Gay Patriot Header Image

Another Gay Man Executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran

The Theocracy of Peace has taken another human life simply because they are gay.

The Death Sentence of Makwan Has Been Carried Out – Everygroup.com

Makwan Moloudzadeh was 21-years-old. He was murdered by his butchers inside Kermanshah prison where he was detained after being sentenced to death for “lavat” (sodomy). The boy, according to the Iranian judges, was “guilty” of having loved a peer when he was 13 and having sexual intercourse with him. The execution took place yesterday (December 5th, 2007) in the above-mentioned prison in the north-west of Iran at five in the morning (Iranian time). The sentence was carried out among the total silence of the press, institutions and associations. They did not even trouble to inform Makwan’s lawyer, father and uncle, with whom EveryOne Group (who had just launched the international “hearts campaign” to save Makwan’s life) was in contact with.

“We were devastated to hear the news” say the leaders of EveryOne Roberto Malini, Matteo Pegoraro and Dario Picciau. “We are still receiving hundreds of emails from all over the world in support of the campaign for Makwan’s life; from international political figures, activists and everyday citizens. The news of his death has stunned everyone, because only a few days ago the Iranian Head of the Judiciary, l’Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi had suspended the sentence, manifesting the intention of granting Makwan a pardon”.

You mean Iran goes back on its word? I’m shocked. Yet, potential Presidents-to-be Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to negotiate with our enemies who do this, and still the gay community fawns at their feet. Incredible.

And for those slow folks out there, a quick reminder: Iran is not a Christian, nor a Jewish state.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

77 Comments

  1. Derailing hate crimes legislation. The Iranian version.

    Comment by Sean A — December 6, 2007 @ 11:53 pm - December 6, 2007

  2. But it’s OK that we cozy up to a regime where a woman is flogged for being a rape victim? Sorry, I detest both theocratic regimes. And I detest a Presidential candidate who makes the inane claim that “freedom requires religion.”

    Comment by Ian S — December 7, 2007 @ 12:08 am - December 7, 2007

  3. Ian, shut up.

    Comment by MARGO — December 7, 2007 @ 12:46 am - December 7, 2007

  4. Have to agree with Margo on this one. Ian — you provide no useful input except to be an annoying and instigating troll. How about you move along and not continue your self-loathing ways by trolling on a site you can’t stand.

    Comment by GayPatriot — December 7, 2007 @ 12:49 am - December 7, 2007

  5. Thank you GP. That is exactly what I meant. However, you’ve said it more eloquently.

    Comment by MARGO — December 7, 2007 @ 12:58 am - December 7, 2007

  6. But it’s OK that we cozy up to a regime where a woman is flogged for being a rape victim?

    Sweet Jesus, you are stupid.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 7, 2007 @ 1:16 am - December 7, 2007

  7. I’ve run across a very insightful article about the Jihad in India and it’s implications for the US and Europe.

    This is just one Q and A, see link for the whole thing

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=33ADCAA3-1E36-4665-881D-8E6C4F6C8D7B

    FP: Illuminate for us the ongoing jihad in India.

    Muthuswamy: The answer to the question of what will likely happen to Europe and other nations as their resident Muslim populations rise faster than unbelievers becomes apparent by studying the ongoing jihad in India’s vicinity and in India itself.

    During the last sixty years, from every Muslim majority area of South Asia – without exception – be it Pakistan, Bangladesh or from India’s own Kashmir valley, non-Muslims have been massively driven out to India. This occurred when the Muslim population there achieved political power through majority status. Also, laws and conditions have been put in place to deliberately marginalize non-Muslims. In almost all of these cases, mosques and the clerics played a major role in facilitating this “conquest”. In India the Muslim population percentage has increased from about 10 percent in 1951 to about 15 percent now. Even within 85 percent non-Muslim India, in some Muslim majority towns this phenomenon is getting repeated. These South Asian populations share language, food habits and culture but differ in religion. Clearly, these Muslim populations are influenced by political Islam.

    Written orders were issued by Pakistan’s military high command to kill Hindus in the then East Pakistan in 1971. The largest religion-based genocide of the past fifty years was conducted as a result. Most of these expulsions and genocides occurred before 1972 – well before the large-scale infusion of petrodollars and Wahhabism.

    Those who claim that oil money, Muslim “grievance” or “freedom fighting” are responsible for terror should think again. As noted earlier, political Islam’s fundamental emphasis on conquest is traced to the scripture level.

    This data of non-Muslim expulsions from every Muslim majority area of South Asia implies that Muslims of this region do not believe in coexistence. This also points to intolerance among Indian Muslims (also substantiated in other ways). But due to their minority status they have not been able to completely impose their will on non-Muslim Indians. Still, Indian Muslim leaders have managed to lay siege to Indian democracy and have started to marginalize majority (to be discussed later) Hence, a fast-growing Muslim population within India can be seen as a looming genocidal threat to non-Muslim Indians.

    With about half of worldwide Muslim population in South Asia, this damning conclusion couldn’t be set aside as a deviant. The implications of this analysis for regions and nations with fast-growing and radicalized Muslim populations can’t be understated. A more complete statistics discussed in my book can be useful in articulating and justifying far-reaching policy measures.

    At the moment, India’s only Muslim majority state of Kashmir is embroiled in an insurgency. Material and other forms of support for this insurgency come not just from Pakistan but also from many Middle Eastern nations, including Saudi Arabia. While these Muslim nations find it convenient to support “freedom fighting” of Muslims, they choose to neglect non-Muslim ethnic cleansing from every Muslim majority area of South Asia. For instance, Pakistan-controlled part of Kashmir is virtually devoid of non-Muslims. This fits in with the idea of extending Islam’s frontiers at the expense of unbelievers.

    Terror is just one avenue for conquering the land belonging to infidels. When Muslims are a minority different ways must be found. Special reservations for Muslims in jobs and educational institutions were demanded and extracted by intimidating ruling regimes in India. In the long run, these unfair reservations empowers Muslims at the expense of people belonging to other faiths, setting the stage for further annihilation of non-Muslim faiths in India.

    Powerful clerics and Muslim community leaders “cautioned” the Indian government of violent attacks by “angry” Muslims if the reservation demands were not met. After all, Muslim masses have been told in mosques that their relative lack of representation in positions requiring education is no fault of their own; only government and the Hindu majority are to be blamed. This flawed perception of Muslim grievance has taken years to achieve and is part of the jihad buildup funded by several Middle East nations and Pakistan whose passion is unbeliever conquest.

    The jihad-related data from India (and everywhere else) emphasizes the need to preempt jihad buildup at its infancy. The power structure of political Islam is based in mosques – the socially networked nodes. With its power so narrowly concentrated (Muslim masses are otherwise disorganized outside of mosques), mosques are also political Islam’s greatest weak link.

    Political Islam’s contemporary record of unbeliever genocide, backed by scriptures, has no parallels with any other faith. Hence, as part of preemption, non-Muslim majority nations are well-within their rights to categorize any mosque or any Muslim religious institution that stocks or distributes material derived from Islamic trilogy as an enemy entity – and shut them down if needed. Even if a mosque appears outwardly moderate in a Western nation, by preaching trilogy dominated by political Islam, it is still stealthily building up jihad in local Muslim community! Of course, mosques in Muslim majority nations are overt about advancing jihad.

    This way of going after the nodes that spawn jihad should also help liberate Muslim populations to alternate way of life or faith – i.e. help ensure religious freedom of Muslim populations repressed by a political ideology masquerading as a religion. Importantly, this tactic does not violate liberty of individual Muslims.

    Comment by Vince P — December 7, 2007 @ 9:36 am - December 7, 2007

  8. And I detest a Presidential candidate who makes the inane claim that “freedom requires religion.”

    Ian reveals that a Kucinich/Paul ticket is his vision of heaven.

    Oops! Ian has no view of heaven. It would be his view of an alternate reality.

    It is a miserable way to spend the day when you wake up knowing that the worst is just ahead and only you and your friends can see it. Being an oracle in a stupid world is depressing.

    Thanks for dropping by, Ian, we all need to be astounded on a regular basis. It keeps us from being over confident.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 7, 2007 @ 9:37 am - December 7, 2007

  9. What’s the purpose of this post? That we should attack Iran?

    Comment by Chase — December 7, 2007 @ 9:59 am - December 7, 2007

  10. The purpose is to show how cuddly and non-threatening life in Iran is.

    Comment by Vince P — December 7, 2007 @ 10:06 am - December 7, 2007

  11. Okay, then why is the Bush administration about to deport a gay man back to Iran? There’s not a lot we can do about the internal workings in Iran. But we don’t have to send gay people back there to be tortured and/or executed.

    Comment by Houndentenor — December 7, 2007 @ 10:33 am - December 7, 2007

  12. But nobody was criticizing Cheney here when he visited Saudi Arabia earlier this year and they do this: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378314145&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

    Isn’t it a little bit relative? If human rights were our perquisite for diplomatic discourse with Arab countries, we wouldn’t have relations with any of them.

    Comment by Chase — December 7, 2007 @ 10:52 am - December 7, 2007

  13. As I understand the article, it raises a lot of questions about isalmic law.
    The sex act was committed when he was 13 years old. Was it a one time thing or was it an ongoing relationship and for how long? If it was a a one time only or several occasions during the year that he was 13, is there no statute of limitation? His sentence was suspended by the Head of the Jusiciary, the reason was not given, but why wasn´t he released from prision the day his sentence was suspended? I´m curious as to how an act committed eight years came to light and what about his partner? What has happened to him?

    I don´t understand the inconsistency of the left. As GP so aptly states that the gay community fawns at the feet of the Democratic candidates who want to befriend enemies of the community. And they call gay conservatives self-loathing. It reminds me of the feminists who called for Senator Packwood´s head for a perceived indiscretion while winking at Bill Clinton´s peccadillos both as governor and president.

    Comment by Roberto — December 7, 2007 @ 10:59 am - December 7, 2007

  14. #11 – “Okay, then why is the Bush administration about to deport a gay man back to Iran?”

    Okay, schweinhundtenor – please show us the evidence to back up your so-called claim. Because I for one have not heard this news.

    And like T. Boone Pickens said to John Kerry: put up or shut up.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 7, 2007 @ 11:01 am - December 7, 2007

  15. What’s the purpose of this post? That we should attack Iran?

    How about:

    – Repeating news that isn’t being much covered elsewhere.
    – Mourning the passing of a gay life, at the hands of savages.

    Or have those impulses escaped you by now, Chase?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2007 @ 11:02 am - December 7, 2007

  16. What i’m saying is, if your going to take the position that we shouldn’t talk to human rights violators or dictatorial regimes, then be consistent about that. Don’t cherry pick which dictator is your friend and which is your enemy. Because if you say that we shouldn’t have relations with any of them, at least then you are being consistent in your position. Myself, I think we should talk to everyone regardless of the terrible things they do. I believe you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

    You need to give the honey a chance.

    Comment by Chase — December 7, 2007 @ 11:03 am - December 7, 2007

  17. But nobody was criticizing Cheney here blah blah blah whine whine…

    Back to changing the subject. Eh, Chase?

    By the way: You know, if you think stuff like that should receive more coverage, you can start your own blog. I believe blogs are a place where *different* people select *different* things to write about, that interest *them*. In other words, I believe they are *selective by nature*. And I believe that is called, “freedom”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2007 @ 11:04 am - December 7, 2007

  18. Mourning the passing of a gay life, at the hands of savages.

    Yes, perhaps if it hadn’t been turned into a political attack on the Democratic presidential candidates, it would have had more resonance.

    Comment by Chase — December 7, 2007 @ 11:06 am - December 7, 2007

  19. What i’m saying is, if your going to take the position that we shouldn’t talk to human rights violators or dictatorial regimes, then be consistent about that.

    Umm, excuse me, but last I checked, the subject of the post is the execution of Makwan Moloudzadeh. And you’ve somehow transmogrified that into a “position that we shouldn’t talk to Iran”??????????? Weird!

    I do see a reference disapproving Clinton and Obama wanting to negotiate naively with Iran. But that is not a “position that we shouldn’t talk to Iran”. Rather, it is more of a position that Americans shouldn’t elect idiots to do the talking with Iran.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2007 @ 11:07 am - December 7, 2007

  20. Back to changing the subject. Eh, Chase?

    No. I just don’t see how you can say we shouldn’t have diplomatic discussions with Iran because they murder gay people, when we do have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and they so thoroughly violate the rights of women.

    It’s wildly inconsistent.

    Comment by Chase — December 7, 2007 @ 11:09 am - December 7, 2007

  21. I do see a reference disapproving Clinton and Obama wanting to negotiate naively with Iran. But that is not a “position that we shouldn’t talk to Iran”.

    It isn’t? Diplomatic discussions are negotiations. Next you’re gonna tell me an apple isn’t a fruit.

    Comment by Chase — December 7, 2007 @ 11:11 am - December 7, 2007

  22. “Back to changing the subject. Eh, Chase?”

    No. I just don’t see how blah blah blah whine whine…

    Translation: Yes.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2007 @ 11:14 am - December 7, 2007

  23. #21 – Conveniently leaving off the real point, which again, is:

    Rather, it is more of a position that Americans shouldn’t elect idiots to do the talking with Iran.

    Perhaps it would have been more effective if, instead of “idiots”, I had said “Naive surrender-monkeys”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2007 @ 11:15 am - December 7, 2007

  24. Translation: Yes.

    No. I fundamentally disagree with Bruce’s position that we can not have diplomatic relations, negotiations or whatever you want to call it, with Iran.

    That was the only additional comments he added to his block quote, so that pretty much signals the intent of the post to me.

    Comment by Chase — December 7, 2007 @ 11:18 am - December 7, 2007

  25. Bruce’s [alleged] position that we can not have diplomatic relations, negotiations or whatever you want to call it, with Iran.

    And again: I don’t know where you got that. That has got to be a bizarre misinterpretation on your part, Chase.

    I do see a reference disapproving Clinton and Obama wanting to do their brand of “negotiations” with Iran. But that is not a “position that we shouldn’t talk to Iran”. Rather, it is more of a position that Americans shouldn’t elect naive surrender-monkeys to do the talking with Iran.

    We can go at this all day, Chase. It won’t alter the facts that you have apparently decided or chosen to (1) misinterpret the post, then (2) change the subject to one you prefer.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2007 @ 11:26 am - December 7, 2007

  26. A left-wing lesbian speaks out on Ahmadinnerjacket.

    I know I’m a Jewish lesbian and (Ahmadinejad would) probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon… Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. […] There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration

    Comment by V the K — December 7, 2007 @ 11:34 am - December 7, 2007

  27. As for this:

    [the Clinton – Obama comment] pretty much signals the intent of the post to me

    First, Chase, I should think that all that text about Makwan Moloudzadeh, plus the post’s title, would signal its intent. Again, along the lines of:

    – Repeating news that isn’t being much covered elsewhere.
    – Mourning the passing of a gay life, at the hands of anti-gay savages.

    Second, Chase, THIS is what you originally said you think the posts’ intent is:

    What’s the purpose of this post? That we should attack Iran?

    Backing down from that? Hope so. Man, what a cheesy leap.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2007 @ 11:40 am - December 7, 2007

  28. #26 – V, that post by the Kossack is utterly disgusting. That’s like Sharon Tate saying that with a shave and a haircut, Charles Manson would be a hunk.

    I find it interesting that those who should be against the ones who would do them the most harm are the ones who lionize these guys in the first place. Reminds me of a documented instance when female inmates at Birkenau would be humiliated by Dr. Mengele and would still gush, “oh, but I wish I could spend the night with Schoener Josef!”

    Sad. Just utterly, insanely sad.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 7, 2007 @ 11:58 am - December 7, 2007

  29. Chase — please see comments #3 and #4. They equally apply to you at this point as well. Please “Move On” to another on-line community.

    I for one do not appreciate you simply coming into our house here to put mud on the floors and then leaving without helping to clean it up.

    Oh, for you slow people…. that was called a “metaphor.”

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — December 7, 2007 @ 12:00 pm - December 7, 2007

  30. What i’m saying is, if your going to take the position that we shouldn’t talk to human rights violators or dictatorial regimes, then be consistent about that. Don’t cherry pick which dictator is your friend and which is your enemy. Because if you say that we shouldn’t have relations with any of them, at least then you are being consistent in your position. Myself, I think we should talk to everyone regardless of the terrible things they do. I believe you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

    Did you happen to forget the reason why we don’t talk to Iran?

    How do you talk to people who attack your soverign terroritory?

    You don’t remember Iran invading our Embassy?

    They did that to us… They decided to cut relations.

    They declared war on us.

    No we shouldn’t talk to them.. we should defeat them.

    And as for the comparasion to Saudi Arabia.. the fact that you would simplisticly say that we should treat them like Iran just indicates you spent no time thinking about this .. or your disingeniousness.

    Comment by Vince P — December 7, 2007 @ 12:38 pm - December 7, 2007

  31. Isn’t it amazing how chase reveals himself to be a Leftist first and gay second.

    He contributes to this thread not to speak out against violence towards gay but instead to further the Left’s war against America.

    His first impulse is to defend Iran.
    Then he complains that anti-Obama comment was made.

    These are the things he is worried about.

    Why doesn’t he do us a favor and go to Iran and talk to them. We have enough fifth columns in the country.

    Comment by Vince P — December 7, 2007 @ 12:43 pm - December 7, 2007

  32. The problem is, left-wing Democrats think that “talking” and “negotiation” alone can solve problems. They can only be part of the solution, and they must be backed up by a willingness to take action. Sitting down and talking when the only possible penalty an enemy could suffer for failing to comply is having to sit down and talk some more accomplishes nothing.

    Comment by V the K — December 7, 2007 @ 12:47 pm - December 7, 2007

  33. #14: I read about it here last week

    http://gaycitynews.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19069840&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=8

    BTW, this is in this week’s issue of Gay City News: for those of you who keep lying and saying that the gay press does not cover the plight of gay people in the middle east.

    http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19092040&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6

    Comment by Houndentenor — December 7, 2007 @ 12:53 pm - December 7, 2007

  34. #32. No, V. I just think that we should try talking before we start bombing.

    Comment by Houndentenor — December 7, 2007 @ 12:56 pm - December 7, 2007

  35. #14. BTw, Peter, I do not appreciate being called a pig. My name is a reference to a theatrical work that the culturally literatre will recognize.

    Comment by Houndentenor — December 7, 2007 @ 12:56 pm - December 7, 2007

  36. But it’s OK that we cozy up to a regime where a woman is flogged for being a rape victim? Sorry, I detest both theocratic regimes. And I detest a Presidential candidate who makes the inane claim that “freedom requires religion.”

    Comment by Ian S — December 7, 2007 @ 12:08 am – December 7, 2007

    It’s appalling how Ian is all to willing to destroy the foundations of our country.

    That’s the problem with these detestible Leftists.. they take everything for granted.. they think that this country got where it was by fluke or chance.. not because of something particular to the people who founded and developed it.

    This is what the foundations of our country are:

    In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, “a necessary spring of popular government,” while Adams claimed that statesmen “may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.”

    John Adams:
    “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –October 11, 1798

    John Quincy Adams:
    “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?” “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity”?
    –1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

    Ben Franklin
    “In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

    In Benjamin Franklin’s 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.”

    Patrick Henry
    “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

    Thomas Jefferson
    “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

    ========

    So Ian detests religion. Fine that’s his right. But he better be aware of the underpinings of the society he lives in.

    Comment by Vince P — December 7, 2007 @ 1:04 pm - December 7, 2007

  37. VtheK in #26 is banking on you all reading the outrageous comments in the little colored box and not on actually clicking the link and reading the full diary (which the writer later claimed was parody) or the many condemning comments from Kossacks who — like VtheK — also failed to see the parody. So V is hoping you’ll applaud his venture in Kos territory to pluck some outrage so people like the commenters who followed VtheK can dutifully piss their pants. So much for people who rely on Cliff Notes.

    Comment by KYKid — December 7, 2007 @ 1:56 pm - December 7, 2007

  38. Hound, consider the source (and said source’s feeble condition) and just forgive the “pig” remarks.

    Comment by KYKid — December 7, 2007 @ 1:58 pm - December 7, 2007

  39. But but but…that nice man, Ahmadinejad, told those nice people at Columbia University that homosexuals didn’t exist in his peace-loving, tolerant nation.

    YEAH – BECAUSE HE HAS THEM ALL MURDERED.

    Islamo-fascism is truly a mental illness, as is liberalism, which makes excuses for it. It’s both who have the blood of Makwan Moloudzadeh on their hands. Liberals pretend to care, which makes them as complicit as the hangman.

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — December 7, 2007 @ 3:23 pm - December 7, 2007

  40. #35 – “My name is a reference to a theatrical work that the culturally literatre [sic] will recognize.”

    You mean like the Opera Dogs Calendar for 2008?

    Please. Spare me the “holier-than-thou” elitist ramblings. It is that type of lofty attitude that is the hallmark of the Perenially Indignant Left.

    And besides, the moniker “schweinhund” fits you to a T. Typical national-socialist-drivel. (Hat tip to Simon Wiesenthal for that one.)

    But you still didn’t answer my question. Please give specific details about the Bush Administration deporting a gay man back to Iran, especially in light of the fact that we do not have formal diplomatic relations with them.

    If you cannot, then why should we trust you?

    Otherwise, to quote the King of Spain: “Por que tu no te callas?”

    For those who are not adept at Spanish: “Why don’t you shut up?”

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 7, 2007 @ 3:55 pm - December 7, 2007

  41. Sitting down and talking when the only possible penalty an enemy could suffer for failing to comply is having to sit down and talk some more accomplishes nothing.

    Sorry, but no, it’s much worse than that. It actually undermines your cause, by showing the enemy you’re an idiot. In other words: It is a form of appeasement.

    The problem is, left-wing Democrats think that “talking” and “negotiation” alone can solve problems. They can only be part of the solution, and they must be backed up by a willingness to take action.

    Indeed. That’s why I am 100% in favor of negotiating and talking… when the negotiating and talking is being done by the people who also possess that willingness to take action. Not by the surrender-monkeys, i.e., the people we currently have angling to throw away all of our country’s gains in Iraq.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2007 @ 4:21 pm - December 7, 2007

  42. Peter – In fairness to Houndentenor, I often disagree with him and/or find him mis-informed, and on occasion I even find him a little snotty (as you are today)… BUT… on average Houndentenor is one of the blog’s better / more responsible lefties. Way better than Ian or gil, on average. There has even been a time or two when we’ve agreed, and/or I’ve liked having him around. 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2007 @ 4:26 pm - December 7, 2007

  43. (i.e., as you are *FINDING HIM* today – – is what I meant )

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2007 @ 4:33 pm - December 7, 2007

  44. OK, ILC, I’ll take your word for it. You are a reliable source.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 7, 2007 @ 5:12 pm - December 7, 2007

  45. Quick! Invite Pres. Ahme-jama-ding-dong back to Columbia! Or Harvard! Or UC-Berkeley!

    While I think the Saudi government is detestable (as do many conservatives), they’re not overtly trying to destroy us. (Actually, they work covertly – funding radical imams and all that.)

    But anyone (and you know who you are) that draws some sort of equivalence between the butchers in Tehran and any western government is deluded. The day I can understand this logic is the day I need to see a shrink.

    And I detest a Presidential candidate who makes the inane claim that “freedom requires religion.”

    I think Ian is taking this phrase a bit too literally. But from what little I know of world history, many noble efforts (e.g. abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement) were of religious origin. One need only look at the millions murdered by Stalin, Pol-Pot, and “Dear Leader” to see that evil can be purely secular.

    Myself, I’m agnostic. But I’d rather live in a society governed by Judeo-Christian ethics than a society where people just make up the rules as they go.

    Aside from Islam, religion is practically dead in Europe. Things don’t look all that promising over there.

    As far as Makwan Moloudzadeh – all of us (even KY and Ian) should kiss the ground we walk on that we live in the US where we can be gay without fear of being executed.

    This poor kids spent eight years living in hell. Few of us can begin to imagine what life there must be like.

    May he rest in peace and our hopes should be with his family and our gay brothers and sisters who live in that crap-hole.

    Comment by Robert — December 7, 2007 @ 6:26 pm - December 7, 2007

  46. This was a sickening story. But I don’t see George Bush or any Republicans standing up against this. As a matter of fact, I’ll bet that no Republican office holder has anything to say about it. And I don’t see them doing anything at all against Saudi Arabia, Russia, Lithuania, Nigeria, or Jamaica either. Chertoff did his best to change US policy so that legitimate LGBT refugees are sent back into danger. Iraq ain’t looking too great for Gay folks either now.

    So whats your plan? Vote for a Republican so that they’d continue to ignore abuses against LGBT persons worldwide?

    Comment by Tom in Houston — December 7, 2007 @ 6:33 pm - December 7, 2007

  47. Tom: Why don’t you just read the comments instead of asking us to repeat everything.

    Comment by Vince P — December 7, 2007 @ 6:37 pm - December 7, 2007

  48. #32. No, V. I just think that we should try talking before we start bombing.

    After Europe, who fears a nuclear Iran more than we do, spent how much time negotiating with Iran? What’s left to talk about?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 7, 2007 @ 6:45 pm - December 7, 2007

  49. So whats your plan? Vote for a Republican so that they’d continue to ignore abuses against LGBT persons worldwide?

    So what’s your plan? Vote for a liberal so that they’d continue to ignore abuses against GLBT persons worldwide who don’t cough up laundered campaign cash?

    There. Fixed it for you.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 7, 2007 @ 6:49 pm - December 7, 2007

  50. Moral Equivalence Watch:

    Germain Greer says it’s too tricky to take up mistreatment of women in Darfur because they’re so badly treated in Melbourne.

    Mark Steyn at The Corner

    Comment by Robert — December 7, 2007 @ 6:49 pm - December 7, 2007

  51. How anyone suggest we negiotate (and for what??) with people who use negiotation simply to buy time so they can do whatever it is that they wanted to do anyway?

    See this Iranian TV clip about how Iran dupes the EU with talks while using the time it bought them to complete some nuclear work

    http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/805.htm

    How naive can people like Tom, Ian and Barry Hussien Obama be?

    Comment by Vince P — December 7, 2007 @ 6:50 pm - December 7, 2007

  52. Vince (#47) — THANK YOU… you just made my night! LOL.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — December 7, 2007 @ 10:26 pm - December 7, 2007

  53. #52, It annoys me how narcissistic they are.

    I think anything involving the War on Terror is the best example of this.

    How many times have you (or anyone) talked about anything remotely related to the war, and then a Lefty will come around and ask for the 42978698309470969713587358th time why did we go into Iraq,, why didn’t we nuke saudi arabia and slaughter every Iranian , the word hates us, etc etc.

    And the way they say it, it’s as if theyre saying it for the first time… and it’s as if this argument never occurred in the past 4 years… and it’s as if you never replied in the past and they dont know where you stand.

    Just rehash the same argument relentelessly while they bloviate with their perfect 20/20 hindsight, yet offer no vision for the future.

    That’s all they have. Their sanctiminious Captain Obviousness about past mistakes yet Hellen Keller foresight for the future.

    Comment by Vince P — December 7, 2007 @ 10:53 pm - December 7, 2007

  54. I would like to know, if anybody has the stones to answer, just how you talk to and negotiate with an ass hat who believes his goal in life is to bring about the end of the world?

    Where do you begin? Groveling and genuflecture?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 8, 2007 @ 12:23 am - December 8, 2007

  55. You’ll never get an answer. Everyone wants to pretend that Iran’s rulers dont have that agenda.

    Comment by Vince P — December 8, 2007 @ 12:34 am - December 8, 2007

  56. Iraqi Tribal Leadership: Shut Down Iranian Embassy In Iraq

    Over 200 sheikhs of Iraqi tribes issued, on December 6, a communiqué condemning “the terrorist presence of the Iranian regime and of its collaborators in Iraq” and calling for Iran’s embassy and consulates in Iraq to be shut down.

    Conversely, the leaders expressed support for the presence of the Iranian opposition organization Mojahideen-e-Khalq in Iraq, “as punishment for the Iranian regime that is exporting terrorism and radicalism to Iraq.”

    The leaders also expressed support for a petition signed by over 300,000 Shi’ites in southern Iraq condemning Iranian intervention in Iraq and accusing the Iranian government of “fanning the flames of inter-ethnic violence that has caused the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis… and the uprooting of four million people.”

    Source: Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, London, December 7, 2007

    Comment by Vince P — December 8, 2007 @ 12:51 am - December 8, 2007

  57. (which the writer later claimed was parody)

    Now I went to public skrool in Mississippi, but it’s always been my understanding that parody and satire require an element of truth.

    But I’m sure you’re usual arrogance is banking on everybody being too stupid to catch that.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 8, 2007 @ 6:56 am - December 8, 2007

  58. 36: Instead of attacking Ian, why doesn’t someone here address the rather cogent point he brings up? Treatment of women in countries with which we’re friendly can be as bad as the treatment/murder of gays in Iran. I noticed the only responses were name-calling, a tried an true tactic to ignoring the point brought up. Guess name calling here is still ok as long you support the point of view of the owners, even though it’s supposedly against the rules.

    Comment by Kevin — December 8, 2007 @ 7:08 am - December 8, 2007

  59. Kevin,

    Saudi Arabia sucks. We know this. I’m all for drilling off shore, wind farms in Puget Sound, Drilling in ANWAR, and Nuclear power (pebble reactors anyone?) to allow us to tell all these theocracies to sod off.

    So the left can whine about it all they want. They don’t want to do anything about it though.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 8, 2007 @ 9:05 am - December 8, 2007

  60. I think we are all in agreement about how horrible it is to be gay in the middle east. So what do we do about it? Do we offer middle eastern gays asylum? At least try to keep them from being deported once they are here? Did anyone even read the links I posted?

    Comment by Houndentenor — December 8, 2007 @ 10:34 am - December 8, 2007

  61. Well, we could try bringing some human rights and democracy to the Middle East, but a lot of lefties seem to think brown people shouldn’t have those things.

    Comment by V the K — December 8, 2007 @ 10:43 am - December 8, 2007

  62. Concepts like radio free europe would be a good start. Not so much queer as folk, but tolerance and such things. Maybe KD Lang and Melissa Ethridge music?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 8, 2007 @ 11:46 am - December 8, 2007

  63. I found this description of what the Palestinians did to a gay guy:

    Tayseer refused to implicate others. He was arrested and hung by his arms from the ceiling. A high-ranking officer he didn’t know arranged for his release and then demanded sex as payback. Tayseer fled Gaza to Tulkarem on the West Bank, but there too he was eventually arrested. He was forced to stand in sewage water up to his neck, his head covered by a sack filled with feces, and then he was thrown into a dark cell infested with insects and other creatures he could feel but not see. (“You slap one part of your body, and then you have to slap another,” he recounts.) During one interrogation, police stripped him and forced him to sit on a Coke bottle. Through the entire ordeal he was taunted by interrogators, jailers, and fellow prisoners for being a homosexual.

    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=b41d10c0-1bfb-4d8f-83fa-47ae8776b2b5

    Comment by Vince P — December 8, 2007 @ 12:25 pm - December 8, 2007

  64. And yet to gay left organizations like “Queers for Palestine,” the Israelis are the bad guys.

    Comment by V the K — December 8, 2007 @ 1:02 pm - December 8, 2007

  65. 60: Sadly no, the supporters of this site clearly don’t/didn’t. Your links show articles in the gay press about the treatment of gays in Iran. However, it would fly in the face of the the rhetoric that pops up her continuously that “lefty” gays don’t care about gays in Iran. What’s happening here is that it’s thrown up as some kind of “proof” that all gays on the left support violent, totalitarian regimes. When people discuss topics here, such as gay marriage, issues like people being tortured/murdered in Iran are used solely to say “stop whining about your rights here, people elsewhere have it worse”

    Comment by Kevin — December 8, 2007 @ 7:33 pm - December 8, 2007

  66. heh.. this should be interesting

    Netherlands Government Pledges 2.5 m. Euros to Crack Down on Religious Dissent from “Gay Rights”
    LifeSiteNews ^ | 12/7/07 | Hilary White

    Posted on 12/08/2007 2:53:39 PM CST by wagglebee

    AMSTERDAM, December 7, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Netherlands has led the world in the introduction of the homosexual political movement. Now it is going to be leading the way to cracking down on dissent from the officially “tolerant” position on homosexuality, particularly among those Dutch citizens who “follow a more orthodox religious lifestyle”.

    The coalition government has agreed to earmark 2.5 million euros from 2008 to 2011 to promote homosexuality as normal in social areas. The government said that the money will be spent on programmes specifically targeting young Muslims in schools, sport clubs or neighbourhood associations.

    Ronald Plasterk, minister of education admitted that Dutch homosexuals enjoy the same rights as everyone else, “socially the acceptance is not automatic among certain ethnic minorities or people who follow a more orthodox religious lifestyle.”

    The Netherlands was the first country in the world to institute same-sex “marriage” and allow homosexual partners to adopt children.

    The policy will extend, in as-yet undisclosed programmes, to Dutch foreign aid donations. Development Cooperation Minister Bert Koenders told Parliament, “The Netherlands will promote equal rights for gays as much as possible. We will not avoid awkward discussions about this.”

    The government told its ambassadors to developing countries to increase pressure on those nations to decriminalize homosexuality.

    But it is not merely “religiously orthodox” people who retain at least subconscious objections to public displays of homosexuality. Gay activist Frank van Dalen, president of the Dutch national homosexual lobbyists, Federation of Dutch Associations for Integration of Homosexuality, (COC), complained that a recent poll showed that 48 per cent of the population is shocked by two men kissing and the number goes up to 75 per cent of recent immigrants.

    Dutch homosexual activists are powerful at the European Union where pressure is mounting on Poland to adopt the Charter of Fundamental Rights that is seen as a crucial instrument in installing the full programme of gay activism. The EU gay activist group ILGA-Europe praised the increase of pressure to normalize homosexuality by the EU Commission on candidate countries such as Turkey and Serbia.

    An ILGA-Europe spokesman said the group “appreciates” such efforts and praised the “clearly positive development in the progress reports as the human rights of LGBT people are explicitly mentioned in a larger number of the eight reports than last year.”

    Comment by Vince P — December 8, 2007 @ 8:39 pm - December 8, 2007

  67. Treatment of women in countries with which we’re friendly can be as bad as the treatment/murder of gays in Iran.

    Saudi women are getting more and more rights. Iranian gays, however, aren’t.

    What’s happening here is that it’s thrown up as some kind of “proof” that all gays on the left support violent, totalitarian regimes.

    Given the left’s love affairs with “Uncle Joe” Stalin, Manuel Ortega, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and enabling Pol-Pot etc. etc. etc., it’s not very far fetched at all.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 8, 2007 @ 9:31 pm - December 8, 2007

  68. BTW, kevin, Ian said:

    where a woman is flogged for being a rape victim

    which is bullshit and he knows it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 8, 2007 @ 9:33 pm - December 8, 2007

  69. Well it sounds like that the far right doesn’t really care about the gays in the middle east. It’s just a smokescreen to keep from talking about other issues. That’s too bad. I was hoping that we might find some common ground and perhaps work together on the few things we agree on. But no one is interested in that. It’s just a weapon for liberal bashing. Sad.

    Comment by Houndentenor — December 9, 2007 @ 4:30 pm - December 9, 2007

  70. That’s a pretty stupid comment, Houndentenor.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 9, 2007 @ 4:34 pm - December 9, 2007

  71. There’s a news story out about the Sudan Mohemmed Bear Teacher:

    http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2007/12/09/my-sudan-hell-by-teddy-bear-row-teacher-98487-20224797/

    The trial was bizarre. “The court was packed with witnesses and officials,” says Gillian.

    “Policemen stood at the door with guns. The judge sat behind a wooden banister and the lawyers stood before him – my solicitor and the three prosecutors – alongside my translator.

    They put the bear on trial. The clerk produced him like a rabbit out of a hat and put him in the dock – but the bear collapsed.
    “So the prosecution sat him up again. Then they pointed at him aggressively, saying, ‘This is the bear, exhibit A, that caused the offence.’

    “The poor bear was standing there in FREE AT LAST his little school shirt. It was absurd.”

    Gillian was determined to tell the truth. “I told the judge, ‘It’s not realistic that I would come all the way to Sudan just to insult the prophet.’ I thought they’d let me go.

    “But the prosecution were giving it to me both barrels, saying, ‘She deserves to be punished.’ The judge clearly thought so too.

    Comment by Vince P — December 10, 2007 @ 1:21 am - December 10, 2007

  72. When people discuss topics here, such as gay marriage, issues like people being tortured/murdered in Iran are used solely to say “stop whining about your rights here, people elsewhere have it worse”

    I wonder if you can provide examples, from this blog, to back up your ASSertion.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 10, 2007 @ 6:43 am - December 10, 2007

  73. What is stupid about it, ILC?

    What are you doing to help gays in Iran? Did YOU write letters to the Bush administration?

    Over and over I hear about the silence of the left on certain issues, but I don’t see any action to help gay people who are being abused around the world from the left. Am I missing something? Please post links to non-gay affiliated conservative sites that are outraged that we are about do deport a gay man back to Iran where he will probably be executed for being gay. One will do.

    I don’t think you give a rat’s ass about this issue. You just want to do a little more liberal bashing. It’s becoming clear that this blog is not about being gay or being a patriot but about hating lefties.

    Comment by Houndentenor — December 10, 2007 @ 9:50 am - December 10, 2007

  74. Over and over I hear about the silence of the left on certain issues, but I don’t see any action to help gay people who are being abused around the world from the left. Am I missing something?

    Obviously.

    You don’t see action from the left to help anybody, gay or otherwise. There’s no money in it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 10, 2007 @ 5:02 pm - December 10, 2007

  75. Please post links to non-gay affiliated conservative sites that are outraged that we are about do deport a gay man back to Iran where he will probably be executed for being gay. One will do.

    Or anywhere for that matter. Please post any links from HRC, that website belonging to the Greek broad, CNN, MorOn.org, DailyKooks, CBS, ABC, MSNBC etc. shows zip, zero, Nada. Not even the beloved DNC, who pretends to care more than anybody else, seems to give a damn.

    Thank you, drive thru.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 10, 2007 @ 5:49 pm - December 10, 2007

  76. And so it begins…

    Suicide attack at Pakistani nuclear weapons complex

    http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/12/suicide_attack_at_pa.php

    By Bill RoggioDecember 10, 2007 9:26 PM

    Remnants of the car used in the suicide attack in Kamra. AP photo.

    As the Pakistani military continues the slow push to regain control of the settled district of Swat, suicide bombers struck in two locations, one at a sensitive weapons facility near Islamabad. The most deadly attack occurred in Swat in the Northwest Frontier Province after a suicide bomber hit a police checkpoint near Matta, where the Pakistani Army just established a presence. Ten were killed, including two children and three police.

    Comment by Vince P — December 10, 2007 @ 10:41 pm - December 10, 2007

  77. And today, yet another story on gays in Iran.

    http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19092040&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6

    I’m waiting for that retraction. Or do you not care about the truth, Gay Patriot?

    Comment by Houndentenor — December 12, 2007 @ 3:03 pm - December 12, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.