Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
Terrorism

Iraq’s New Hospital Patients: Gay Men

hospitalbed

While the United States remains all but silent and our national gay rights organizations finally start paying attention, queers in Iraq continue to be persecuted. And it’s not just the slayings any more. We told you about the “glue” that’s being used to literally seal the anuses of suspected gay men. That type of torture might explain why Iraqi hospitals are seeing a whole new class of patients: young gay men.

Because they are “behaving like women,” queer Iraqi men are actively being persecuted. And if the Iraqi government isn’t behind the attacks, they’re certainly complacent; no investigations, police involvement, let alone prosecution against suspects is taking place. Meanwhile, there are reports of police engaging in the torment: An eye-witness reported “a police patrol in Shaab district, north east of Baghdad, stopped two young men ‘behaving like women’ in mid March and forced them to take-off their clothes in front of other passers-by and made fun of them and their naked bodies.”

But what we’re missing here is not all of these men may be gay. While it makes no difference to the attackers, it’s likely many of them are transgender, preferring long hair, women’s clothes and accessories, and make-up. Either way, they all end up on the lists of names being distributed to murderers.

The website Niqash says doctors are facing new patients hurt during anti-gay attacks. As one sense of safety (from insurgent attacks) returns, the ability for Iraq’s GLBTs to live their lives more openly means they’re arguably in more danger than before.

We haven’t heard anyone say it yet, but we’re going to: THIS IS TERRORISM. Anti-gay Iraqis are inflicting terror on their own citizens, challenging them to live their lives openly with the threat of death if they do. You don’t need to hijack planes or plant IEDs to terrorize. What we’re seeing is a systematic “cleansing” of Iraq’s queer community. And while the U.S. government at least pays lip service to the terrorism in Darfur, Baghdad gets nothing.

By:           editor editor
On:           Apr 24, 2009
Tagged: , , , , ,
  • 37 Comments
    • Al
      Al

      Calling this “terrorism” doesn’t help! Yes, it’s awful that this is happening and something should be done about it, but do we REALLY want to describe anything that happens in the Arab world as terrorism? Why don’t we call homophobia in the US terrorism too? Our own Islamophobia justified the Iraq War and fuels the religious extremism that is behind these attacks. I think it’s very, very unwise for us, the gay community, to align ourselves with this type of Bush rhetoric.

      Apr 24, 2009 at 4:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JJ
      JJ

      @Al Agreed

      Apr 24, 2009 at 5:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JJ
      JJ

      @Al: Agreed

      Apr 24, 2009 at 5:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kary
      Kary

      Let’s call it what it is: Religious hatred, bigotry, ignorance and evil. Let’s notice that all homophobia starts with religion. Let’s notice that the churches and the mosques and the synagogues are our enemies. Let’s notice that the drag queen in Rome, the Imams, and the preachers with bad hair and ugly ties are evil. It all starts with religion. Welcome to Bush’s democracy in Iraq. A very special place.

      Apr 24, 2009 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • andy_d
      andy_d

      In light of statements from the Obama administration on this issue – or, rather the LACK THEREOF – maybe Obama needs to add the SECOND part to his campain slogan.

      YES WE CAN; BUT NO WE WON’T!

      Apr 24, 2009 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tavdy79
      tavdy79

      This isn’t terrorism. This is the attempted eradication of an entire social group. This is GENOCIDE.

      Apr 24, 2009 at 6:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MD
      MD

      That’s not the definition of genocide.

      Apr 24, 2009 at 7:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      This is fucking TERRORISM. State sponsored TERRORISM! I don’t give a fuck it doesn’t help. It’s not describing anything that happens in the arab world as terrorism; it’s describing this as FUCKING TERRORISM.

      Apr 24, 2009 at 7:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      @TANK: Vehemently seconded.

      Apr 24, 2009 at 10:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gggg
      Gggg

      I come from a much more civilized country, yet I know where this f-ing type of thinking comes from.

      To try to bring democracy by either bombs or Amnesty International is a utopia. Terrorism and barbarianism are not in the books, they are *inside* these people, they *are* these people… Remember, it’s islam. I know a bunch of moderate muslims but even they are intolerant when it comes to homosexuality (or simply not accepting). Iraq has islam + medieval mentality. Don’t even hope to change it. We all have to understand it.

      Right now, I can only think of 2 solutions:
      1. Give all gay Iraqis American (or any European) citizenship (and a Refugee camp place in California=) ). I’m pretty sure that there won’t be many (if any) fake gays — bigots will never do it, and if any heterosexuals will, then they can easily be considered tolerant enough to immigrate.
      2. Bomb Iraq to pieces. Those monuments should look so fascinating when there are no filthy idiots running around.

      OMG. I can’t help loving the second solution so much better.

      Apr 24, 2009 at 11:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jork
      Jork

      @Gggg:

      Bomb Iraq to pieces. The gays should’ve voted Republican!

      Apr 24, 2009 at 11:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      It is shameful that the US government is silent on the murders of gays in Iraq. It is also shameful that our new President is silent on gay issues right here in the USA! We are the forgotten once again.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 7:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      @All. Yes, let’s call this what it is: religious nutcases persecuting gays because their RELIGION tells them to do it.

      Without exception all anti-gay sentiments have their foundation, roots and beginnings in the nonsensical rantings of religion.

      Remove religion from the equation and voila, you have a just society.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 2:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      When we read about atrocities like these, it may be tempting to stereotype and overgeneralize, but I don’t think we can win our fight against intolerance and discrimination by being intolerant and discriminatory ourselves. While some religious people and denominations oppose LGBT rights, others support those rights.

      The UCC has released several ads welcoming LGBT people and supporting LGBT rights. A Metropolitan Community Church became the impetus for marriage equality in Canada. Many Unitarian and other ministers are refusing to perform marriage ceremonies until everyone can marry. A couple of days ago, ministers in several denominations argued passionately for marriage equality to the Maine legislature. How are they our enemies?

      All three of the major divisions of American Judaism support equal rights for LGBT people, and if I recall correctly, this includes marriage equality. Most Buddhists in the west accept homosexuality, as do many Hindus and Sufi Muslims. Wiccans overwhelmingly support LGBT equality. How are all these people our enemies?

      A recent Pew Research Center Poll showed that 58% of evangelicals between the ages of 18 and 29 support either civil unions or same-sex marriage. Support for LGBT rights is growing. I think we can best achieve equality by welcoming our supporters, even those who subscribe to a religion – not by calling them names, saying they’re crazy and evil, or inaccurately characterizing them as opponents.

      In a recent poll, 86% of Americans identified with a religion. Now, let’s assume that 60% of Americans support, say, ENDA. That’s probably very low. Let’s further assume that everyone who opposes ENDA subscribes to a religion. That’s a pretty big assumption too. Then 100 – 86 = 14% of Americans support ENDA and don’t subscribe to a religion. And 100 – 60 = 40, so 86 – 40 = 46% of Americans subscribe and support marriage equality.

      In other words, our religious supporters outnumber our nonreligious supporters by well over 3 to 1. And that ratio increases if support for ENDA is greater than 60% or some people who oppose ENDA are not religious, both of which are very likely to be true.

      Again, let’s welcome our supporters. If we lash out at them, we’ll only push them away – and we’ll demonstrate the same intolerance that we say we oppose.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 4:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      Sorry, that sentence should have read, “And 100 – 60 = 40, so 86 – 40 = 46% of Americans subscribe and support ENDA” – the last sentence in the fifth paragraph.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 4:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Dan: Please, Dan, let us also have open eyes:

      All three of the major divisions of American Judaism support equal rights for LGBT people, and if I recall correctly, this includes marriage equality. Most Buddhists in the west accept homosexuality, as do many Hindus and Sufi Muslims. Wiccans overwhelmingly support LGBT equality. How are all these people our enemies?

      Which three branches do you have in mind? Reconstruction, Reform and Conservative? Because I assure you, the Orthodox are not among them.

      Are Buddhists, Hindus and Sufi Muslims representative when they’re in the West? Hardly. A sober look at the countries where they enjoy majority status is pretty revealing. India: gay sex is criminal; The Muslim world: Don’t make me laugh; Buddhism: Been to Southeast Asia? It isn’t picture perfect, unless prostitution is your game. As for Wiccans, well, that’s 1% of the US population behind us.

      Religion doesn’t need to be the enemy, but it often is. And we can’t just wish it away. For every believer that testifies in front of a legislative committee, there are at least ten who will vote against us when our rights are put to a vote. Never forget that.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 5:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      @Alec: I’m not suggesting that Muslims in the Middle East and Hindus in India support our rights. As you can see from my post, I’m talking mainly about religious people in the west.

      My whole reason for posting is to advance LGBT rights. I think that, if we stereotype and unfairly characterize religious people, we end up hurting our cause by displaying the intolerance that we say we oppose.

      I’m a little puzzled that you posted a small excerpt from my post that discusses non-Christian religions, when I posted mainly about people who identify as Christians. Since I don’t know your motivation for this, I won’t comment further on it.

      “For every believer that testifies in front of a legislative committee, there are at least ten who will vote against us when our rights are put to a vote. Never forget that.” If you’re suggesting that most people who subscribe to a religion – by a ratio of 10 to 1 – oppose our rights, I’m sorry, but that flies in the face of every study of the subject I’ve read for the past five years or so. The figure isn’t that high for any denomination, even the most anti-LGBT. Again, I’m referring mainly to studies conducted in the west.

      On your saying that religion is often the enemy, that really isn’t in disagreement with my post (though I see religious opposition as symptomatic rather than causal). I’m not saying that religious people are never opposed to our rights. I’m suggesting that we’re not helping ourselves by calling people names, saying that they’re crazy or evil, or arguing as if practically everyone who identifies with a religion opposed our rights when study after study shows otherwise.

      I’m saying, let’s do what it takes to get our rights – and I think part of that is showing others the respect that we want them to show us.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 6:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Dan, you’re an apologist. YOu have nothing to contribute, and are in the way. Believe whatever soft headed relativistic rubbish you must, and voice it whenever you want, but it has NOTHING to contribute to this discussion. People like you make their bailywick excusing and attenuating the responsibility of those who are guilty of human rights violations under the banner of multiculturalism, and religious tolerance and senstivity, while stating the opposite whe accused of doing exactly what you’re doing. Once again, you have nothing to offer to this discussion. No sound reasoning, nor accurate argument that captures the outrage all experiencing it and giving voice to it are more than justified in expressing and feeling, and utter barbarity that this represents.

      You aren’t being progressive when you defend muslims who beat women kill homosexuals…you aren’t being “culturally aware”…you’re being an unethical egotistical little piggy.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 7:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And dan’s touting the meme that religion isn’t bad because of the few christian denominations that embrace homosexuality (many tenatively…). Appealing to the same book to justify those religious beliefs as those who condemn homosexuality supports the opposition, and reduces this ethical debate to a scriptural spat, completely undermining any effective criticism.

      And no, not ALL orthodox jews are antigay because of their beliefs.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 7:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And the tactical ASSUMPTION that rightly calling christian beliefs and values unethical because of the demonstrably harm they cause, say, lgbt americans is somehow harming “THE CAUSE” is a built in excuse to do nothing, and remain silent about reprehensible behavior and the beliefs that underpin them. It’s almost as if the enemies of liberalism created this assumption as a way of evading it. Beliefs and behaviors that are harmful don’t change unless they are addressed, and addressed specifically. There is nothing to this empty remark, if pressed, other than a fear (distaste even…) of offending people’s bigoted beliefs simply because…they have them and call them religious. It’s built around a gross misunderstanding of liberalism, too.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 8:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      What an ignorant, unproductive string of posts! First of all, I’m not an apologist. I’m a trained researcher who knows what works because it’s been empirically shown to work. Attempts to change people’s basic, underlying beliefs have little effect, but people can be and are persuaded to change less central beliefs.

      For example, most people who live by the Bible probably always will. What can change – and is changing rapidly – is people’s more specific beliefs about the Bible and homosexuality, and how LGBT people should be treated. The belief that homosexuality is a sin is crumbling as people realize that its proponents are disregarding the teachings of Jesus, ignoring the most basic biblical principals, selectively accepting parts of the Bible while ignoring others, and so on.

      Still more effective – though this may seem counterintuitive – is getting people to behave differently so that they eventually change their beliefs for consistency, to avoid cognitive dissonance.

      I do not, and haven’t ever in my posts, “defended muslims who beat women [and] kill homosexuals.” As I said before, I’m referring mainly to christians in the west. As far as I know, the Sufi muslims I did briefly mention have no part in either of the atrocities you falsely accuse me of defending.

      Nor have I ever suggested, in a post or elsewhere, that “religion isn’t bad because of the few christian denominations that embrace homosexuality.” All I said about religion itself was that I think religious opposition to LGBT rights is symptomatic rather than causal. That’s a different discussion that requires an understanding of the role of religion at different places and times. In general, where opposition is strong, this tends to be reflected in religion – sometimes more so and sometimes less so than in secular institutions.

      I’m unsure how to comment the suggestion that Christian values and beliefs are unethical, because I don’t know what you see as Christian values and beliefs. What immediately comes to my mind is helping the poor, being a peacemaker, loving others, and not judging other people. The right wing tends to disregard all of the above – yet most of them claim to be Christian. The fact that they seem to be sharply at odds with the Bible, and with Jesus’ words especially, can be a powerful argument against their modern-day Phariseeism – but not if presented from an uninformed, intolerant place.

      I’m not trying to “capture outrage,” I’m trying to advance the cause of LGBT rights, and I’m baffled as to why you would suggest that’s an empty motivation. Rereading your posts, I keep finding more and more rebuttals that seem completely divorced from what I’ve actually said. I won’t try to cover all of them here. I will say that, in my opinion, offering constructive suggestions is much more productive than personally slamming other LGBT people who are working for LGBT rights.

      If knowing what I’m talking about makes me an apologist, then I’m an apologist. If fighting for LGBT rights is doing nothing, then I’m doing nothing. If doing what works is making no contribution, then I’m making no contribution. I have the same right to post as you do. And I’ll keep on posting whenever I think it will help.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 9:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      A quick clarification – the “string of posts” I referred to above is only the three posts that Tank made.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 10:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I’m unsure how to comment the suggestion that Christian values and beliefs are unethical, because I don’t know what you see as Christian values and beliefs. What immediately comes to my mind is helping the poor, being a peacemaker, loving others, and not judging other people.

      Then clearly you haven’t read the bible; specifically numbers, where genocide is advocated. The teachings of jesus do not equate to christianity, for there is a lot more to the bible than the teachings of jesus.

      Attempts to change people’s basic, underlying beliefs have little effect, but people can be and are persuaded to change less central beliefs.

      Most people aren’t fundamentalists, and can be reasoned with. The fact is that for many, their homophobia issues from these “underlying beliefs,” and those need to be changed not just to improve the lives of glbt people around the world, but for basic security.

      The belief that homosexuality is a sin is crumbling as people realize that its proponents are disregarding the teachings of Jesus, ignoring the most basic biblical principals, selectively accepting parts of the Bible while ignoring others, and so on.

      But they’re not ignoring the most basic biblical principles. This is your attempt to revert this to a scriptural spat. People’s specific religious beliefs are crumbling in first world countries, period.

      I do not, and haven’t ever in my posts, “defended muslims who beat women [and] kill homosexuals.”

      No?

      My whole reason for posting is to advance LGBT rights. I think that, if we stereotype and unfairly characterize religious people, we end up hurting our cause by displaying the intolerance that we say we oppose.

      And what’s the context? Referring to the targeted terrorizing, slaughter, and persecution of gays in iraq as terrorism. Oh that’s terrible…LOL! No, you’re not defending muslims who beat women and kill homosexuals. Not at all…I know you can’t see it, but you are in this death of a thousand “qualifications”.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 10:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      But the contention that I maintain is that these ideologies and belief systems can’t be changed piecemeal. For instance, if you look at sexism (an ideology), its particular tenets that revolve around the central tenets are inextricably linked. So you may, for example, get a man to stop beating his wife (some abusers never do beat their wives), but it will be manifested in other areas. It’s really a package deal, and I agree it’s difficult to get a sexist man to change…near impossible…but, it needs to be extirpated root and branch if change will occur. The same can be said of many religious memes. Their proven tenacity (toxic religious memes, anyway) is almost impossible to eradicate in a developed brain, so a tentative solution would be teaching religious pluralism (an anthropological survey of the world’s religions) to small children.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 10:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      “Referring to the targeted terrorizing, slaughter, and persecution of gays in iraq as terrorism” has nothing to do with any of the posts I’ve made. My posts have all been about an entirely different issue. I’m saying that name-calling, saying people are crazy or evil, and characterizing supporters inaccurately as opponents doesn’t advance the cause of LGBT rights.

      When I used the term “name-calling”, I wasn’t referring to the word terrorism if that’s what you thought I meant. I meant calling *people* names. If you feel strongly about the word terrorism, I suggest you reply to the people who posted about it.

      Religious beliefs in the US have declined by roughly half a percentage point a year for just under 20 years. By contrast, anti-LGBT beliefs are dropping rapidly. So, the decline of religious beliefs can’t explain much of the decline in anti-LGBT beliefs.

      You’re really missing my point, which isn’t to support the Bible or Christianity, but to advance LGBT rights by doing what’s effective. But real quick – the Bible only advocates genocide if one does just what our opponents do: take verses out of context. For the genocide argument, you’d have to lift isolated passages from the Old Testament and ignore the obviously contrary message of much of the New Testament.

      I probably won’t pursue this thread further, because I don’t really expect that you’ll pick up on what I’m actually saying and respond to that. But thank you for posting more considerately and constructively this time.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 10:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      My point is that trying to extirpate basic beliefs “root and branch” has been shown by researchers to be ineffective. Less central beliefs have been shown to be amenable to change. The approach that you seem to think is impossible is the one that has been successfully done many times.

      Last time I’m posting! Have a good day.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 11:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I disagree. Researchers “findings” can verify the claim that it is easier to simply deal with individual beliefs one by one than the belief from which they arise, but what it’s verifying is, instead, that these beliefs cannot be eradicated as easily as those beliefs that without them, would not exist. I have opined that it would be less costly to shoot an abuser in the head than attempt to rehabilitate him. This is a factual reality: the social and financial cost would be lessened by simply exterminating the specimen. However, you have revealed that you don’t know what a theory is, or a working belief (or, as is the case, an ordered set of them) on the way the world is. This much is obvious. The only way that this can work is by exterminating the entire belief system due to their inextricable linkage; and this, too, has been shown by both logic and empirical studies. If you don’t replace the root of the problem than it will simply manifest elsewhere to compensate for the diminished expression.

      The name calling, as you refer to it, is apt. It is an accurate description of what is occurring in iraq (terrorism inflicted upon lgbt peoples). What gay bashers who beat up homosexuals on a saturday nights on the states do is also terrorism, so this impotent canard masked in a rhetorical question that are “they” too engaging in terrorism, is also true.

      I agree, though. Your posts have been cosmetic, not substantive. You take issue with the label, not the phenomenon in question. The phenomenon in question is, quite literally, terrorism.

      Apr 26, 2009 at 1:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      So, the decline of religious beliefs can’t explain much of the decline in anti-LGBT beliefs.

      No? Please, do explain how the decline in fundamentalist attitudes overall (upheld by religious beliefs), don’t, at least, partially explain the decline in homophobic beliefs/attitudes… All ears, because simply stating otherwise confuses correlation with causation.

      Apr 26, 2009 at 1:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      You’re really missing my point, which isn’t to support the Bible or Christianity, but to advance LGBT rights by doing what’s effective. But real quick – the Bible only advocates genocide if one does just what our opponents do: take verses out of context. For the genocide argument, you’d have to lift isolated passages from the Old Testament and ignore the obviously contrary message of much of the New Testament.

      Out of context? “If one disagrees, genocide is permissable”? lol! And the new testament isn’t innocent of horrendously unethical statements. Jesus himself prescribed death for the disbeliever. Fictional jesus is not peace loving, and anyone with a cortex can google jesus’s hate speech.

      Apr 26, 2009 at 1:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alan
      Alan

      “Terrorism” are acts violence to further a political cause. Abuse of out-groups cannot be honestly described as “terrorism.”

      The root of the problem is that Iraq is a society which has been systematically & intentionally demolished from the top down. In war-torn countries social cohesion breaks down, leading to violence against minorities and outgroups (see the former Yugoslavia). LGBTs are not the only group who have seen their rights diminish since the invasion. Mandeans, Shabakis, Assyrians, Armenians and others have seen their numbers decrease dramatically due to the anarchic environment my country has unleashed there.

      The blood of LGBTs and all Iraqis is now on Barack Obama’s hands. Instead of sitting around whining about how sub-human and backwards the foreigns are we should be demanding that our representatives stop the war, redeploy ALL troops from Iraq, set up a reparations program so Iraqis can rebuild their nation, and launch criminal investigations against those who started this war.

      Squeal and whine about the “savagery” of non-white folks all you like but it is Judeo-Christian westerners who made the decision to destroy Iraqi society from its very foundations. More than one million Iraqi civilians have perished as a result but I don’t see anyone decrying the contemptible actions of the US government and military.

      I do wonder why Queerty tolerates comments calling for the annihilation of millions of human beings. No one who claims to support gay rights or humans rights of any kind could possibly propose genocide as a solution for LGBT Iraqis.

      Apr 26, 2009 at 2:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

      It sure can be applied to “out” groups (whateverthefuck that means).

      Apr 26, 2009 at 2:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alan
      Alan

      Sorry, I should have realized the term was recondite:

      “In sociology, an outgroup is a social group towards which an individual feels contempt, opposition, or a desire to compete. Members of outgroups may be subject to outgroup homogeneity biases, and generally people tend to privilege ingroup members over outgroup members in many situations. The term originates from social identity theory.”

      My main problem with use of the word terrorism here is that these days its used as an emotional and decontextualized epithet to describe any anti-social behavior. But this is only semantics and distracts from the issue at hand.

      Apr 26, 2009 at 3:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Even then, it’s pretty vague. Most words in soft science are…I know what you meant, I was being a dick…

      Apr 26, 2009 at 4:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daniel Cool
      Daniel Cool

      For these people i have painted the painting

      IN MEMORY …

      The shoe is the symbol of resistance and solidarity

      In commemoration for the people on the basis of sexual orientation arrested
      tortured and executed.
      In remembrance of the people, where have died in Iraq war.
      Popular regardless of whether gay, lesbian or heterosexual.[img]http://www.danielcool.com/images/danielcoolmemory_579.jpg[/img]

      Apr 29, 2009 at 2:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Daniel Cool: Thanks for posting that Daniel it is seems a nice tribute to such a sad situation.

      Apr 29, 2009 at 2:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daniel Cool
      Daniel Cool

      @getreal:

      hello

      thanks for your comment

      daniel

      Apr 29, 2009 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • john
      john

      who gives a fuck about some fags theres a civil war there so people are going to die hope they get ride of them all, at least they doing some thing right and a good thing came out of this war

      Jan 10, 2010 at 7:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.