I got you. However, he has insinuated that he believes it should have been expected.

To touch on what is already a delicate subject here there are obvious facts here that shouldn't be totally ignored. While its tragic that this woman was raped in such a manner and should have never expected to be raped it was a series of poor decisions by her and her employer KBR that lead to this situation. After reading her journals it clear that she is just a bit naive. Getting breast implants when your 18-19 instead of going to college and agreeing to go into a war zone where it would be "safe" aren't exactly a stellar decisions. Continuing to work at this company when you've already be sexually harassed is suspect. Also KBR is ultimately responsible for allowing her to go and be the ONLY woman on a base full of home-starved contractors. Either they (KBR) are totally stupid or they sent her there for that reason. Whatever reason KBR should be held accountable for letting a young girl to enter into a BAD SITUATION. I understand what swarm was saying albeit he was harsh concerning the topic. This woman deserves justice and compensation for what has occurred.

leekohler

Dec 27, 2007, 02:52 PM

skunk

Dec 27, 2007, 03:14 PM

To touch on what is already a delicate subject here there are obvious facts here that shouldn't be totally ignored. While its tragic that this woman was raped in such a manner and should have never expected to be raped it was a series of poor decisions by her and her employer KBR that lead to this situation. After reading her journals it clear that she is just a bit naive. Getting breast implants when your 18-19 instead of going to college and agreeing to go into a war zone where it would be "safe" aren't exactly a stellar decisions. Continuing to work at this company when you've already be sexually harassed is suspect. Also KBR is ultimately responsible for allowing her to go and be the ONLY woman on a base full of home-starved contractors. Either they (KBR) are totally stupid or they sent her there for that reason. Whatever reason KBR should be held accountable for letting a young girl to enter into a BAD SITUATION. I understand what swarm was saying albeit he was harsh concerning the topic. This woman deserves justice and compensation for what has occurred.A thoroughly reasonable position, although I do wonder if the Green Zone itself is classed as a War Zone.
This post in particular, however: Well, using that logic I have the right to exercise my free speech rights and waltz through the middle of Harlem and sing racially repugnant songs then. I guess using your logic I shouldn't expect to be beat up or shot either.was the one which prompted me to demand that Swarmlord clarify his position. Despite our legal eagle's outraged and repetitive finger-pointing, I did NOT say that he had claimed that rape was acceptable, but by likening the girl's situation to someone who was obviously "asking for it", he came very close indeed, nor can his intention by doing so have been other than to provoke. Blaming the victim is only one small step away, and is a favourite ploy of misogynistic mullahs the world over. No matter how foolish, ill-advised or naive she was, she did not deserve to be gang-raped by her "colleagues", nor thereafter betrayed by her employers and her government, as you yourself have stated.

hulugu

Dec 27, 2007, 05:58 PM

Actually that was close to what I originally thought, which is why I asked for clarification. You're thinking of skunk again.

Whoops. Sorry.

Must. Proof-read. To Get. Details. Right.

solvs

Dec 27, 2007, 07:54 PM

All I have pointed out is that nowhere did Swarmlord say, in his postings, that he found rape acceptable.
I've been rereading my earlier posts in this thread, and can't find where I said he said that. :confused:

My first few posts were mostly questions. As I've said, repeatedly, he seemed to think it didn't happen, then tried to blame it on the Iraqis. The rest of my posts were also mostly questions. It wasn't that I thought he found it acceptable, it's that he was trying his hardest to obfuscate the situation because he supports the war, and the contractors, no matter what. We were asking for clarification of what he meant, and rather than get it, we just got more obfuscating. That's what we have a problem with. As you can see from his last couple of recent posts, he still hasn't, and actually seems to be reveling in the continued argument and the fact that we stopped talking about the real issue.

That is what he does, that is what we have a problem with.

I, and others here, find it incredible that anyone intelligent could possibly find that in his postings in this thread.
It's about more than just this thread.

What he may or may not believe, I neither know nor care.
Then why continue the argument?

As for thread bombing/trolling--you're killing me. Why is it so hard for people to admit that someone has not posted something, and that they are only putting their own meaning on it? The only reasonable explanation is that it's more convenient to claim he meant it so that you can continue to assault him. A classic and transparent attempt at a straw man argument.
You're the one continuing the argument. We merely asked for clarification. Something you're supposed to do here. Not only has he not clarified, he actually made it worse for himself, and has since posted 2 comments meant only to further goad. We took what he did say as we took it. If we were wrong, he could have clarified. If he didn't mean it that way, why not say so? Why not say it was wrong?

Because he doesn't do that, that's why. Because he thread bombs, then walks away. Sometimes posting something like the last 2 posts, or something that has nothing to do with anything. While you may not be defending him or what he said, you are defending the behavior that we have a problem with. The convenience would have been to just accept it because that's who he is and that's what he does, but you had to keep going saying we're being unfair, putting words into the mouth of someone who has said what we're accusing him of (though, most of us actually weren't) in the past. Someone who you even admit you don't know what he meant. But you're sure we don't either, because he said so. Not that he would actually end all this argument right now and tell us what he did mean then, if it wasn't what we thought.

Again though, reread what I actually said. Because I think you're assuming I was saying something I actually wasn't, Which kinda makes you guilty of the same thing you're accusing us of. :rolleyes:

You might also note that I've suggested people actually take action on the matter, and provided the text of the initial contact I made with legislators, as well as contact information for the House and the Senate. I don't recall you or skunk suggesting that people take action, or providing a concrete suggestion as to what could be done to prevent this horror from being repeated.
I contacted, got lots of we're looking into it. But the problem, as I pointed out several times, is that they are beyond reproach thanks to the people SL supports no matter what (getting back to his reasoning for obfuscating, if not defending). There's not much else we can do. We can be outraged. We can put it out there. We can tell those who set up the situation this way, where they can't be prosecuted by any criminal court, that we aren't happy by their actions. But realistically, other than the letters and phone calls that are ignored by our Representatives (even those who would like to do something, but can't), there's not much we can do. Those in charge haven't cared thus far about anything else, why would this be any different?

Again though, just in case you're going to hit me with it without reading my post, I still tried and I'm still trying. And I hope something does come of it, if nothing else than to just point out how widespread it actually is. But as far as holding those responsible who are? Not going to happen. Why do you think we're so frustrated?

And maybe SL didn't defend it, but he also didn't decry it either. That's not at least a little telling to you? Doesn't bother you at all? Read it again, I'm sure it will, because that's how it came out to me.

A question--ever been in a war?
What does that have to do with anything, I'm against the war.

I've never said Swarmlord has not made inflammatory and unclear statements. All I have said, which is apparently difficult for some (not you) to comprehend, is that he has NOT posted that he finds rape acceptable.
Nor have I. I was asking what he meant. My problem was the unclear and inflammatory posts, which he keeps doing, and getting away with. I called him on it. You sure seemed to be defending that behavior at least, if not the content. If you weren't, maybe you could have been a little clearer.

Had you simply asked me for clarification, rather than present it as an argument, I would have been more than happy to tell you what I meant if you didn't get what I was trying to say.

Hmm...well he could have just said that, couldn't he? If in fact that was really what he meant.
He could have, and no one would have blinked. But he didn't. He doesn't. I won't apologize for calling him on it, especially since he chose to make things worse rather than to clarify. At this point though, I'm wondering if I should even bother because it's not like it gets us anywhere, and then we spend the whole thread talking about something else, which I'm beginning to think is the point.

Whoops. Sorry.

Must. Proof-read. To Get. Details. Right.
Don't feel so bad. ;) Apparently our lawyer friend made the same mistake. Ironic considering how much of a problem he has when we do it. Even if the person he's defending... oops, not defending, I mean, whatever he's doing... is actually helping to prove our points.