"PENATRATOR" said Would this make headline news if they worked for GM?
Eh, that's an unfair criticism, since if it was a coach/teacher/police officer/etc they usually reveal his job. Catching any predator, no matter what their profession is, is a good thing.
"commanderkai" said Would this make headline news if they worked for GM?
Eh, that's an unfair criticism, since if it was a coach/teacher/police officer/etc they usually reveal his job. Catching any predator, no matter what their profession is, is a good thing.
...not a criticism, just a stupid f*cking question, these guys are perverts penatator...it only makes it worse that they were in the military....don't try to defend them because you wear the uniform too.
"Eisensapper" said Being a former soldier should not have any bearing. It would be different if they were priests, teachers or police.
Yeah, but they were using a government facility to hold their pornography, (I think the article stated they were on the base when this was all happening). Being in the military might also get you easier access to porn when let's say...they make a stop at Thailand, or another nation with lax porn control.
I'm not saying the military is full of perverts, but the fact is that their position can have put them in access of children, be it in Afghanistan or somewhere else. It's called the news media, they're trying to get ratings.
Just because they were on a base does not mean they used one of the military computers for acquiring child porn, also saying because you are in the military will give you better access is ludicrous. Unless the persons profession has the accused in close contact with children, it should not be mentioned. This is not to protect the individual, but to keep the profession from being tarnished. I have enough to deal with being called a baby killer let alone being thought of as a possible pedophile.
"lily" said Would this make headline news if they worked for GM?
Of course not. We never hear about anyone else getting convicted of such a trivial issue as child porn.
Give your head a shake. You should have been the first to condemn these guys, yet because they're fellow soldiers you're trying to what... make excuses? Defend them?
Pretty pathetic.OK Lily, let me rephrase, would the headline read
GM EMPLOYEE CHARGED FOR KIDDY PORN. Doubtful Defending them? Not in a million years, so those of you who suggest it, can go fuck yourselves Curios Lily, why should I be the first to condemn them? Why not you or someone else? Access to children in Afghanisan? lol, get some knowledge before making such retarded comments like that dude. ** Disclaimer for Lily, before you go cry to the mods (again) not all the responses here are directed to your comment
Pen I can see how he would be mistaken with the children in Afghanistan thing, almost daily I see pictures of some medic (or other female member) clutching a child like it is their own. That does give the impression that some military personel are deeply involved with the care of children in theater.
"PENATRATOR" said OK Lily, let me rephrase, would the headline read
GM EMPLOYEE CHARGED FOR KIDDY PORN. Doubtful
But you see "Teacher charged for Kiddy porn" or "Priest" or "Coach" or "Police Officer" all the time in these cases. Saying a GM employee can mean anyone from the CEO to the janitor. Usually they give a quick detail about being a janitor or factory worker or executive before going into details in the article.
Just because they were on a base does not mean they used one of the military computers for acquiring child porn, also saying because you are in the military will give you better access is ludicrous. Unless the persons profession has the accused in close contact with children, it should not be mentioned. This is not to protect the individual, but to keep the profession from being tarnished. I have enough to deal with being called a baby killer let alone being thought of as a possible pedophile.
I apologize if I'm giving the impression that I believe as such. I was playing a very very tired version of Devil's advocate. I honestly think it was just for extra shock factor, reading the article again with coffee in my system. And any douchebag who would call you a predator from this is probably not even worth listening to in the first place.
I agree with you commander, it really boils down to the SUN trying to get people to pay attention to them. I havent seen any of this mentioned in most of the other news sites, but I havent been looking all that hard though.
Would this make headline news if they worked for GM?
Eh, that's an unfair criticism, since if it was a coach/teacher/police officer/etc they usually reveal his job. Catching any predator, no matter what their profession is, is a good thing.
Would this make headline news if they worked for GM?
Eh, that's an unfair criticism, since if it was a coach/teacher/police officer/etc they usually reveal his job. Catching any predator, no matter what their profession is, is a good thing.
...not a criticism, just a stupid f*cking question, these guys are perverts penatator...it only makes it worse that they were in the military....don't try to defend them because you wear the uniform too.
Being a former soldier should not have any bearing. It would be different if they were priests, teachers or police.
Yeah, but they were using a government facility to hold their pornography, (I think the article stated they were on the base when this was all happening). Being in the military might also get you easier access to porn when let's say...they make a stop at Thailand, or another nation with lax porn control.
I'm not saying the military is full of perverts, but the fact is that their position can have put them in access of children, be it in Afghanistan or somewhere else. It's called the news media, they're trying to get ratings.
Would this make headline news if they worked for GM?
Of course not. We never hear about anyone else getting convicted of such a trivial issue as child porn.
Give your head a shake. You should have been the first to condemn these guys, yet because they're fellow soldiers you're trying to what... make excuses? Defend them?
Pretty pathetic.OK Lily, let me rephrase, would the headline read
GM EMPLOYEE CHARGED FOR KIDDY PORN. Doubtful
Defending them? Not in a million years, so those of you who suggest it, can go fuck yourselves
Curios Lily, why should I be the first to condemn them? Why not you or someone else?
Access to children in Afghanisan? lol, get some knowledge before making such retarded comments like that dude.
** Disclaimer for Lily, before you go cry to the mods (again) not all the responses here are directed to your comment
OK Lily, let me rephrase, would the headline read
GM EMPLOYEE CHARGED FOR KIDDY PORN. Doubtful
But you see "Teacher charged for Kiddy porn" or "Priest" or "Coach" or "Police Officer" all the time in these cases. Saying a GM employee can mean anyone from the CEO to the janitor. Usually they give a quick detail about being a janitor or factory worker or executive before going into details in the article.
I apologize if I'm giving the impression that I believe as such. I was playing a very very tired version of Devil's advocate. I honestly think it was just for extra shock factor, reading the article again with coffee in my system. And any douchebag who would call you a predator from this is probably not even worth listening to in the first place.