Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  Pins, Shoes Drop

Hillary Clinton Is Mute on Iraq’s Gays. Let’s Give Her Something to Talk About

hillaryclinton15

Despite some 600 documented murders of gay Iraqis since 2005, and the 63 slayings the organization Iraqi LGBT recorded since December alone, and the mass media finally giving a damn, the U.S. government’s response to Iraq’s unofficially sanctioned slaughtering of the GLBT community has been one of indifference. Though Sec. of State Hillary Clinton has said “persecution and discrimination against gays and lesbians is something we take very seriously,” she has yet to do much in the way of protecting our brothers and sisters abroad. But she has found plenty of time to reflect on other Middle East atrocities, like Iran’s jailing of U.S.-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi; Sec. Clinton says she’s “deeply disappointed” about that one.

Clinton’s response — or lack thereof — shouldn’t be surprising to anyone paying attention to the federal government’s commitment to fighting gay-hate in Iraq. John Fleming, who served a year in Iraq under President George W. Bush and is now public affairs officer for the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, recently told the press that being gay “is immaterial to Iraqis” and “frankly, there are other issues they are concerned about like basic survival, getting food and water. It’s a luxury for the average Iraqi to worry about homosexuality.”

iraqteenbra

Huh. We know some folks who would STRONGLY DISAGREE. Like this pre-teen boy ordered to strip at a police station by men taunting him with a stick, his bra and women’s panties visible on the cell phone video camera clip that’s being passed around the web. “Why are you dressed as a girl?” demands one of the men, while the boy replies that his family made him to it to earn money.

Then there’s the people listed by name on posters around eastern Baghdad, branded as gay next to threats to murder them.

And the transexuals who are molested at street checkpoints.

Oh, and all the gays who have been murdered thus far, but they don’t have much of a voice these days.

Sounds to us like being gay is quite “material” to Iraqis, and “basic survival” isn’t so much of a concern when homophobia, and the murder of GLBTs, is encouraged and celebrated. Especially when the Iraqi police insist this isn’t a real problem. Surely clearing up your campaign debt, Sec. Clinton, doesn’t suck up all your time.

By:           editor editor
On:           Apr 19, 2009
Tagged: , , , ,

  • 67 Comments
    • PatrickD
      PatrickD

      And folks are surprised? My family was stationed in a “modern” Muslim state when I was a kid(Turkey). They weren’t the most “Inclusive” of folks then and I doubt it’s changed much except perhaps for the worse….

      Apr 19, 2009 at 2:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bigjake75
      bigjake75

      If you trust anything a clinton is involved with you are seriously delusional. We are so screwed. The total lack of moral authority in our government is staggering. Doesn’t seem to matter who we elect.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 2:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Casey
      Casey

      We all would love for our government to make human rights a priority in Iraq, especially when you hear of these horrific stories. I don’t even presume to understand why it is not but the fact that it isn’t can not be blamed on one individual. Although I’ve come to realize that the world can not be happy unless it beats down Hillary it is unfair to drag her down for this when Obama has stated that he sets policy.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      The current administration has been silent regarding our issues even after the victories in Iowa and Vermont! Maybe Hillary’s boss is not interested in the subject.

      Hillary spoke up publicly for homosexuality to not be a crime abroad, did her boss???

      Maybe the finger pointing at Hillary should point somewhere else.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 4:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tbd
      tbd

      I think the attack on Hillary is strange, considering that Obama also does the bare minimum when it comes to gays. Obama is the decider, as this blog so desperately wanted, and he is the one that sets the policy. I guess Hillary just makes a more attractive scapegoat or something.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 4:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tamer
      Tamer

      @PatrickD: Hi Patrick. First of all, Turkey is not a muslim state. Article 2 of Turkish constitution was amended in 1927. Since then it states ‘Turkey is a secular state’

      Secondly, homosexuality has never been illegal in Turkey even in times of Ottomans. However, surprisingly it was the christianity that introduced hatred against homosexuality to Ottomans during the 19th century. It was the period when ‘westernisation’ started in the Ottoman Empire.

      I wouldn’t say that Turkey is the most comfortable country for gays, however, it is not any less confortable than in many cities and rural areas of the United States.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brig
      Brig

      Last time I checked, Obama was president of the USA ans Clinton was SOS. Why is the criticisms directed at Clinton and not the president who decides the policy. For some people the Clinton derangement syndrome (CDS)is so acute that they will blame any thing on Clinton, how pathetic is that? You wanted Change and you got what you deserve. So stop whining about the Clintons and look for answers else where.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 4:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Brig: Obama is regularly criticized here. It’s interesting however when Clinton is criticized the wagons circle to protect her. Obama is reponsible for his fuck up. So is Clinton. Neither should be sacred territory unless one is a partisan trying to defend both. Gays like yourself who are willing to whine about protecting clinton in the face of other gays being murdered in Iraq says a lot about what’s your priority. It certainly aint other gays.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 4:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @Brig:

      Because like it isn’t his score smart ass…nor is it HILZ! But lets hope someone with her exp………….erience that she promised would be able to SWAY things.

      Nothing about that ambitious bitch is pro gay…

      Apr 19, 2009 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @InExile:

      Yep.

      Poor little Hilary.

      Rich eastern girl whose papa was into politics and from the age of 18 has made it her life…

      Lets HELP her!!?

      :/

      Apr 19, 2009 at 4:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brig
      Brig

      @GNumber, Who put off repealing “don’t ask dont tell” this year, was it Clinton? In his first term Clinton spent a lot of capital trying to get gays to serve openly in the military and was savaged by republicans and democrats to the point where he has to compromise and we ended up with “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Back then he took a lot of heat from the community even though his hands were tied, at least he tried to change the system for the better. What has Obama done so far besides pushing the issue for a later date, where is the indignation of the community?

      Apr 19, 2009 at 4:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fixator
      fixator

      This is truly a disgusting situation. I can clearly recall that this same issue was raised about a year ago by CNN and yet nothing has happened to relieve the plight of the persecuted.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 5:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mbb
      mbb

      This is a very strident posting. Surely foreign affairs is a much more complicated ballgame than you lay out. You seem not to discuss even what American-Iraqi relations are like now that Iraq has sovereignty. And you don’t allow for the idea that the State Dept. could be pressing levers of control behind the scenes that would be compromised by bringing public attention. You also compare the Iraq situation to Iran without admitting that it really is a whole different ballgame. You shockingly quote a Bush official (who now sounds basically like a bureaucratic functionary) for the official State Dept. policy in the issue. Lastly, you don’t consider that if America has limited leverage over Iraqi affairs, maybe Clinton has unfortunately had to decide it should be used on other issues, possibly to save other lives.

      As for the comments, the ad hominem attacks on Clinton aren’t illuminating anything and make me wonder why Queerty has chosen to enter the world of foreign affairs commentary.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John in CA
      John in CA

      Queerty, and the gay press in general, have a “narrative” they’re keen on pushing. Namely, that gays are perpetually victims of an oppressive society and indifferent government.

      They have a right to push that point of view. But I’m quite satisfied with this administration’s foreign policy thus far. And with regards to gay rights in particular, the Clinton led State Department has already done more than any of the previous diplomatic corps.

      Since Obama became president, the United States has voted to condemn the extra-judicial killings of gays in Iraq and elsewhere at the UN for the first time. That resolution was, in fact, adopted by the General Assembly and is now part of the official record. The administration has also signed onto the French declaration on gay rights that Bush rejected last year. This didn’t pass, but it was a significant symbolic gesture. Moreover, the U.S. has sent signals that it is unwilling to support the Arab League’s proposal to enshrine “defamation of religion” as a “crime against humanity” partially because it could be used to silence criticism of Islam and Christianity with regards to their treatment of women and gays.

      But the bottom line is we’re not going to forego our national security because a few Arabs get killed by, well, other Arabs. We need a stable Iraq (so we can leave). We don’t necessarily need a pro-gay Iraq. That’s way beyond the mandate Preisdent Obama has laid out. And Hillary’s under no legal obligation to pursue it. Besides, trying to “enforce” gay rights in an Islamist country like Iraq will probably result in more dead American soldiers (with very little to show for it).

      Apr 19, 2009 at 5:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Brig: You seem like a fuck in the head. I blame them both for their actions. Not one or other. The reason I can blame them both is I care about gay rights, you don’t. You care about Clinton. Can you please take your childish hero worship some place else. I realized a long time ago they are all politicians. they aren’t going to do anything more than what what push them to do. REgardless of if its clinton obama or whoever else someone chooses to put up on a pedestal. folks like you are the reason it takes so long to change thing. YOu care more about Hillary Clinton than you do the murdered gays. fucked up priorities. I would say the same to someone who goes on about the virtues of Obama. Obama like clinton is a politician. I will keep repeating that until it finally sinks in for some of you.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 5:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      @John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): Go to whitehouse.gov and click on civil rights, there you will read a plan for gay people, Hillary’s plan that Obama adopted. Maybe you should be thanking her instead of attacking her!

      Apr 19, 2009 at 5:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @John in CA: Well, it’s nice to know that murdered gays leaves you satisfied. Good to know who you are deep down.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 5:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): One of the reasons gay rights are so slow to change are these pampered queens for whom none of this is real. I want to right now toss half of the posters here in Iraq as gay men, and see how quickly their story would change.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 6:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jason Moreland
      Jason Moreland

      Queerty your an idiot. If you had bothered to check the State Department’s website you would have seen that this was discussed during the last two weekly Iraq status reports.
      http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122032.pdf As usual your sexist nature asserts itself when it comes to Hillary Clinton as it has for the last two years. Your one sexist fag and this website is now out of my bookmarks.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 6:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brig
      Brig

      @GNumber, Personal attacks and name calling when you don’t have a sound argument is just a way to kill the conversation. I am not going to take your abuse.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 6:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John in CA
      John in CA

      @The Gay Numbers: At any rate, It is gratifying to know that the Obama administration isn’t full of naive people like yourself. Your moral masturbation would likely get a whole lot of Americans sent home in coffins.

      If you want to become a freedom fighter for gay Iraqis, I believe there are any number of commercial flights to Turkey. You can enter Northern Iraq by land from there. But we’re not sacrificing our sons and daughters because you feel like saber rattling on the edge of the Arabian Peninsula.

      Most Americans want to end a war. Not start a new one.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 7:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @John in CA: I hope calling me naive makes you feel better about the fact you don’t give a shit about gay people dying. Your sophistication puts you up there with most of the people watch these sorts of events happen int he past. The next time I see you on here whining as you usually doa bout your own personal rights. I will remind you about your overly strong focus onr eality. Nice try to deflect- but we both know you are saying this because you aren’t the one being killed. That’s why no one ultimately believes gay men like you are deserving of anything. If I ahd my way, you would be consigned to what you would consign others. Unfortunately rights in our country do ot work that way. Lucky you.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 7:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Brig: I don’t give a shit what you think about someone personally atacking you while you are whining about Clinton being mistreateted why gay men are being murdered. There is really little you can say after you wrote that crap here that’s going to make me think you are capable of human emotions much less someone I need to consider the feelings of.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 7:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Jason Moreland: This issue has come alot by gay groups as well as human rights activist in the last few months. No there has not been any effort by anyone to address it.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 7:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lee
      Lee

      Yep, it’s all Hillary’s fault. And she’s threatening Obama’s “little dog, too” if he starts even using the G-word again which, note, he hasn’t since before being sworn in.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 8:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BobP
      BobP

      @John in CA:
      STFU, please. If gay folk don’t make a stink about the murder of almost 700 (not a few) then who will? Certainly not you. You should be thanking people who are angry. You should be ashamed of yourself, and perhaps find a more republican website to air your offensive views.

      Apr 19, 2009 at 10:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John in CA
      John in CA

      @BobP: You interventionists are arguing for a wholesale expansion of American military power in Iraq. Make no mistake about it. You’re advocating a position that would make the Bush surge look like a picnic in Savannah. That’s the bottom line of all this “stink.”

      Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Do you honestly think the Iraqi government doesn’t know about these killings? Do you honestly think they didn’t have a direct hand in it?

      These are not nice people we’re dealing with here. You wanted to make peace with them. That’s exactly what Obama and Hillary are doing. You can’t have it both ways. Either you’re willing to pay the price for peace. Or you’re simply a hypocrite who advocates military force whenever it suits you. And how many people will have to die before you get your Baghdad Gay Pride Parade? Ten thousand perhaps? A hundred thousand?

      Iraq is a deeply Islamic country will a growing fundamentalist presence. With the exception of Turkey, most of the states it borders criminalize homosexuality. Two of those states, Saudi Arabia and Iran, punishes homosexual acts with death by beheading or hanging. If you think you’re going to save the Arabs from their own religion, you’re just as ethnocentric and ridiculous as George W. Bush was. Any change in these attitudes will have to come from within the Islamic community itself. No western power can force them to change. And it is utter foolishness to suggest otherwise.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 12:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steven
      Steven

      I’d really like to know what people would like the administration to do on this subject. I’m not sure, myself.

      Power was handed back to Iraqi administration, so they can ignore anything the USA chooses to say if they so wish. I’m not sure that just *words* will do anything of any practical use.

      What other options do we have? Bribery? Re-invade (god forbid!)? Fast-track asylum for LGBT Iraqis?

      Apr 20, 2009 at 12:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Wholesale expansion of the military in iraq? Heavens no! More than rebuilding infrastructure? Funding everything from clean drinking water to housing reconstruction and construction? What can we do other than tell them to do whatever we want them to do?

      Apr 20, 2009 at 12:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John in CA
      John in CA

      @The Gay Numbers:

      “your overly strong focus on reality”

      As opposed to having Tinkerbelle call for Peter Pan and the lost boys? Or maybe Superman perhaps? I look forward to hearing more of your fantasy solutions to America’s diplomatic impasses. I’ll take the grudging, tacit acknowledgment that I’m behaving rationally as a compliment.

      I believe we should continue to denounce these murders at the proper forums for such declarations (namely, the United Nations). I believe we should grant asylum to any gay person in Iraq who wants to leave. That’s within our power to do. And it will not endanger any American lives. Beyond that, I don’t think there’s much we can do without some sort of massive – and potentially deadly – intervention. I continue to see that “nuclear option” as ill advised.

      Of course, this angry reaction to unpleasant realities isn’t anything new.

      A few years ago, I suggested that I would be happy to see a “gender identity” inclusive ENDA if someone could show me where they’re going to get 218 votes. I was greeted with the usual flurry of “you’re a horrible person” and “fuck you.” Nobody did bother to post a list of those 218 imaginary supporters of transgendered rights in the 110th Congress though. Abandoning the compromise ENDA in 2007 was not the right decision. Something is better than nothing. And if our precious morality sinks ENDA again this year, then we can only blame ourselves for not understanding that those who demand perfection from inherently flawed political processes always lose.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 1:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gay Numbers
      Gay Numbers

      @John in CA: As oppose to me being sarcastic, and you being too stupid to realize it or more likely too manipulative so you try to go for literal use of the words. We are done.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 2:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gay Numbers
      Gay Numbers

      @Steven: There is a huge amount of public pressure that could be done by both the U.S. and the Europeans on these sorts of issues.

      There is also the issue that right we (U.S. and Europe) still do not fully provide asylum like we should.

      We could not be supporting people domestically like Rich Warren who gives moral support to those who engage in such human rights abuses abroad in places like Africa.

      We could push for a UN resolution with teeth.

      There are many things that could be done diplomatically, but wil not be done. The lie is how John of CA approaches. He sets up this fake strawman about military intervention and proceeds to argue against his fake argument.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 2:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gay Numbers
      Gay Numbers

      @Steven: By the way, I forgot to mention the financial incentives. So yes, bribing them is fine with me so long as it means they aren’t killing people.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 2:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steven
      Steven

      @Gay Numbers: I think that the asylum option is the most pragmatic. Bribing only goes so far; we bribed Turkey over gay rights, just so Turkey could get into the EU with us. It worked to a degree; technically, Turkey now ‘allows’ homosexuality, but its widely suspected they turn a blind eye to abuse of the rights granted to LGBT communities. Turkey was a start, but if they only pay lip-sync to the notion of gay rights, then it does not take us far enough.

      Really, what gay rights needs in these places is a grass-roots change in opinion of the general population, which is not something that you can enforce from just the top down.

      On the other hand, I say asylum is pragmatic (which it is, as we could use a fast track system over much more than Iraq. We should have enough combined political clout to force even places like Iran to offer those caught the chance to leave) but it wouldn’t really fix the problem. Who would be left in Iraq etc to fight the ignorance? It may save lives, but it would never combat the root problem.

      I wish I had answer, but I don’t. I echo the calls for action, but I am not sure what action I’d like to see take place.

      One thing we *can* do is fight as hard as we can for rights in our own countries: they should eventually see that it makes our societies more successful and dynamic than theirs, but this is the sloooow solution, and will not help the LGBT people of Iraq right now. Only thing I’m sure of: whatever resolution we try at the UN, China will surely stick a spoke in the wheels one way or another…

      Apr 20, 2009 at 4:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Steven: I don’t think we can fix the problems domestically in many of these places. The first solution is to get people out of harms way of being murdered. I am realistic about the solutions. I am just bothered that even the more pragmatic solutions are ignored, and I have to read here gay men who should know better justifying the lack of effort to prevent this.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 4:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John in CA
      John in CA

      @Gay Numbers: “We are done”

      Since you mentioned my name only a few minutes later, I suppose I should respond.

      I was the one who noted that the Obama administration was allowing applications for asylum from gay Iraqis and has used the United Nations as a forum to nag. They have done it. They might not have done it in exactly the manner you would’ve liked. Maybe they did the press release during the Friday news dump. Maybe they were constrained by various Acts of Congress. Maybe Hillary Clinton or Susan Rice should have said “this” instead of “that.” But since none of these actions actually solves the underlying problem, the notion that the Obama team can “do more” to stop the extra-judicial killings is problematic.

      None of these strategies are cures. They’re triage treatments at best. They are very narrow in scope. The administration can indeed do more of the same. But the disease – the root cause – is religious fervor and extremism in the Middle East. And the president has neither the unlimited amounts of money nor soldiers to deal with that in any real sense. Which is why he has to pick his fights carefully. He’s doing the best he can under very difficult circumstances. Media reports suggest his Secretary of State is doing the best she can under very difficult circumstances as well.

      The constant vitriol from gays is just really perplexing. It has been non-stop “gay rage” since day one with these two. I don’t know what they’ve done to deserve it (other than refuse to commit political suicide by going full hog for same-sex marriage).

      In terms of rewarding fundamentalist death squads, militias, and tribal chieftains with money and luxury goods, I believe the Democrats widely derided Bush when he first proposed it. They were right to do so. Not only is it merely triage, it is fairly costly triage. I think Afghanistan has proven that bribery can’t be a long-term solution.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 5:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      The much touted internal change of younger iranians and muslims in saudi arabia is a joke. It’s the product of grossly uninformed western naivete. There will be no “internal change” for these countries. The only way that they will change is at the barrel of a gun, and that day is coming as they’re trying to outpopulate Israelis in their own country. When they attempt to the coup, we’ll see how many millions die (and it will be in the millions).

      The root problem is toxic religious faith (in this case, Islam), but it’s overrun several countries, and it’s not going to change (did you hear ahmadinejad’s speech to the u.n. racism summit?) There’s nothing one can do except exterminate with extreme prejudice when it gets to be a problem outside of that country (and it will be). I mean, we’re up in arms about gays in iraq (as we should be), but the treatment of women is also a big problem for these primitives, and has been since…

      Once again, the solution is to exterminate with extreme prejudice, not win minds or change hearts because that is not going to be possible. As to this, fast track asylums and impose stipulations as the price of receiving aid.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      There’s nothing one can do except exterminate with extreme prejudice when it gets to be a problem outside of that country

      That’s nice. Just what exactly do you mean and how do you propose to exterminate them? If you’re not going to invade their countries whose countries will you be conducting this little operation in?

      I also wonder where you plan to get the resources and funds. Mass murder is a very big job, and usually it doesn’t work. And last time I checked you guys were a little bit short of cash down there.

      Also, I seem to remember you ALREADY invaded Iraq, except that plan backfired and allowed the religious extremists to gain power where they had none before.

      For your information those primitives (as you call them) in Iran elected a government in the 1950s that started to take control of their own economy. The U.S. overthrew them and installed the Shah’s dictatorship, which ultimately led to control by the Mullahs.

      Afghanistan was not as stable, but it did have a fledgeling democracy shortly before the Soviets invaded.

      So yes, there are a lot of backwards tribal customs there (we have our fair share of them here too). The fact is that developed countries like to keep them that way. It only becomes a problem when a bit of that rough justice gets turned in our direction.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 1:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Another strawman. I have no interest in correcting your misapprehension of the clear wording of the quoted passage, but the last clause should clue you in.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 1:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And I’m aware of Iran’s history. That changes nothing, and excuses NOTHING.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 1:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      Strawman?

      Actually invasion and political interference (overt and covert) has been the rule rather than the exception in that part of the world.

      And I think I understood the passage. I’d just like to know by what means, with what resources, and on whose territory you think it should be done?

      Frankly I think the west is busy already trying to protest the relationships is sort of still has (nuclear Pakistan) that opening another front.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 1:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      No, you didn’t understand what was written. Read it again, and respond to what was written.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 1:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      I see. So you just conveniently choose to ignore the fact we were the “primitive” ones back in 1950 (just as you choose to ignore most facts which undercut your arguments.

      @TANK:
      …and then try to hide behind obtuse pseudologic.

      Fine.

      “The only way that they will change is at the barrel of a gun”

      “There’s nothing one can do except exterminate with extreme prejudice when it gets to be a problem outside of that country”

      Did you intend these statements to be metaphors for granting asylum and applying pressure through foreign aid conditions? If not, what do you mean by them?

      Apr 20, 2009 at 2:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      So you just conveniently choose to ignore the fact we were the “primitive” ones back in 1950 (just as you choose to ignore most facts which undercut your arguments.

      So by your reasoning, american imperialism in Iran excuses the execution of gay there now. Once again, you didn’t understand what I wrote. I have difficulty believing that English was your first language.

      And I think what I meant by those statements is obvious.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 2:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • STRUMPETWINDSOCK
      STRUMPETWINDSOCK

      @TANK

      I have had it with your inane bickering. Every day, on nearly every topic you just go on and on. No one really cares what you think.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 2:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @STRUMPETWINDSOCK:

      Really, douchenozzle? And what makes you think I post for impaired lames like you?

      Apr 20, 2009 at 2:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      Not at all. I mentioned western interference as an argument against the assumption that they are somehow more “primitive” than us.

      I don’t know where your ancestors came from, but the Persians were developing algebra, astronomy, chemistry, medicine and dentistry around 700 AD. My European ancestors were doing nothing so advanced at that time. They didn’t even know how to build chimneys yet.

      And yes, I thought your statement was obvious too, yet you tell me I am mistaken and will not explain how, nor will you expand on your words.

      Guess we’re at a stalemate.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      Hold it. Somebody registered an all-caps version of my name and is using it to pretend they are me. Look at the size of the font, and you will see it is not me.

      I wonder who could have done that.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 3:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      So it’s to be assumed that you don’t think a country that brutally subjugates women due to the tenets of sharia law and condones and demands that men beat their wives, and that women are forced to cover themselves completely (the real hilariously unethical mockery of basic reasoning skills is when a bigoted cultural relativist argues that this isn’t a product of sexism), and tortures and executes homosexuals isn’t more primitive in which such demands are illegal?

      Apr 20, 2009 at 3:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      LOL! It’s not more primitive? I think they’re pretty primitive people, and those who subscribe to such things are…primitive. And yes, you can be an engineer and a troglodyte at the same time.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 3:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      I guess you’re not going to clarify what you meant by “exterminate” and forcing at the barrel of a gun, are you?

      But tell me, do you regularly steal people’s handles when you’re losing an argument and need a quick diversion, or am I just getting special treatment?

      Apr 20, 2009 at 3:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      As I said, it’s self evident what is meant by that. Islamic theocracies aren’t going to change for the better until they’re forced to, and if they dare attempt to expand their toxic society and repulsive ethic outside of the borders of their own countries, they should be exterminated with extreme prejudice.

      And how dare you suggest that I stole your handle. I did no such thing. If someone did, that someone’s a limp dicked tranny whore.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 3:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TANK:

      For clarification on what is meant by LDTW, a photo at the top of the page is provided.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 3:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      Okay, that’s what I thought.

      I simply replied by saying the U.S. and Britain actually helped the spread of fundamentalism when they invaded Iraq. I don’t think you’ll be helping matters if you destabilize another country, and I don’t think you have the resources.

      Wow. You don’t like transsexuals or sex trade workers, do you?

      I’d say it was the work a kindergarten child, actually. But really, you did it.

      You registered an all-caps version of my handle to impersonate me. If I am wrong feel free to report me to admin.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 3:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      I guess you don’t have much respect for the Iraqi gays you say you are concerned about. Otherwise why would you make fun of them like that?

      Apr 20, 2009 at 3:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      No, I didn’t. This can be proven.

      I don’t like sex trade workers, you’re right. Transsexuals are fine by me. It wasn’t a judgment call, really. But this is.

      You don’t think, period. The spread of fundamentalism was helped more by Iran than the u.s. and britain.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And I never supported the iraqi invasion. And I like mint chocolate chip ice cream…and bourbon…in that order.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      I wasn’t making fun of the twelve year old who’s likely dead now. It may have been tasteless, but it’s not that tasteless. As I recall, there’s a picture directly above that one that I was referring.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 3:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      So on the matter of you impersonating me, you are a liar, a thief and a coward.

      And it’s odd you didn’t support the invasion then, yet you are calling for military action (extermination, actually) to prevent further spread of fundamentalism.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      ROTFL See here, you goddamn moonbat, I didn’t impersonate you. I didn’t have a bag full of modeling glue and the bad hair piece to do it with, anyway, so obviously I couldn’t have.

      And the two are mutually exclusive.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      mutually exclusive?

      Now I know why you have to register fake names and impersonate others and then deny it like a coward.
      You don’t seem to be able to hold your own in a logical discussion with real people.

      Am I out of line? Go ahead, report me.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 4:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      What’s a logical discussion? How about any discussion one can have, flopdoodle? That sounds about right. As for me holding my own, I don’t think you’ve addressed anything I’ve written to do any damage. Look, sandwich breath, I don’t think your repeated accusation means too much, but it may just become self fulfilling.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 4:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      Doesn’t matter actually;
      I reported it myself when you first posted using my name.

      Just in case you forget I’ll probably remind you again in the future when there are a number of other posters around.

      I’m sure anyone reading this thread would have a pretty good idea of what is actually going on.

      You’ll have to do a bit better than just steal my name to make anyone actually think it is me talking.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • California John
      California John

      I think it’s President Obama’s job to deal with the gay rights agenda.

      Leave Hillary Clinton the fuck alone. She’s put up with enough trash from Hillary Haters, and the buck stops with the president. She’s not in charge.

      Apr 20, 2009 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AJ
      AJ

      ^ Apparently you’re unaware of what the SoS does.

      Apr 21, 2009 at 2:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • What
      What

      @California John: She’s the fucking United States Secretary of State dumb ass!

      Apr 21, 2009 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Attmay
      Attmay

      @TANK: That’s the smartest thing you’ve said since you joined this blog.

      I believe Islam, Christianity and heterosexuality are responsible for almost all of the homophobia in the world. They need to be held accountable, and by force of law or military if necessary. No punishment is too extreme for these scum.

      Apr 22, 2009 at 11:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.