Rape and sexual assault very widespread in U.S. military
Jackie Speier in the
San Francisco Chronicle reports:
Women in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by fellow soldiers than killed by enemy fire. I know what you’re thinking—it sounds too unbelievable to be true. But it’s not.
The Department of Defense estimates that more than 19,000 service members were raped or sexually assaulted in 2010. Due to a military culture heavy on retaliation and light on prosecution, only 13.5 percent of the victims report the rape.
Allan Wall, who sent the piece, comments:
I suppose questioning the role of women in today’s military is off limits.
LA replies:
Liberal America sticks women together with men in a highly charged, intimate, multiracial environment where women don’t belong, and then is shocked, shocked, that rape and sexual assault are going on in this establishment.
Here’s one thing that the military and the media will never tell us: what percentage of these sexual assaults and rapes are of white women by black and Hispanic men? Given the high incidence of black on white rape in society as a whole, and given the opportunities provided by our sexually integrated military, I would expect that the percentage is very high.
Which leads to a further question: could the interracial nature of many of the sexual attacks be the reason that prosecution is so light and that so few of the incidents are reported? How could it not be? Let us recall how the military brass neglected to do anything about the outspoken terror-supporting jihadist Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood mass murderer, because, as Army Chief of Staff George Casey infamously put it, diversity is more important than the lives of our soldiers. Specifically, Casey said that if Hasan had been expelled from the military, thus reducing the military’s diversity, that would have been a “greater tragedy” than the mass murder itself. And not only was Casey not fired for his monstrous statement; the statement was not challenged by anyone in the American political establishment, showing that his view was considered normal and acceptable. It is therefore to be expected that the same need to defend diversity at all costs has also come into play when it’s a matter of black and Hispanic soldiers sexually assaulting and raping white women.
- end of initial entry -
Greg W. writes:
Liberals tell us not to criticize Islam in any way because that would put us in a situation to where an undesirable outcome will occur. Yet, they FORCE the military to accept gays and women, KNOWING that there will be undesirable outcomes just the same.
This means they care less about gays and women than Muslims half way around the world. If they KNOW that “provoking” Muslims will have consequences, they KNOW introducing gays and women into the military will have consequences just the same. Liberals will use gays and women as sacrificial lambs to promote their anti-Western, anti-traditional agenda. In this case, liberals are the provokers by throwing gays and women in with the military.
In any situation, the traditional institution or person can be blamed which shows that the diversity/multicultural lifestyle is the only acceptable one. All other ways are dangerous and intolerant.
James P. writes:
It is curious how they group the crimes together—“rape and sexual assault”—leading one to wonder what the precise definition of the latter is. Recall that the meaning of “sexual assault” was never clarified in the Lara Logan case.
LA replies:
Two months after the sexual attack on CBS chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan by a Muslim mob in Tahrir Square, ground zero of Muslim democracy, where they were celebrating the fall of Mubarak, we still don’t know what happened to her.
To paraphrase the title of a 2001 article by me about the UN.:
“‘Transparency’ Revealed: The Media Sees Us, We Aren’t Allowed To See Them.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 18, 2011 10:18 AM | Send
