TheAgitator.com
Iraq To Execute 100+ Homosexuals Today
Friday, April 3rd, 2009Good thing we sacrificed a trillion dollars and the lives 4,000+ U.S. troops to create such a shining beacon of Middle Eastern democracy, huh?
UPDATE: The State Department is refuting the story.
A republican wet dream come true?
here is a link for that story http://pageoneq.com/stories/iraq03302008.html
Sorry, for some reason your link didn’t show. Ignore the above – turns out my computer was the problem.
You can trust them or not as you like, but it is worth pointing out that the US State Department says this story is completely bogus.
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=&sc3=&id=89141
Democracy has never equalled freedom and justice. Which would be a better guarantee of Liberty: A strict religious majority democracy or a liberal laissez-faire King?
Hey, if the majority wants to execute 100 homosexuals, how is that not democracy?
I guess Mike beat me to that one.
True or not, civilized countries don’t execute the folks whose lifestyles they don’t like. Civilized countries throw them in prison, impose extortion-level taxes on them, and otherwise promote the practice of using them as a kind of metaphorical (or not) punching bag as a technique for building self esteem and community spirit in “normal” people.
@tsiroth: Interesting, I would like to get to the bottom of this (actually, I would like someone else to get to the bottom of it, then tell me). It’s a serious allegation from a human rights standpoint.
Well, at elast Iowa is moving in the right direction
“The Iowa Supreme Court this morning unanimously upheld gays’ right to marry.
“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision.
The court rules that gay marriage would be legal in three weeks, starting April 24.”
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010/
Republicans win!
Chris, to me, moving in the right direction would be getting government completely out marriage.
Now, I am very far from being a fan of republicans or Bush, but I think that the comments suggesting that either republicans would think that this is a good thing or that this is all Bush’s fault are a bit silly.
The problem is that is is hard to make democracy work nicely in a society that does not have a somewhat tolerant, liberal (in the more traditional sense) tradition.
This doesn’t surprise me one bit. The pipe dream of a secular democracy in Mesopotamia with respect for minority rights is slowly being revealed for what it is, a neocon fantasy.
Still, I think I’m gonna be sick.
“Good thing we sacrificed a trillion dollars and the lives 4,000+ U.S. troops to create such a shining beacon of Middle Eastern democracy, huh?”
Who is this “we” of whom you write?
I’ll include myself out. Thanks.
Dave,
The government isn’t going to get out marriage; thus, opening marriage to gays is probably the best that anybody can hope for. As a result, aggregate liberty has increased, which is worth celebration.
And in the process, it will force businesses and other institutions to recognize gay marriage, which will completely negate the alleged gains in liberty. Within 10 years, homosexuals will be clamoring for legislation against religious institutions that prevents “orientation discrimination” just like pro-choice groups have demanded legislation to force religious medical practitioners to either provide abortions or direct patients to providers who will do them.
“a secular democracy in Mesopotamia with respect for minority rights is slowly being revealed for what it is, a neocon fantasy.”
I’m no neocon supporter, but prior to Bush (yes, Bush alone) invading Iraq I don’t know of any neocons that had this fantasy.
But they are all party hacks and deserve to burn in hell for whoring themselves to defend one-of-their-own (Bush) because he wanted to get in a war.
Again, we’re a nation of morons. In this case, Iraq is the proof point.
I only use “we” for convenience.
Cynical: If you pay taxes (under protest or otherwise), you’ve provided material support for this disaster.
David, if you pay an armed robber whose sticking a gun in your face, you’ve supported armed robbery.
Whoops, amend “whose” to “who’s.”
I hesitate to believe this. And why does this surprise you when they punish and murder women who are victims of rape? I assume you’ve posted those stories with the same speed and derision?
“If you pay taxes (under protest or otherwise), you’ve provided material support for this disaster.”
This is true, but it still doesn’t make one at all morally culpable for it, because taxes are collected under threat of jail/death. If the guys in DC decided to wage a war and paid for it by asking for donations, then the donors would share a degree of moral culpability, but we all know that’s not what happened.
You’re right. I’ve been hanging around Cyncial in CA too much. I’m starting to become idealistic anarchist. :)
Mike,
Yeah, it’s either that, or those dudes who live down the street from you will be able to visit each other in the hospital. But you’re probably right, gays will sue for the right to attend services at Fred Phelps church. That’s the logical conclusion here.
Radley,
This story appears to be fabricated by a London based LGBT group. Perhaps you should put a disclaimer up that the story may or may not be true.
If the story is true, obviously it’s horrible. But there’s something about the dog that didn’t bark…how many people would have been killed in the old regime?
Sam and Dave, you are soul men.
And yes Dave, I am one bad influence.
Saw a bumper sticker today: “Got Hope?”
Yup, still do. Still do.
This story is a load of crap but people shouldn’t fool themselves into believing homosexuals aren’t being put to death just for the crime of being gay. The fact that these folks now have a say in how their government is being run and have opportunities they never would have had under a dictatorship doesn’t change the reality that their religion tells them homosexuals have to die. Xtians believe homo’s go to hell, muslims believe they have to send them there.
If the story’s false then Radley should pull it.
Which equates to Christians being “pleased” with the Muslims doing their dirty work. I’m not so sure it’s that black and white — you paint with a very broad brush.
The Neocons can now say-”Mission accomplished”
And why does this surprise you when they punish and murder women who are victims of rape? I assume you’ve posted those stories with the same speed and derision?
Of course not. Because I believe women who are raped deserve to be murdered and lashed.
Sheesh. This is the weirdest comment I’ve seen in weeks. Is the implication that I’m some sort of pro-gay misogynist who cares more about government-murdered homosexuals than I do about government-murdered rape victims?
In fact, I have posted about the plight rape victims in radically Muslim countries. Do a search. And even if I hadn’t, it wouldn’t be cause to draw any sort of conclusion about how much importance I attach to the various classes of victims of those regimes. What a strange complaint.
In Afghanistan, gays are killed by having a wall pushed over on top of them. Gotta love the middle-east.
There are also questions about the validity of reports that Pat Robertson responded to the news by having a spontaneous orgasm.
The story is a lie.
But there’s no point in refuting what is obvious because you guys will believe anything that plays to your prejudices and portrays people you disagree with in a negative way.
Please Roy, continue your lecture on prejudice – we’re all on the edge of our seats.
They’re already suing Christian photographers for turning down their business for their weddings.
No lecture necessary, paranoiastrksdp. Just follow the comments.
“They’re already suing Christian photographers for turning down their business for their weddings.”
You know, Contrary to what many out there believe, “the gays” aren’t this one big giant entity with some secret deviant agenda that’s going to immediately try and sue any and all private companies and individuals who don’t recognize “the gay”. I certainly don’t agree with the particular lawsuit that you mentioned – nor do I agree with any of the lawsuits brought by gay people against private companies for not accepting “gay business”. In fact, I most gay people were really pissed off by those lawsuits. Not only did many of us think they were frivolous and should have been thrown out…but also almost immediately afterward you had all these people pointing fingers and saying “see, they’re all going to sue our a$$es and force the gay on us!” [sorry but I'm not running out and suing nobody...it's called capitalism...I'll simply take my business elsewhere]
I mean by the same logic…I could likewise name all the frivolous lawsuits brought by heterosexual people and use that to justify whatever I want, i.e.: if we condone heterosexual partnerships, pretty soon married people will all start trying to sue private match-making companies because the company did not find them a date. [And yes, a married man tried to sue e-harmony for not finding him a woman to date-because apparently they did not have a section for married people.]
Still, why should some idiot’s frivolous lawsuit justify denying every single gay adult hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc? It doesn’t make sense…And you know, in 99.99999% of cases, if a church, priest, etc. doesn’t not want to marry gay people or serve, gay people likewise are not going to want to marry in said church or by said priest anyway…they will find someone else, that is how free enterprise works.
And personally, just so you know, I also agree with the person who said that government should get out of the marriage business altogether…that would actually be the best way to deal with the issue…because honestly, it’s none of my damn business what consenting adults do, whether it’s get married, smoke pot, have sex…whatever.
change.org just released an e-mail with this story in it as if it were true.
Radley is a journalist and his job is to share these stories with us and should a story wind up being untrue as this one is, there is a responsibility to inform us (which he did).
POTUS’ website should not be sending out e-mails to millions of Americans with this story. Check it out here: http://www.blogforchange.org/?p=53
[...] Executed 100 Homosexuals? Jump to Comments Science Blogs has the story. The Agitator has the criticism: Good thing we sacrificed a trillion dollars and the lives 4,000+ U.S. troops to [...]
Mike,
When you start to reference “faggots” as you do on the link that you provided to us, I have to wonder if what we’re really running up against isn’t a man who is desperate for liberty, but instead, a man who hates gays.
One should be duly skeptical of both the original report and the US State Department claim that the report is bogus. If Christians are finding Iraq to be an oppressive place to live in then I would imagine being an homosexual would be even less tolerated.
http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/leaving-iraq-an-iraqi-christian/