Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Tax Dollars Fund Child Sex Slavery in Afghanistan

[RichC]

Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Tax Dollars Fund Child Sex Slavery in Afghanistan



http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_slavery_in_afghanistan

by Amanda Kloer December 08, 2010 11:20 AM (PT) Topics: Child Prostitution, Child Trafficking


The now infamous Wikileaks recently released a cable from Afghanistan revealing U.S. government contractor DynCorp threw a party for Afghan security recruits featuring trafficked boys as the entertainment. Bacha bazi is the Afghan tradition of "boy play" where young boys are dressed up in women's clothing, forced to dance for leering men, and then sold for sex to the highest bidder. Apparently this is the sort of "entertainment" funded by your tax dollars when DynCorp is in charge of security in Afghanistan.

http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_slavery_in_afghanistan

[MTI]

While offensive, US tax dollars have been used way more offensively than that.

[tonkovich]

gee, national security takes on a new meaning.

[Billybob]

Originally Posted by RichC

Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Tax Dollars Fund Child Sex Slavery in Afghanistan



http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_slavery_in_afghanistan

by Amanda Kloer December 08, 2010 11:20 AM (PT) Topics: Child Prostitution, Child Trafficking


The now infamous Wikileaks recently released a cable from Afghanistan revealing U.S. government contractor DynCorp threw a party for Afghan security recruits featuring trafficked boys as the entertainment. Bacha bazi is the Afghan tradition of "boy play" where young boys are dressed up in women's clothing, forced to dance for leering men, and then sold for sex to the highest bidder. Apparently this is the sort of "entertainment" funded by your tax dollars when DynCorp is in charge of security in Afghanistan.

http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_slavery_in_afghanistan

Wow! Thanks RichC! Thanks WikiLeaks! I guess no one in the world ever saw the hour long program aired on PBS produced by Frontline which aired month ago that exposed this affront to everything good and right, so it remained a secret to the Wiki Cyber Warrior crowd. And why isn't the title of this thread Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Tax Dollars Fund Diversity and Alternative Life Style Choices made by People who Didn't Ask or Choose to be Gay in Afghanistan where the Age of Consent is Really Young, just Like NAMBLA wants it here in the US!

[tonkovich]

Originally Posted by Billybob

Wow! Thanks RichC! Thanks WikiLeaks! I guess no one in the world ever saw the hour long program aired on PBS produced by Frontline which aired month ago that exposed this affront to everything good and right, so it remained a secret to the Wiki Cyber Warrior crowd. Didn't anybody's Mom tell them about it!

wrong again. the frontline special made no mention of u.s. government money being spent on this practice. wikileaks did. let's give credit where it's due.

[strelnik]

Originally Posted by tonkovich

wrong again. the frontline special made no mention of u.s. government money being spent on this practice. wikileaks did. let's give credit where it's due.

Time for someone to get AXED.

[MS Fowler]

This is the same government that tells you the MMGW is REAL.

Are you not in the least suspicious, yet?

[Dubyagee]

Some more.

http://www.ding.net/wikileaks/234867.txt

[raymr]

In Afghanistan tribal skirmishes erupt over what war lord gets the new "hottie". Entertainment over there isn't dinner and a movie, FYI.

[Chas H]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

This is the same government that tells you the MMGW is REAL.

Are you not in the least suspicious, yet?

Or told us WWGM was not real 4 years ago, or that WMD were also real 8 years ago. But sometimes the truth does sneak through.
It's always been the responsiblity of the ciitzens to verify what the g'ment tellls them.

[Billybob]

Originally Posted by tonkovich

wrong again. the frontline special made no mention of u.s. government money being spent on this practice. wikileaks did. let's give credit where it's due.

Well I will find the transcript because there certainly was the clear inference that individuals in the employ or otherewise on the payroll of the US where engaged in acts similar to these acts. As the article details in actuality is was a recipient of US funding that is accused of using funds to engage in this activity. Apparently you feel that there is a distinction between in this case DynCorp doing it and some other recipient of US funds is that right?

Now of course you could save me that trouble by offering something more than your substantial to support your claim, but if not I'll get back to you on this.

[layback40]

Just more examples of "I had a secret" !!
There must be a few S##TING them self at the moment that their wife will find out what they have been up to!!

[RichC]

[tonkovich]

Originally Posted by Billybob

Well I will find the transcript because there certainly was the clear inference that individuals in the employ or otherewise on the payroll of the US where engaged in acts similar to these acts. As the article details in actuality is was a recipient of US funding that is accused of using funds to engage in this activity. Apparently you feel that there is a distinction between in this case DynCorp doing it and some other recipient of US funds is that right?

Now of course you could save me that trouble by offering something more than your substantial to support your claim, but if not I'll ge back to you on this.

the reader, or viewer infers. the writer, or broadcaster, implies.

let's see that citation. you are the one that is backing off his broad statement, and now is suggesting "inference" (sic).

by the way, you infer a lot more in the above statement. about me and what i "feel". when i implied none of those ideas. no one likes things put in their mouth - literally and figuratively.

[Billybob]

Originally Posted by tonkovich

the reader, or viewer infers. the writer, or broadcaster, implies.

let's see that citation. you are the one that is backing off his broad statement, and now is suggesting "inference" (sic).

by the way, you infer a lot more in the above statement. about me and what i "feel". when i implied none of those ideas. no one likes things put in their mouth - literally and figuratively.

Thanks! Just got back home so I'll be on it! Lastly, it was a question about what you might be feeling, far from any kind of declarative statement.