Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Holocaust In Iran. 4,000 Killed…. And Counting….

GP Reader Calarato suggested posting this video.

YouTube Preview Image

GatewayPundit has more.

An estimated 100,000 Iranians have been executed under the mullahs of Iran…including 4,000 gays.

From Jerusalem Post column:  The Democratic Party’s victory in the November 7 Congressional elections convinced Iran and Syria that they are on the verge of a great victory against the US in Iraq. Iranian and Syrian jubilation is well founded in light of the Democratic leadership’s near unanimous calls for the US to withdraw its forces in Iraq; Bush’s firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his appointment of his father’s CIA director Robert Gates to replace him; and Bush’s praise for the Congressionally mandated Iraq Study Group charged with revisiting US strategy in Iraq, which is being co-chaired by his father’s secretary of state James Baker III. …As far as Iran and Syria are concerned, the game has already been called.

And, this means that the hangings, stonings, and beatings of political prisoners, adulteresses, and gays will continue in Iran.

Yet the American Gay Left still believes the enemy is our fellow Americans who disagree with them on policy issues; not a world-wide movement looking to make gays extinct.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)



  1. That was powerful, I only heard about the story before, never saw the pictures. I can only hope that America does not lose it’s will to combat the Islamofacists.

    I wonder which city gets nuked first, San Francisco, Hollywood, Seattle, Los Angeles, Boston, Miami, Washington, Chicago… it will be spectacular for sure.

    Welcome to WWIII… we either win or surrender. There is no negotiating with this enemy.

    We better quit aborting millions of babies, we are going to need a very strong Army when the going really gets tough over the next 20-30 years. That is unless we convert to Islam.

    Comment by Ed of Tampa — November 27, 2006 @ 4:20 pm - November 27, 2006

  2. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly banned from this blog.]

    Comment by Anon1 — November 27, 2006 @ 6:46 pm - November 27, 2006

  3. One of the answers to “why do they hate us” is that we tolerate homosexuality. We’re expected to believe that not allowing gay marriage is some horrendous persecution but the fact is that *even* a vast majority of the people who are out to “save” gays don’t want anything bad to happen to them.

    I think it’s one of those odd paradoxes… the people who claim international sophistication behave as though the world past our borders doesn’t exist.

    I blame multi-culturalism.

    Comment by Synova — November 27, 2006 @ 7:18 pm - November 27, 2006

  4. Why can’t we be against Islamic fundamentalists abroad and their more docile Christian counterparts here at home? Liberalism needs to win abroad and here at home. It’s the conservatives in Iran and Iraq that are the crazy ones. It’s no secret that our political enemies in the Middle East all fall to the right of the political spectrum.

    Comment by Chase — November 27, 2006 @ 7:28 pm - November 27, 2006

  5. This sad story came to my attention shortly after the murder (er uh, execution)… back when Sully was relevant. Every time I see the photos, I feel nauseated.

    The ritual torture (real torture, not being forced to stand in a cold room) and murder of these two kids seems to be standard stuff in the Islamic world.

    I know it’s not PC but based on what I’ve seen going on in the Middle East ever since I’ve been old enough to watch the news (think Cronkite), Islam is a cruel and brutal cult.

    I’m sure there are perfectly decent Muslims but they seem to be few and far between.

    Dhimmitude is in our future unless we get the guts to ruthlessly resist this cancer on civilization.

    Note to Chase: to compare these savages to “docile Christian counterparts here at home” is to lose all sense of proportion… and doesn’t help gays with their efforts in the West.

    Comment by Robert — November 27, 2006 @ 7:41 pm - November 27, 2006

  6. It’s no secret that our political enemies in the Middle East all fall to the right of the political spectrum.

    Ummm… If you define “right” as “left” (up as down, black as white, etc.) then yes. Most Muslims and Islamists are actually socialist-to-Marxist in economic ideology.

    Why can’t we be against Islamic fundamentalists abroad and their more docile Christian counterparts here at home?


    For you to even SUGGEST that the conservative Christians here at home – whose families provide many of the volunteer soldiers who protect us – are somehow the, ahem, “counterparts” of gay-murdering Islamist killers is a sick, disgusting, morally perverted, and mentally delusional suggestion marking you as unworthy of further discussion.

    Same for you other “moral equivalence” types out there – you know who you are. Talk about self-hating, i.e., hating yourselves as gays!!! working toward your own destruction!!!

    Comment by Calarato — November 27, 2006 @ 7:49 pm - November 27, 2006

  7. The right-end? Most the of the fundementalist movements in the Middle-East have roots in “national socialism” and “fascism”; which are fruits of the Left, not the Right. They worship the goals of the collective, not the individual; and replicate the cults of personality that were the hallmarks of Socialism’s malignant manifestations in Lenin, Stalin, il Duce and der Fuehrer.

    And the Christianist social-conservatives are hardly using the modes and tools of traditional “Conservatism” either. They properly are “reactionaries” and advocating a religious-variant of a Nanny-State of the European civil-service bureaucrat “…what isn’t permitted is forbidden”, backed by the civil power of the State.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — November 27, 2006 @ 7:55 pm - November 27, 2006

  8. #6 P.S. It is indeed possible to disagree with conservative Christians here at home, while still supporting America and a strong and effective War on Terror.

    Unfortunately, to our very great loss, few liberals manage it and as we see above, Chase fails horribly. It begins with RESPECTING conservative Christians who want to preserve America – not casually and, must I say, IGNORANTLY maligning them as “counterparts of Islamic fundamentalists”.

    Comment by Calarato — November 27, 2006 @ 7:57 pm - November 27, 2006

  9. #4 To ignore the nits… yes, you’re right. It *should* be possible to be against the conservatives at home and work on what are percieved as problems here, while at the same time pushing for the protection of human rights abroad and standing against nations like Iran.

    It *should* be possible.

    What we see, though, is that because conservatives and neo-cons have staked out the possition that Islamic fundamentalism is a threat that they are forced to take the opposing possitions. It doesn’t make any sort of sense. Is it really that terrible to side *with* conservatives on issues of human rights overseas?

    Comment by Synova — November 27, 2006 @ 8:02 pm - November 27, 2006

  10. Thank for for posting this, it was very powerful. Indeed, issues like this should bring unity but still there is needless sniping. Let us hope and pray that it ends and that the people in the Islamic nations live to see and understand a freer and more just world.

    Comment by Jim — November 27, 2006 @ 8:38 pm - November 27, 2006

  11. Saw the video.

    I’m absolutely speechless.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 27, 2006 @ 9:46 pm - November 27, 2006

  12. “Yet the American Gay Left still believes the enemy is our fellow Americans who disagree with them on policy issues; not a world-wide movement looking to make gays extinct.”

    It isn’t an either-or; it is a continuum.

    And by the way, if you think imprisoning you and rendering you a criminal–which is what you would be in 13 states if the Texas decision didn’t come down and you should keep in mind who wanted to keep those laws on the books–is a “policy issue,” I am so, so sorry to hear it. So some Americans would prefer to see gays in prison and some Iranians are killing gays. It looks like the same shared view of gays, with the difference being how they act on those views.

    The attempt to smear gay people on the left and liberal gay people with the actions of Iranian Islamists is rather transparent. And thin.

    Comment by sean — November 27, 2006 @ 10:04 pm - November 27, 2006

  13. #1. Quit aborting babies–we need soldiers. (That’s my new bumpersticker, complete with an image of a rattle with a yellow ribbon.)

    Comment by sean — November 27, 2006 @ 10:05 pm - November 27, 2006

  14. “Filed under: War On Terror, Gays & religion, Gay America, Gays in Other Lands, Freedom, World War III”

    Gays in Other Lands?

    More distressing: “holocaust”?

    Comment by sean — November 27, 2006 @ 10:10 pm - November 27, 2006

  15. The equivalent here in the U.S. of the radical “islamofascist” is NOT the average christian, not the fundamentalist or evangelical christian, it’s not the cons or neo-cons, it’s not Rush and the ditto-heads, or Bush an’ them.

    The equivalent are those wacko, white-pride, Arien Nation, neo-nazis. You know those, “reclaim our land in the name of our race” people? You know, the “kill the niggers and jews and gays” people? You’ve heard of them, right?

    THAT is who is in charge over there. The mullahs, Bin Laden, the leaders of the Arabs, Palestinians, Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, etc.

    And of course you can be against all of them if you like, as long as you realize that they are not all the same. Being against gay marriage is not the same thing as “we should exterminate all gays”…not by a long shot.

    Comment by imnohero — November 27, 2006 @ 10:27 pm - November 27, 2006

  16. And, this means that the hangings, stonings, and beatings of political prisoners, adulteresses, and gays will continue in Iran.

    You are implying that the election of the Democrats will cause the continued, even increased, persecution of gays and lesbians in Muslim countries.

    Explain please exactly how the continued rule of the GOP would have prevented this. Has it done anything about this problem so far? No. In fact, persecution toward glbt people in Iraq has increased exponentionally since Iraqi gays and lesbians were “liberated” from the tyranny of Saddam.

    The situation for gays and lesbians in Iraq now is akin to that of homosexuals “liberated” from Nazi concentration camps by Allied forces only to find themselves placed into prisons aftwards.

    Only for Iraqi gays and lesbians, the situation is even more dire, as thier widespread torture and execution has been endorsed by both religious and secular authorities in Iraq.

    It is true that both Iran and Syria have gained more power in the Middle East. You don’t have the Democrats to blame for that. Instead blame the actions of an inept, arrogant Administration and the failure of weak Congressional oversight to correct those errors, or even at least raise questions about obviously dubious foreign policy and military strategies and assumptions.

    Your blind partisan fanaticism to the GOP would be laughable if it were not for the fact that it has supported indirectly such tragic consequences for so many thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere since the GOP took full control of our Government. You have embarrassingly low standards for competance in the people you choose to be your leaders. I do not say that the Democrats are any better. I do say it would be very difficult even for them to be any worse.

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — November 28, 2006 @ 1:22 am - November 28, 2006

  17. Very powerful video-I can’t imagine how awful life was for those boys and others whose names we don’t have in those last months of their lives, when they hadn’t done anything to harm anyone.

    You are implying that the election of the Democrats will cause the continued, even increased, persecution of gays and lesbians in Muslim countries.

    Explain please exactly how the continued rule of the GOP would have prevented this.

    Well one thing that comes to mind, is that the GOP seems to understand better who the enemy is, and the risks of pretending like they aren’t a threat.

    THe democrats consistently downplay the threat from the Islamic fascist wing of the party, and some European countries and Canada have been open to permitting some sharia type courts to operate in their countries.

    And the liberals continue to act as if the very people that hang homosexuals are morally equivalent to Christians in the US that are against gay marriage. The whining from gays about persecution from Christians reminds me of Christians in the US whining “persecution” here in the US, when Christians are imprisoned or killed in nations like Iran as well.

    The reality is that in the US nobody is out to imprison or kill anyone for their sexuality or religious beliefs (except for the neo nazi type kooks mentioned above)-that means you are able to disagree and live your life accordingly without having to worry, and make your case for your viewpoints without threats of imprisonment or death.

    The two are not morally equivalent.

    Comment by Just Me — November 28, 2006 @ 6:56 am - November 28, 2006

  18. I thought Islam was supposed to all peaceful. It’s crazy that people would equate Islam with Christianity. Christianity may condem homosexuality as a sin but they don’t condem us to a tortuous death sentence. It sickens me when delusion dhimmis here and in Spain and other places turn their backs on their own culture and people.

    Comment by hephaestion — November 28, 2006 @ 9:25 am - November 28, 2006

  19. And there you have it folks… Gryph leads the gayLeft pack in proving that everything bad that happens in the world is the result of the GOP. What passes for his analysis is the only thing laughable here.

    In the meantime, he has time to call others “blind partisans” and fanatics… message to Gryph: clear out the smoke and mirrors in your lonely room please and see your own GOP-hatred and anti-Bush fanaticism as a worthy object of treatment. Get that help, now.

    And, honestly, no one is stupid enough to buy your “Democrats can’t be any worse” line as a cover for bipartisan distain. The hangings and torture of gays in Iran and Syria and elsewhere will continue unabated because the enemies of freedom have been emboldened by the antics of your cut&run crowd. And those enemies, as many have rightly pointed out here, rise from the Left.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 28, 2006 @ 9:47 am - November 28, 2006

  20. You know after a long absence, you would think that you might have some new material, or some new insights.
    Instead you rightists keeps trying to play games with murdered gays.

    Further the article cited specifically blames bush not the American gay left and Dems. for “emboldening” Iran and Syria.

    Further Still the columnist who wrote this, Caroline Glick, is the Israeli equivalent of William Kristol. Smart, well spoken, educated, elitist, Neoconservative, often extreme, and often wrong.

    She is not the penultimate authority that the righty blogers thinks she is.

    Comment by keogh — November 28, 2006 @ 10:01 am - November 28, 2006

  21. “It isn’t an either-or; it is a continuum.”

    No, it’s just a lack of principle. How else do you explain “Queers for Palestine” and dykes protesting Bush — alongside pro-Shariah, pro-terrorist groups?

    Liberals have no morals, no ethics, and no principles.

    Comment by rightwingprof — November 28, 2006 @ 10:31 am - November 28, 2006

  22. Patrick says…

    “Your blind partisan fanaticism to the GOP…”

    You’re just a tad off the mark there, Pat, and dare I say, a bit emotional in your response, wouldn’t you say (too bad you seem more incensed by the administration than the people who carried out these horrific executions)?

    I’m a conservative by birth, but vote Republican by sheer lack of choice. As a matter of fact, the only “blind partisan fanaticism” I see on this blog are you and your fellow leftists. While the majority of conservatives on this blog do support the President, we’ve all, time and again, harshly criticized GWB when he fails to show the courage of his convictions. Might also wanna mention that I, myself, have often called his convictions into question. On the other hand, all of you standing firmly on the seem far less interested in the perpetrators of terrorism, preferring to place the blame squarely, each and every time, at the feet to the GOP. While I heartily agree that the GOP has played a large part in allowing the terrifying proliferation of islamofascism through either ineptness, inaction or ignorance, most, if not all, of you on the left have yet to lump in the illustrious DNC with this fact. To hear you tell it, the Dems have, in no way, contributed to the growth of the enemy we now face. Patrick, you’re an intelligent guy. Please tell me this isn’t the case with you personally.

    Then keogh went on to say…

    “Caroline Glick, is the Israeli equivalent of William Kristol. Smart, well spoken, educated, elitist, Neoconservative, often extreme, and often wrong.”

    Well, my young liberal friend, perception’s a real bitch, huh? To begin with, “elitist” and “often wrong” are the same accusations we conservatives have been hurling at the DNC leadership for years, so throwing them back at the likes of Caroline Glick comes as no surprise, at least to me. However, with the continued descent of American Liberalism into submission to Allah, I guess the clarity with which Ms. Glick views the threat of islamofascism (as well as your own refusal to even acknowledge that this threat exists) can be called “ellitist” if one is so inclined to give the mullahs the benefit of the doubt.

    Finally, when are you and your fellow castrati going to realize that the term “neoconservative” and “neocon” aren’t insults to those of us who embrace that ideology? You seem to think those terms have some stinging effect, when in fact, the opposite is true. You hurl those as insults, but I always end up chuckling at the petulant ignorance you so ably demonstrate.

    For the record, here’s the definition according to the American Heritage Dictionary:

    “An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s.”

    And you think THAT is an insult to me? Foolish young man!

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 28, 2006 @ 10:35 am - November 28, 2006

  23. I agree with Chase in #4. Why can’t both be possible? I’ve said this before, most of my gay friends are more liberal than I am. I don’t know any of them that are Islam loving people, pro-terrorism, etc.

    I’ll admit that many gays are more concerned about what happens in this country, while at the same time appalled about what’s happening to gays and others in Iran. But I’m pretty confident that if, for example, straights were stripped of their rights to marriage, or other civil rights, they will fight to regain them, and not wait until the end of global starvation and torture.

    It seems like some people think that because some liberals are pro-Palestinean that all are. I know for certain that that is simply not the case. Just as people here are saying that not all conservatives are the same as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and their flocks.

    Comment by Pat — November 28, 2006 @ 11:20 am - November 28, 2006

  24. #23 You have hit it right on the head. The rightists want to create a myth that if you don’t follow the course that Bush set for the country, you are pro-terrorist. They tried this during the election, and failed, but they keep at it because they are out of other ideas.

    #22 “”neoconservative” and “neocon” aren’t insults”

    I never implied that it was an insult. But its telling that you had to take great pains to explain to me that you were not insulted by something that wasn’t even meant to be insulting….perhaps its due to the fact that so many of Kristol’s, Wolfowitz’s, and the rest of the neocon crew’s predictions have been wrong.

    … I guess the clarity with which Ms. Glick views the threat of islamofascism….

    What you call “clarity” is really just clinging to the same delusion….that delusion is that terrorism can be beaten through invading states and toppling leaders on a grand scale and then expect the populace that you liberated to love you.

    Comment by keogh — November 28, 2006 @ 11:55 am - November 28, 2006

  25. keogh, keogh, keogh…

    Yes, you did use the term “neocon” as an insult. To assume Ms. Glick is a neocon is every bit as snarky as assuming a commentor on a message board is black based solely upon his use of syntax.

    Secondly, calling her view of islamofascism (a term you have yet to use, curiously) a “delusion” only serves to affirm your own, warped perception of the GWOT. Like those who slap upon their vehicles the bumper sticker that proclaims, “WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER,” you continue to remain on the sidelines like some half-drunk football dad, always finding fault with the coaching staff, yet failing to step up with a game plan of your own.

    Silly keogh, you don’t bring a diplomat to a terrorist hunt.

    You continue to dig your own hole, my friend.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 28, 2006 @ 12:23 pm - November 28, 2006

  26. Still, I find myself inclined to ask the question of keogh and the rest of the self-proclaimed “progressives” who frequent this board:

    Do you accept that there is an element of islam out there that believes the world should fall under only one authority – that of sharia and the koran?

    Do you accept that that there is an element of islam out there that believes that if a person chooses NOT to take shahada (the proclamation that converts one to islam), that person is subject to death?

    If you accept either of these views, what would YOU do differently to confront this threat? Do you believe that this element can be negotiated with, or otherwise mollified?

    If you can answer any of these questions without first going off an a tangent of causality, then I would sincerely appreciate the dialogue.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 28, 2006 @ 12:30 pm - November 28, 2006

  27. I agree with Chase in #4. Why can’t both be possible?

    Because, Pat, they are substantially different.

    Note Chase’s statement (emphasis mine):

    Why can’t we be against Islamic fundamentalists abroad and their more docile Christian counterparts here at home?

    It’s that “more docile” that unravels his argument.

    What Chase is doing is commingling the beliefs with the actions being promulgated on the basis of those beliefs.

    There are indeed “Christians” in the United States who would, if left to their own devices, do exactly what the Iranian mullahs are doing and the Taliban before them did.

    However, they don’t.

    In short, Chase is equating being a Christian to being a radical Islamist who murders gays, under the theory that, since Christianity COULD justify violence against gays, it should be dealt with in the same fashion as radical Islam, which DOES justify violence against gays.

    Chase’s battle isn’t with how gays are actually treated; it’s against the existence of an ideology that he doesn’t like. He links Christianity to radical Islam in order to justify and rationalize his actions against the former.

    Just as the English Separatists — our Pilgrims — were linked by James I with those rebelling against his authority.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2006 @ 1:17 pm - November 28, 2006

  28. Eric,
    If you read my post, you will see why I said its clear what you call clarity is just delusion. If you need further evidence of that look at Iraq, Lebanon, and Venezuela then read Einstein’s def. of insanity.
    And she is a neocon, any fair reading of her writings and speeches will lead one to that conclusion.
    If you think that is snark, you probably think 2+2=snark.

    Comment by keogh — November 28, 2006 @ 2:15 pm - November 28, 2006

  29. keogh, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to hear and discern “snark” throughout your comments –neocon for you is like the big red “A” in our pilgrims’ time. I think it’s because the neocons were actually liberals who got fed-up with the failed policies of the Left and that burns your proverbial butt, as it were.

    It’s the turncoat nature of those liberals that really irks you enough to use “neocon” as a slam or indictment. To me, the label is simply inaccurate shorthand to describe a set of policy –not political– preferences.

    To you, it’s a badge of dishonor so drop the pretense, keogh. It ain’t working. Eric nailed you… to the wall.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 28, 2006 @ 2:28 pm - November 28, 2006

  30. NDT, I didn’t read into any equivalence of comparison between violent Islamists, and Christian fundamentalists who hate gays, but don’t approve of killing them. Maybe Chase meant more, and I should have inferred more, but I didn’t. In other words, I am greatly concerned that there are Islamists that are killing gays and others. And even though fundamentalist Christians (and others) are not killing us, and most of them would have no intention of doing that, I am concerned, because it does hit home more. Their actions have a more direct connection to my rights, than the actions of the Islamists. Yes, I am grateful that I don’t live in Iran and would rather live here any day. But I am concerned about my rights and those of my friends. That may sound selfish, but as I said, if straight persons lost their rights, they would be fighting for them as well, instead of saying that since there are worse things going on the world, I’ll just wait to get my rights back.

    Comment by Pat — November 28, 2006 @ 3:22 pm - November 28, 2006

  31. I didn’t realize we invaded Iraq to promote gay rights in iran.

    Comment by lester — November 28, 2006 @ 3:46 pm - November 28, 2006

  32. ” Eric nailed you… to the wall.”
    In a good way or bad way? 🙂

    But lets be real here, its not an insult to be called gay if I am gay. Just like its not an insult to be called a neocon, if indeed you are one. And Ms. Glick IS one. And it is relevant to this post because Bruce and many other righty bloggers treat her words as gospel when she is simply preaching the gospel of Wolfowitz and Kristol.
    I am sorry that you and Eric consider being called a neocon as slander or a sign snarkiness.
    But I guess that shows just how wrong they have been proven to be, and thus quoting her on a blog becomes irrelevant.
    Further to say that the VP is a “turncoat liberal” is beyond humorous…but maybe he is!

    Comment by keogh — November 28, 2006 @ 4:43 pm - November 28, 2006

  33. I have a rather important lunch date, and have been swamped here so far today. However, I wish to answer keogh on the whole “neocon” thing.

    First off, my friend, Caroline is NOT a neocon. I know her personally, and have been a fan of hers for a few years now. Caroline NEVER espoused liberal ideas, especially when one considers her support of Israel’s right to exist in a region surrounded by those who actively work towards her (Israel’s) violent death.

    Secondly (and I’ll be sure to come back to this when I have more time), you are the very definition of snark. I would note, primarily, that you have failed to answer even ONE of the questions I put to you. In and of itself, this only goes to show that you have NO interest whatsoever in addressing the core issues of the GWOT. Be that as it may, you have continued to demonstrate a fondness for provoking pointless arguments.

    Listen, sweetie. Nobody here is operating under the impression that we’re going to change any minds here. All I asked was for you to answer a few questions. Shit, just answer ONE and I’d be happy. You wanna get off the whole neocon thing? Fine. Answer one of my questions and then, perhaps, you and I can begin some honest, unemotional debate.

    Sound good?

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 28, 2006 @ 4:54 pm - November 28, 2006

  34. #21. “Liberals have no morals, no ethics, and no principles.” That’s true, if by ‘morals,’ ‘ethics,’ and ‘principles’ we mean designs for living used by Haggard, Foley, and Bush respectively. And respectfully, of course.

    And, seriously, is this line–“Liberals have no morals, no ethics, and no principles”–spit out automatically by one of your keyboard’s function keys? Finally, and fundamentally, if “liberals have no morals, no ethics, and no principles,” then how do you recognize one? Since living a human life requires at least some guiding morality, ethics, and principles, are you saying that liberals aren’t human beings?

    Comment by sean — November 28, 2006 @ 6:44 pm - November 28, 2006

  35. keogh at #32, you’re about 12 bricks shy of a load… I suggest strongly that you actually read and learn about what a neocon is before you proceed any farther on the path of spitting out GayLeftBorg-isms. That was nailed to the wall in a humiliating, taught-u-a-lesson way, btw.

    Neocons go back to the late 1970’s with Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Moynihan, Fr Neuhaus, Scoop Jackson and even a guy like RR. The very first neocons were disaffected liberal Jewish intellectuals turned off by the radical Democrat leadership. Their community grew and spread beyond the initial boundaries very fast.

    To learn more –for once– go here
    or here

    I’m going to resist suggesting you read something longer, more detailed or in a book since you tend to ignore reality generally and see aything beyond instant-absorption as tedious and challenging –in a bad way, too.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 28, 2006 @ 7:17 pm - November 28, 2006

  36. “spitting out GayLeftBorg-isms”

    Oh, the irony!!

    Comment by sean — November 28, 2006 @ 11:11 pm - November 28, 2006

  37. sean, you’re right up there with the GayLeftBorg-isms, guy. Upi and keogh ought to start a blog site and make it a convention of GayLeftBorg types… oh wait, BlogActive and BlogAmerica and the DailyKos already exist.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 29, 2006 @ 9:20 am - November 29, 2006

  38. Michigan-Matt, I did what you suggested regarding a google search of “Katrina is Bush’s fault.” I actually got over 1 million hits. Granted, I only checked about a dozen or so of the first sites that came up. Most of them had to do with those blaming the Bush Administration’s handling of Katrina, before, during, and/or after. There was one site that claimed that a German minister said that Bush’s environmental policies were to blame. And apparently Cindy Sheehan said the same as well. And then there were a couple of sites from conservative bloggers or columnists who are claiming that liberals are saying that Bush’s environmental policies on Katrina. If I had more time, I would check out more. But for now, it seems to me that except for a few whackos, no one is saying that Bush’s environmental policies caused Katrina.

    Comment by Pat — November 29, 2006 @ 9:59 am - November 29, 2006

  39. Beautiful Wednesday morning here in the Land of Silk & Money, and still no answer to any of my questions in #26:

    Do you accept that there is an element of islam out there that believes the world should fall under only one authority – that of sharia and the koran?

    Do you accept that that there is an element of islam out there that believes that if a person chooses NOT to take shahada (the proclamation that converts one to islam), that person is subject to death?

    If you accept either of these views, what would YOU do differently to confront this threat? Do you believe that this element can be negotiated with, or otherwise mollified?

    If you can answer any of these questions without first going off an a tangent of causality, then I would sincerely appreciate the dialogue.

    Any takers from our friends on the left? Any at all?

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 29, 2006 @ 10:47 am - November 29, 2006

  40. #39, I’ll bite.

    1. Yes
    2. Yes
    3. I don’t know; Probably not.

    I made the point above that not all of us on the left are Islam loving people. In fact, I’ll state for the record that I do have biases about the religion, mainly because of the answers to 1,2 above. I also don’t like the fact rocks have more rights than women in some Islamic republics. But I try to give everyone a fair shake, because I have met some Moslems that are pretty much just like anyone else. In the airline thread, I made my opinion based on behaviors that I would find threatening from any group of people, while trying to understand that people feel the need to pray out loud.

    My point also was, as stated is that not all liberals have the same opinions on the issues mentioned in this thread.

    Comment by Pat — November 29, 2006 @ 11:57 am - November 29, 2006

  41. Pat, I know that already. I know in my head that nobody on this blog prays nightly for a repeat performance of 9/11. I get that. Really.

    But I guess what I was trying to get at is that all we seem to do here is bicker back and forth about GWB’s policies vis-a-vis the GWOT. As many here know, my little brother, Mike, is currently on the ground in Iraq for his thrid tour of duty. As such, both he and I know that the administration has made some god-awful tactical SNAFU’s, which haven’t done a goddamned thing to alleviate the threat the enemy poses. Not only he and I know this, but just about everybody here, including Dan & Pat, know it as well.

    Having said that, then, why aren’t we debating what to do next? Even assuming, arguendo, that we were to pull out NOW, how is this going to prevent future catastrophic attacks? I truly cannot bring myself to believe that any of you folks on the left think that we’re just going to be left alone.

    Thanks for the response, Pat. I mean that, and I look forward to reading your thoughts on the subject.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 29, 2006 @ 12:13 pm - November 29, 2006

  42. For the record: Orthodox Islamic doctrine does NOT countenance converting people to Islam at swordpoint; the individual is supposed to choose “voluntarily”.

    It breaks down of course, but I’ll get to that in a moment.

    The mainstream / orthodox / official view is for the Muslim to merely support the hegemony or supremacy of Islam; that it is OK to politically / militarily conquer the rulers of any nation who “attack Islam”, where the “attacking Islam” is understood extremely broadly to mean any instance of non-submission or non-grovelling to Islamic rulers.

    After politically / militarily conquering an uppity nation – which involves a lot of death right there, or course – the newly submitted non-Muslims are given an oppressive “dhimmi” status. Dhimmi is much like being Jewish in late 1930s’ Nazi Germany: special clothing requirements and restrictions; crushing religious, travel and livelihood restrictions; inferior legal rights; subjection to Sharia (no more homosexuality!); crushing extra taxes; etc.

    Thus, the non-Muslim gets to “choose” at the hands of the Muslim from 3 basic alternatives:

    (1) Death in resistance.
    (2) Full conversion to Islam.
    (3) Political submission, followed by dhimmi status.

    That’s the much-vaunted “peace” of Islam. The peace of submission.

    Of course, offering those 3 choices is an ideal and Muslims have fallen short of even that much, at many times engaging in: pogroms and killing non-believers outright, forced conversions, enslaving non-believers, etc.

    Comment by Calarato — November 29, 2006 @ 2:03 pm - November 29, 2006

  43. Losing The Enlightenment…

    In his podcast interview on The Glenn & Helen Show (which yes, I tuned into largely because of this headline–thanks Allah!), Orson Scott Card said:What does being liberal have to do with opposing or supporting the war against terror?……

    Trackback by Ed — November 29, 2006 @ 2:22 pm - November 29, 2006

  44. Calarato:
    It wasn’t that long ago that gay social establishments in the United States were illegal and routinely raided by the police. It’s only because liberals have fought tooth and nail for the past 40 years that we have won that right.

    You are naive if you think your evangelical friends wouldn’t jump at the chance to turn back the clock.

    Comment by Chase — November 29, 2006 @ 3:02 pm - November 29, 2006

  45. Chase, what the f*ck has that got to with the discussion at hand?

    Get your godd*mned head out of your ass and address the subject of radical islam, okay?

    No one here really gives a sh*t about bathhouses anymore. They’re not being raided, nor are we gays being singled out for oppression. Islamofascism, on the other hand, clearly DOES wish to see us at the end of a rope (or worse, judging by the video), so stick to the topic, okay?

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 29, 2006 @ 4:11 pm - November 29, 2006

  46. He could have meant bars as well (or mainly). But otherwise, I think you’re on the right track Eric.

    Chase: Your point is well-taken but it just proved mine, implicitly. Under the absolute WORST of conditions / times in the United States, gays had trouble meeting in bars. And that was 40 years ago. Whoopee. Review the video that started this thread, to see what life is like under Muslim law.

    Your argument would have been stronger if you had invoked gay-bashing – but even then, not that much stronger. Both evangelical and mainline Christians overwhelmingly reject gay-bashing, so any that happens is a sad exception to be punished. Under Islamic Sharia, gay-bashing is THE LAW.

    Comment by Calarato — November 29, 2006 @ 4:27 pm - November 29, 2006

  47. And thank you, Chase, for directly illustrating my point: you claim that what Christians COULD do is just as bad as what Muslims ARE doing.

    Tell you what; when you and your fellow gay Democrats like Mike Rogers provide us proof of the concentration camps for gays that you claim are operating in the Pacific Northwest, THEN we’ll become concerned and be more willing to play your anti-Christianity game.

    But until then, I stand by the observation that your words towards Christianity are not based on what they’re actually doing to you, but on your own bigoted and irrational hatred of them — and your hysterical attempts to rationalize that publicly by making foolish accusations and equivalencies.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2006 @ 5:08 pm - November 29, 2006

  48. #37. “oh wait”: Are you sure you’re from Michigan and not from some valley in California?

    #44 and #47. Chase, c’mon! Get with the program. While the Holocaust was carried out by Christians, the gay holocaust is being carried out by Muslims. George W. Bush is over in the Middle East right now, rushing to defend gay people there. Don’t believe the hype about him being “snubbed at the summit”! He’s out shaking his rump at a gay disco, planning with the IranianGayBorg and their far superior Islamist-loving gay conservative friends about how best to deal with the situation. He is our hero and will save gay people everywhere. (Except his own country.)

    Comment by sean — November 30, 2006 @ 12:45 am - November 30, 2006

  49. #6. Chase says: “It’s no secret that our political enemies in the Middle East all fall to the right of the political spectrum.

    Then you say: “Ummm… If you define “right” as “left” (up as down, black as white, etc.) then yes. Most Muslims and Islamists are actually socialist-to-Marxist in economic ideology.”

    First, what is with all the “ummms…” on here? Do you twirl your hair when you type that?

    More importantly, Chase said political spectrum. You counter with economic ideology. Opples and Aranges.

    Chase, you are correct: socially and politically and culturally, they are conservative and adhere to traditional values, stringent gender and family ideologies, strict law and order discipline and punishment, censorship of speech and the arts, etc.

    So, Calarato, ummm, ummm, ummmm, you should, ummmm, stick to the, ummmm, point that, ummm, Chase orignally made and, ummm, stop trying to define politics as economics, ummm, up as down, and, ummm, left as right. Chase said politically; you then change the subject to economics? Ummmmm…….

    Comment by sean — November 30, 2006 @ 12:55 am - November 30, 2006

  50. #47. Evangelical arsonist attacks mainline Protestant churches for what he claims is their heterodoxy. Church. Fire. Wrong beliefs. Oh, please, please, please defend the guy. I’ll sell tickets to the oration.

    Comment by sean — November 30, 2006 @ 12:57 am - November 30, 2006

  51. And the link…

    The Word of Life Christianist Arsonist:

    Comment by sean — November 30, 2006 @ 1:02 am - November 30, 2006

  52. Again, sean, having failed to actually read the thread, has chosen to embark upon the very tactic we’ve all expected. React first, think later (if at all).

    No surprise here, huh?

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 30, 2006 @ 1:12 am - November 30, 2006

  53. sean whines…

    “Evangelical arsonist attacks mainline Protestant churches for what he claims is their heterodoxy. Church. Fire. Wrong beliefs. Oh, please, please, please defend the guy. I’ll sell tickets to the oration.”.

    Have you been drinking young man? Your syntax coupled with the incendiary emotion displayed, leads me to assume you’ve been imbibing tonight. Is this the case?

    Otherwise, I have no choice but to assume you’re just a complete moron. Wouldn’t want that, now would we?

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 30, 2006 @ 1:21 am - November 30, 2006

  54. Actually, HNC, sean’s posting the church-burning event rather works in our favor.

    In the case of the young man, his actions have been universally repudiated, even by his own school and church, and he has been turned over to the law for the full punishment. He is quite clearly the only one who thinks that what he did was in any way right.

    Now contrast that to the behavior of the Iranians cited towards gays and anyone else who doesn’t share their beliefs; not only is violence and destruction against these people overlooked, it is encouraged and supported, both by the government AND the co-religionists of those carrying it out.

    The more desperately that Chase and sean flail and cite cases like this in trying to rationalize their anti-Christian hatreds and bigotry, the more obvious they make it that their concern is not with the actions of those involved, but with the ideology that they don’t like.

    And sean, whether you like it or not, the key to acceptance of gays in the Middle East is the promulgation of democracy, enlightened thought, and giving people a choice in their own destiny, rather than subjugation to theocratic and Islamic-pandering dictators.

    Bush stands for that and has put it into practice.

    Your own party has made every excuse not to do so — and has used the anti-Christian bigotry of you and yours to justify it. You have made a practice of bitching and whining over every perceived anti-gay slight when it comes from Christians — but have done nothing but rationalize and make excuses for Iran’s treatment of gays.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2006 @ 1:59 am - November 30, 2006

  55. NDXXX, thanks for the intel;ligent and insightful post, my friend.

    Next time yer in LA or Chicago, drop me an email – I’ll owe ya a REAL Chicago hot dog! 🙂

    Hey…wait – JUST the food, dude! ROFLAMO!!!!

    Shit, didn’t THAT sound self-involved, huh? LOL

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 30, 2006 @ 2:03 am - November 30, 2006

  56. #41 HNC, I’m afraid I do not have the answers, but I’ll try.

    First, with regards to Iraq, I would lean to getting out of there as soon as possible. I can’t say for certainty that that is the right answer. When Bush first decided to have Iraq invaded, I honestly couldn’t say whether that was the correct strategy. Because, in the past, Presidents have not been forthcoming with the information regarding military actions (i.e., probably lied) for me to make an informed decision. And if Bush had said that we could topple Saddam’s regime immediately, but be mired in a conflict for several years, with thousand’s of soldiers dying, I sincerely doubt that he would have gotten support from the Americans and Congress to carry out the war, at least in the way the Administration has done so. Frankly, I think Bush has lied about the war, and had motives for doing so. I normally don’t say in this blog that I think Bush lied, because I can’t prove it to my satisfaction. All I can say is that my bsdar pings wildly when Bush speaks about Iraq. For the record, my bsdar pinged wildly as well when his predecessor was President too.

    Whatever decision we make on Iraq, it cannot simply be because we think terrorists will behave and act a certain way. In other words, it has been suggested if the U.S. cuts and runs, that will increase terrorist recruitment. But recruitment has apparently increased during the war as well. Also, terrorists seem to fare pretty well in fighting on multiple fronts, so they can continue to terrorize in Iraq, while possibly continuing to plot terrorist activities in the U.S. The Administration really needs to make an honest assessment as to what is in the U.S.’s best interest.

    As for the GWOT, don’t have too many good solutions either. I don’t see terrorism ending for at least 50 years. It seems to occur when the U.S. invades countries, or doesn’t invade countries. In other words, as long as we don’t submit to Islam, terrorism will continue, at least for the foreseeable future. Whether it’s Republicans or Democrats, despite the differences, I am happy to say that they have much more in common in terms of philosophy. The terrorists clearly don’t like Western ideals, and they don’t like Israel’s existence. One thing to help end terrorism is to try to broker a real settlement to the Israeli-Palestinean conflict. But we don’t to give away the store just to make terrorists happy, just as I do not want to give up Western ideals, freedom, etc., just to make terrorists happy. I give both Clinton and Bush credit for trying hard to have peace in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. In the meantime the U.S. must come up with honest policies that benefit American interests, and come up with ways with preventing terrorism as much as possible. Part of this will have to come with quality intelligence and interrogation. Not the garbage that apparently happened at Gitmo (a topic for another discussion, I’m sure).

    Other things that have to change is the socioeconomics of future potential terrorists. The situation as it appears to me is that the top terrorist clowns have the money and power, and ironically have a lot of what people in the Western world have. But they don’t want to share it with their own people, and make sure that as many people are subjugated as possible. It seems to work for them. But they are able to recruit the poor and indifferent, and some how make them see that their pathetic way of life is better than ours. And then have them risk their own lives to try to kill as many of us that they can. I am not sure how the U.S. can change these conditions. Diplomacy may help, but to keep in mind that even many of the governments of our “allies” in the Middle East are perfectly content with the conditions of their citizenry.

    Anyway, that’s my thoughts, for now at least, for what they are worth.

    Comment by Pat — November 30, 2006 @ 12:21 pm - November 30, 2006

  57. Your first problem is to talk about the GWOT as if it’s a real thing.
    It’s the biggest lie since the war on poverty.

    What does it even mean? What the hell is victory? Nobody knows.
    Of course there are folks out there who want to kill not just Europeans, Americans or non-Muslims but everyone who gets in their way.
    Should those bad people be stopped? Sure. But you can’t do it by going around in Airplanes, helicopters or Humves and destroying infrastructure, torturing innocent people or stacking POWs into human pyramids.
    Your only hope is to marginalize them until their goals become universally unacceptable.
    The GWOT plays into their hands by creating instability, fear, and it has become a showcase to show how weak the US has become.

    Comment by keogh — November 30, 2006 @ 5:07 pm - November 30, 2006

  58. keogh said…

    “Your only hope is to marginalize them until their goals become universally unacceptable.”

    And just how do we go about doing that? Dialogue? Advertising? Blogging?

    Secondly, do you seriously think these people give a sh*t about being “marginalized?”

    Keogh, radical islam doesn’t concern itself with feelings of self-worth or acceptance; only the US does that, and how do you think that’s been working out thus far?

    Until you glean some deeper understanding of just what it is the islamists want to accomplish, your continued rants against all things Bush come off as nothing short of infantile.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 30, 2006 @ 5:23 pm - November 30, 2006

  59. keogh also said…

    “The GWOT plays into their hands by creating instability, fear, and it has become a showcase to show how weak the US has become.”

    I’m sorry to correct you, but I believe you meant to ay the following:

    The dhimmicrats played into their hands by creating instability, fear, and have become politically correct lapdogs to the islamists, showing how weak the american left has become.

    That’s right, isn’t it?

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 30, 2006 @ 5:26 pm - November 30, 2006

  60. Your only hope is to marginalize them until their goals become universally unacceptable.

    And how exactly does your defense of Hizbollah firing rockets at Israeli citizens play into that?

    The only country that we can depend on you and your fellow Democrats to criticize unfailingly and unflaggingly, keogh, is the United States. Even as you pay lip service to how bad Hizbollah is for doing such things, you blame the US’s support of Israel for provoking them. Even as you ask Iran to stop making nuclear weapons, you tell them their actions are justified because they see us as a threat.

    What terrorists have figured out, keogh, is that you and your fellow Democrats are incapable of marginalizing them — because you are so steeped in the belief of American inferiority and Americans always being wrong that you cannot make any request without qualifying why we have no right as a country to make it.

    Frankly, Democrats remind me a lot of the parents mentioned in this story.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - November 30, 2006

  61. Hollywood – many of the detractors to Clinton/Blair’s IRA peace process said the same things as you are now saying now.

    “What terrorists have figured out, keogh, is that you and your fellow Democrats are incapable of marginalizing them”

    It was our good pal Bill Clinton who really got the marginalization of the IRA going. He was on the way with the Palestinians but had some set backs. If Bush would have been more hands on with that process, something good might have came from Clinton’s groundbreaking marginalization process.
    Instead he choose ignore them and then create biggest joke of all time, the GWOT.

    An NDT, you are the worlds biggest offender of “putting words in other’s mouths” Just as you once called me an Anti-Semite you now lie and say I was defending Hezbollah…

    Comment by keogh — December 1, 2006 @ 11:16 am - December 1, 2006

  62. keogh, while I certainly respect that you wholly detest the GWOT, I can’t really see any parallels between the IRA and the islamists, other than the fact that both entities killed innocent people.

    As I understand it, the IRA’s grievances primarily concerned Irish independance. The islamists, on the other hand, are on record as saying that nothing short of worldwide submission to sharia is acceptable to them.

    In other words, the IRA wanted Ireland for the Irish. The islamists want the world for Allah. They are convinced that Allah wants us destroyed. How on earth are we to marginlize THAT worldview, when it’s proponents aren’t listening to anyone but their own warped perceptions of God?

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — December 1, 2006 @ 12:32 pm - December 1, 2006

  63. I don’t want to try to side track this thread, but where did that figure of 100,000 people have been executed in Iran over the past 23 years?

    That comes to over 10 people executed a day for 23 years. Which seems kind of high, even for Iran.

    I’m not trying to defend Iran, but that figure seems awfully high.

    Does anyone have any further information about where that figure came from?

    Comment by EFG — December 3, 2006 @ 7:08 am - December 3, 2006

  64. You marginalize them the say way as the IRA was marginalized.
    Through undercutting their support not stoking it through toppling govs.

    Comment by keogh — December 3, 2006 @ 11:38 am - December 3, 2006

  65. I have yet to hear a single lefty explain how to win against the death cult that is Islam.

    Comment by Bostonian — December 8, 2006 @ 10:56 pm - December 8, 2006

  66. […] And there are priorities and there are priorities. As Power Line put it today, quoting another good blog: Blog of the Week Gay Patriot has a harrowing video of the prosecution and hanging of two teenage boys in Iran. Arrested when they were 16 and 14 years old, they were accused of homosexual activity. They were flogged, imprisoned and eventually hanged. […]

    Pingback by Chapomatic » Red Meat — December 9, 2006 @ 12:33 am - December 9, 2006

  67. My heart goes out to these young men–and we want to negotiate with Iran and countries similar to them? Disgraceful.

    Comment by Richard Romano — December 9, 2006 @ 10:14 am - December 9, 2006

  68. […] Hat tip: Gay Patriot via PowerLine […]

    Pingback by Webloggin - Blog Archive » We Should Talk To These People — December 9, 2006 @ 4:27 pm - December 9, 2006

  69. We should talk with these people?…

    The Iraq Study Group seriously proposes that we have a nice little coffee klatch with Iran as one of the ways to resolve the situation in the Middle East, putting the group in comfortably with many Democrats and all Europeans. Put aside the fact that …

    Trackback by Bookworm Room — January 11, 2007 @ 11:02 am - January 11, 2007

  70. […] Welcomes Increased Mid-East Nuclear Programs – CBS News Ahmadinijad exterminating 4,000 Gays. Gay Patriot » Gay Holocaust In Iran. 4,000 Killed…. And Counting…. Iranian Guard declaired an terrorist organisation. – Iranian Cleric: U.S. Terror […]

    Pingback by Is Iran A Threat To The Us? — September 21, 2007 @ 11:28 am - September 21, 2007

  71. […] Tehran? Or, do the King-Of-Hearts on Wilshire Boulevard put SORAYA M. in the closet, with all the 4000-plus exterminated Iranian gays? You know, the ones they so forgot about to play the roles of Hollywood […]

    Pingback by Will ‘The Stoning Of Soraya M.’ Get An Oscar Nod? « N. Virginia, Richmond, VA and DC Metro Chapter — June 29, 2009 @ 5:00 pm - June 29, 2009

  72. […] Gay Patriot […]

    Pingback by BadEvan Gay Blog » Help GLBT Teens in Iran — August 12, 2009 @ 7:25 pm - August 12, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.