Okay, I went and read the cable too, and I don't think the article had much mischaracterized the event. They add some background re bacha bazi which is only implied by the cable. The cable does say it is a DynCorp event, so they bear some responsibility for what happened there even if they weren't involved in the planning. The Embassy obviously felt that DynCorp did something improper because they mention disciplinary action taken against them. I don't think the article was trying to imply that DynCorp people had participated by buying sex slaves. It's bad enough they hosted an event where these things happened. As for the arrests, the contractors are probably immune to arrest by Afghan forces, so the fact that no American was arrested isn't much indication as to their level of involvement. I'd also point out that the cable mentions "He was convinced that the Kunduz incident, and other events where mentors [that is, DynCorp trainers] had obtained drugs, could not have happened without Afghan participation." So, DynCorp people were providing and/or using drugs at this and other events. I don't think this one cable justifies the leaks of hundreds of other damaging cables. This one, Americans should know about. And I hope Obama gets a lot of heat for continuing to use DynCorp. If Wikileaks just released this one and kept the other ones private, they'd be heroes. But, not as it now stands.
this is one example of the kinds of things that justify wikileaks for me, yes. and so what if its the houston press - does that automatically discredit the content of the story for you? the fact that the houston press is the main source for this story only shows how complacent the mainstream media is when it comes to these kinds of things. i would think that this is a pretty big story...the american people have a right to know when their tax dollars are used for sex slavery. but if it helps you here are two other links to this story... and as the article points out, this isnt dyncorps first involvement in this kind of activity... you just want to ignore them and question the credibility of those who report on them? juan valdez summed it up better than i could. again, its one example of wikileaks justification - if you dont think sex slavery is that big of a deal, more power to you, but imo the american people have a right to know about this kind of stuff. just b/c the houston press is reporting this doesnt mean its to be automatically discredited. this story has been reported by several others so for you to be hung up on the messenger over the actual content to this degree is just silly.
u should fly over there and kick some....oh wait, you dont fly u should get really mad and post on here...way less invasive glad to see you stopped whining about body scanners
this is pathetic. u ran away from me in the other thread and now u come in here with this tripe? im still posting in the body scanner thread - u r the one who disappeared like a scared coward. wrt to body scanners, u continually tell me to "worry about myself", but here u r once again worrying about me...hypocrite. what is your opinion on this story? we already know you are against freedom of religion, private property rights and the 4th amendment...what is your position on u.s. contractors being involved in sex trafficking?
my opinion on this BLOG which could be written by some schmuck sitting in his basement in the middle of nowheresville is that its a blog....its this guys opinion....nothing more nothing less. Oh...i also think sex trafficking is bad form...very bad translation - NJRocket doesnt care if someone touches jo mama's ball bag before he boards a plane...u know why? bc its jo mama's ball bag...not his own
you are the one chasing me around into other threads to argue about something that you ran away from in another thread - if you have that much free time maybe you should get a job. you seem to care alot or you wouldnt be chasing me around into unrelated threads to bring this up...again, you ran away from me in the other thread so if you want to continue that argument take it there. i really got to you, didnt i?
Duly noted, good point on the arrests, though to be fair it doesn't mean that Americans were involved and merely spared because they were contractors (kind of a silly rule anyway). As for the drug reference... a bit of a footnote in the cable compared to the headlines... but touché, it's there in section six as an after reference to the incident. It really depends who was doing what and under who's knowledge/authority. I don't see those facts here. Only that it was a DynaCorp event, and employees were involved, and Afghans arrested. That's a far cry, to me, from "A round of young men and some drugs for you. Relax, it's on Uncle Sam, boys!" Not saying it didn't or did happen that way, only that the cable doesn't have those details. Perhaps you didn't think it was mischaracterized, but I thought it was somewhat sensationalist (I guess that can't be to blame, I just wouldn't put as much stock in their version of it as JoMama at this point, having not read his new articles and only having compared the original with the actual cable which is what my comments were based upon) QFT Maybe other media sources realized they didn't know enough to start implicating so boldly? See, again... without knowing the details of what actually happened, that's a pretty bold statement. Doesn't make it not true, doesn't excuse anyone, and of course such a thing is dreadful. Now, your other links I will read, but I was merely commenting on the first article compared to the cable. Automatically discredited? No. As I said, I just thought it was sensationalist, while you seemed to be touting it as justification. I do think this story is the sort of thing that Wikileaks would be good for, and already stated I had no problem with this cable being released, I just thought the piece was somewhat misleading compared with the facts of the cable, and wouldn't credit something like this blog piece as being justification for wikileaks in general. That was all. Although, you seem to think that means I was saying human trafficking is ok? Come on, man. Perhaps some of this would be better discussed in the other wikileaks thread I guess... not that it isn't all relative.
have you read the "new" articles yet? it will only take a couple minutes. id be curious to hear your take, providing you can get past the "sensational" headlines... (this headline is a reference to the fact that dyncorp has already been caught engaging in sex slavery) read the other articles - they are making the same "implications" that the houston post "blog" that you took such issue with did. have you read the other links yet? again, you are hung up on the wording of the headline and seem unable to look past it - i "tout" the content of the article as one example of the kinds of things that justify what wikileaks is doing. and reading the content of the article, the leaked cables and the frontline video, the headline doesnt seem that sensationalist at all. dyncorp has a history of being involved in sex slavery, so unfortunately, these reports are not that unbelievable or "sensationalist"...there is a clear precedent. i dont find it misleading at all. especially in the context of the cable, the frontline video and dyncorps previous involvement in sex slavery. and again, you are hung up on the fact that its a "blog" and seem to be trying to discredit the story b/c of it. again, if you have an issue w/ the messenger, there are plenty of other news sources reporting this exact same story - ive posted links to two of them and you said you would read them...when you do please let us know!
I made my point. You disagree. I get it. I will read the other articles, but again, my observations and opinions were of the blog piece as compared to the cable. We disagree on how the "facts" were presented. I'm alright with that.
your point was that the headline was "sensationalist" and that since it is a blog, it is not legitimate. i posted other articles talking about the exact same thing and for some reason you are avoiding reading and commenting on them. why? seems to me like you are more interested in whining than actually educating yourself on this issue. you have had a couple days now - have you read them yet? you had time to read the initial story and the cable "several times" and have this pointless back and forth with me, but you dont have time to read the other two articles i posted which back up what the houston post "blog" was reporting? curious... here they are again... seems to me you are just whining and arguing semantics. you have an issue w/ the wording of the headline and the fact that its a "blog". but taken in the context of the cables, the frontline video, dyncorps previous involvement in sex slavery and the multitude of other non-blog articles discussing this very subject, i would say that headline is not sensationalist at all. you will let us know when you have time to read the other articles on this story though, right?
what do we disagree on? you dont like that its a houston post "blog" and you dont like the wording of the headline - i posted other non-blog articles that discuss the very same things the "blog" did in similar language and you refuse to read them. if you are going to argue with me i shall respond. you started this silliness, so you let it go. i did look further and elsewhere and pulled up several other articles detailing the exact same things the houston post blog was talking about. i posted two of these articles for you 3 days ago and for some reason you cant seem to bring yourself to read them. they are out there - i posted two other sources and you refuse to read them for some reason.
I assure you, you're the one arguing. We disagree in that I thought the original article was overly sensational compared to the cable, and you did not. That's it. There is no reason for your to go on and on about it. But here's more stuff for you to quote and reiterate. Even if I have/did read the other articles you later posted that I didn't comment on, I don't know that I'd tell you because A) it wouldn't change how I felt originally about the first article. and B) you're funny when you get all worked up.
