Thread: US soldiers committing more sex crimes

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

Facts out of context cannot lead to any kind of assertion. You posted facts out of context then implied an assertion.

Incorrect. I did not post facts out of context: you took them out of context.

The story is a comparison between soldiers now and then: not a comparison between soldiers and civilians.

" ... violent sex crimes increased by 90 per cent over the five-year period from 2006 to 2011 ... "

Thus, the headline "US soldiers committing more sex crimes": more than before, not more than civilians.

Originally Posted by Colonel K

It appears that a woman serving in Iraq is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than shot by the enemy. THERE'S a sorry statistic." ...Rape within the US military has become so widespread that it is estimated that a female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be attacked by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire. So great is the issue that a group of veterans are suing the Pentagon to force reform. The lawsuit, which includes three men and 25 women (the suit initially involved 17 plaintiffs but grew to 2 who claim to have been subjected to sexual assaults while serving in the armed forces, blames former defence secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates for a culture of punishment against the women and men who report sex crimes and a failure to prosecute the offenders... "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...pe-us-military

That's an extremely disingenuous statistic.

Only 68 females were killed by hostile fire in the Iraq war. Only 25 of those were "shot" (small arms, indirect fire, RPGs). More than 225,000 women served in the conflict. That means 11 per 100,000 women that served in Iraq were actually shot.

The U.S. deathrate for females ages 18-49 is between 90 and 200 per 100,000, depending on the year. The death rate of females who served in Iraq (115 hostile+nonhostile deaths) was roughly 50 per 100,000. Women were more likely to be killed in the U.S. than they were to be killed in Iraq, and women were MUCH more likely to be killed in the U.S. than shot in Iraq.

In 2006, 232,960 women were the victims of sexual assault. Based on roughly 150 million females in the country, thats a sexual assault rate of 155 per 100,000; Thats more than 3 times the death rate of women in Iraq, and more than 14 times the rate at which women were shot at and killed in Iraq. So civilain women were more than 14 times as likely to be sexually assaulted in the U.S. than U.S. military women were to be shot in Iraq.


Your statistic is a joke and a perfect example of how disingenuous and irresponsible modern media has become. The author, Linda Broadbent, is a complete disgrace to journalism.

http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html

http://icasualties.org/Iraq/Fatalities.aspx

Originally Posted by Colonel K

It appears that a woman serving in Iraq is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than shot by the enemy. THERE'S a sorry statistic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...pe-us-military

Actually, you should re-read the original source.

It does not say rape, it says "sexual assault and rape". These are not the same things. Both are wrong, but classifying them all as "rape" is simply sensationalizing the statistics for political or slander purposes.

And FYI, if I brush against a person by accident, that in the military can be reported as a "sexual assault". And this is also covering all reports of such assaults and rapes, if they happened or not.

And yea, there are false reports. I know of 2 of them myself during the last 5 years. One was a gal who was on her way out, and thought that reporting her First Sergeant of raping her might help get her out of trouble. To bad for her he was at a meeting at the time she claimed it happened. She was simply thrown out with no other actions taken.

The next was a gal who accused her married lover of raping her. She was a "GF of convience" before his wife moved out here to Texas from Germany. Once she found out he was dumping her and going back to his wife, she charged him with rape.

The rape was proved to have not happened, and she did eventually recant her story the week before he was supposed to have his trial. Charges of rape against him were dropped, but he was charged for adultry. His accuser was tried for making false statements and is currently awaiting her discharge.

Also there have been cases of women overseas claiming rape when they turn up pregnant downrange. Since having sex of any kind in the combat theatre is against regulations, women that become pregnant can be charged with violating lawfull orders. But claim that you were raped and did not report it (and do not know your attacker), then you can't be charged with anything. I know of that happening 2 times when I was on deployment.

I am not saying that rapes do not happen, but you are looking at reporting statistics when viewing this, and nothing even close to conviction statistics.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

That's an extremely disingenuous statistic.

Only 68 females were killed by hostile fire in the Iraq war. Only 25 of those were "shot" (small arms, indirect fire, RPGs). More than 225,000 women served in the conflict. That means 11 per 100,000 women that served in Iraq were actually shot.

Well, people that love to attack the military also love to twist or ignore statistics that they do not like.

To see this, look to the town directly South of where I live. Known by many as the deadliest town in the world, it's annual death rate makes Baghdad look like a safe haven.

Yet the libtards still could not shut up about how deadly the war was. Never mind that the death rate of a town in Mexico is many times that of a city in the middle of a war zone.

Weasel words and semantic terpsichory doesn't remove the rapists from service, or prevent injury to female troops from their own side. THAT'S friendly fire we could all do without, and they don't need defending in any way shape or form.

Originally Posted by Colonel K

Weasel words and semantic terpsichory doesn't remove the rapists from service, or prevent injury to female troops from their own side. THAT'S friendly fire we could all do without, and they don't need defending in any way shape or form.

Also notice, the statistics never say who is commiting the rapes.

Are you aware of how many civilians serve on our bases downrange?

You only want to attack and skewer people in uniform, so things like truth matter very little.

You have to be careful not to reduce the argument to just statistics...ideally there should be 0% sexual assaults within the ranks...and a female or male should not fear retribution if he or she reports it to higher ups if indeed a sexual assault has actually taken place. Arguing that there are fewer of these crimes taking place within the ranks as compared to the civilian side of things appears too dismissive. Honestly I have no idea how prevalent it is or isn't but minimally there should be zero tolerance for it. Arguing purely on the basis of numbers and statistics dehumanizes the actual trauma to the victim.
On the flipside, the motive for posting these sort of sensationalized stories is anti-Americanism and anti-military rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Colonel K

Weasel words and semantic terpsichory doesn't remove the rapists from service, or prevent injury to female troops from their own side. THAT'S friendly fire we could all do without, and they don't need defending in any way shape or form.

I state the facts and have no tolerance for people like who manipulate statistics and sensationalize. No one thinks that assault/rape is "good", but its not something thats out of control in the military. The military is one of the last bastions of the masculine world and is the target of femminists and other people with political agendas.

Originally Posted by Uncle Meat

Incorrect. I did not post facts out of context: you took them out of context.

The story is a comparison between soldiers now and then: not a comparison between soldiers and civilians.

" ... violent sex crimes increased by 90 per cent over the five-year period from 2006 to 2011 ... "

Thus, the headline "US soldiers committing more sex crimes": more than before, not more than civilians.

You, and the article, said that women were more likely to be sexually assaultd than shot in Iraq. You said this as though it were some kind of abomination. I broke down the statistics and showed you just how silly your numbers were because civilain women in the United States were also 14 times as likely to be sexually assaulted.

You also can't say that violent sex crimes increased by 90 percent, a more accurate statement would be that reporting of violent sex crimes increased by 90 percent during that period.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

You have to be careful not to reduce the argument to just statistics...ideally there should be 0% sexual assaults within the ranks...and a female or male should not fear retribution if he or she reports it to higher ups if indeed a sexual assault has actually taken place. Arguing that there are fewer of these crimes taking place within the ranks as compared to the civilian side of things appears too dismissive. Honestly I have no idea how prevalent it is or isn't but minimally there should be zero tolerance for it. Arguing purely on the basis of numbers and statistics dehumanizes the actual trauma to the victim.
On the flipside, the motive for posting these sort of sensationalized stories is anti-Americanism and anti-military rhetoric.

I never asserted that women were less likely to be sexually assaulted in the military. I don't have those statistics. You'd need an accurate comparison of civilain women aged 18-25 compared to military women. I used statistics to show just how silly and disingenuous Colonel K and the author of the article were.