Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Rape as a Means to Recruit Suicide Bombers

As I start this post, I’ve decided I’m going to do something a little differently.  Normally, when I have a hunch about how certain people to react to certain things, I check their web-sites first.

This time, I’m going to offer my hunch about how gay organizations are reacting at the outset and check their web-sites only after I have posted.  Their response to outrages against gays in the Islamic world are so predictable, that I’m certain that either this latest abusive use of gay sex escaped their attention or, if they had learned about it, decided not to comment on it because, well, it doesn’t fit their narrative.

Via Ace of Spades, a right-of-center blog, we learn that “Islamic terrorists are raping young men in order to drive them into suicide bombings.“  Because of  the “intense social stigma and fear of more gay sex attacks leaves Muslims prepared to die.”

Intense social stigma?  As that stigma increasingly fades in Western societies, shouldn’t gay organizations concern themselves with that stigma in other lands, particularly when it leads to the persecution and execution of people just because they’re gay.

Shouldn’t gay organizations want us to ramp up the war on terror to defeat those persecute gay people and use gay sex for nefarious purposes?

And it’s not just gay sex, these extremists have a problem with.  Michael Ledeen reports that one overzealous middle-aged female terrorist organized the rapes of young woman “so she could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.

I wonder if NOW has anything to say about that?  Other left-of-center feminist organizations.

I am a gay blogger so I’m concerning myself with the reaction of the gay groups.  I predict silence.  Now that the post is up, I’ve got to search a few web-sites.  We’ll see if my hunch is correct.

HRC UPDATE:  All misty-eyed over the confirmation of Eric Holder, silent on gay rape as a terror tactic.

NGLTF UDPATE: Similarly silent.

NCLR UDPATE: More silence. This is getting to be a pattern.

Well, I guess this just goes to show that there’s really no need to check the web-sites of the national gay organizations because their responses to things are, well, just so predictable. They don’t want anything interfering with their narrative that the real evils in the world are Republicans in general and social conservatives in particular.

Share

41 Comments

  1. Andrew Sullivan Update: Wondering where he can sign up.

    Comment by V the K — February 4, 2009 @ 6:59 pm - February 4, 2009

  2. you’re comparing apples to oranges. ngltf, hcr and nclr are not the liberal counterparts to ace of spades and other conservative blogs. this item is getting publicity on left of center blogs like towleroad.

    Comment by Chad — February 4, 2009 @ 7:22 pm - February 4, 2009

  3. The point, Chad, is their silence. They rush to commend a Democratic Attorney General with a troubling record, offering asides attacking Republicans in the process, yet never seem to bother mentioning the plight of our peers in Islamic lands and promoting policies which help gay men and lesbians persecuted there.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 4, 2009 @ 7:29 pm - February 4, 2009

  4. and my point is that their silence doesn’t mean anything, whereas you accuse these organizations of being silent for political reasons. to my knowledge, all these organizations have focused on domestic civil rights issues, leaving international human rights abuses to others. nclr does legal advocacy. why castigate these organizations for not addressing issues that are outside their scope? why would you even politicize this issue in the first place?

    Comment by Chad — February 4, 2009 @ 7:59 pm - February 4, 2009

  5. My point is hat these groups never decry any gay human rights’ abuses abroad. Perhaps, that had to do with, as your suggest, their domestic focus.

    The whole point is that they dwell on how bad social conservatives are, yet never address how conservative policies could help gay people abroad.

    I mean, c’mon, not even a statement showing their solidarity with our persecuted peers abroad? They lambaste Republicans all the time–and usually without merit.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 4, 2009 @ 8:06 pm - February 4, 2009

  6. sure, an expression of solidarity would be great, and it seems easy enough. but, at worst, that would support a conclusion that these organizations are lazy or understaffed, not that they have an anti-republican agenda. i can’t speak for hrc or ngltf, but i know that nclr is staffed lean, and they are working overtime on the prop 9 legal challenge.

    it’s fair to criticize these organizations for being overtly political when they hold themselves out as apolitical. but that’s not what’s going on here. it seems like you’re seizing upon this story to advance your own narrative: that hrc, nclr and ngltf are radical left wing groups that spend all their time taking pot-shots at republicans. if this is true, i think you should be able to find better evidence of it.

    Comment by Chad — February 4, 2009 @ 8:47 pm - February 4, 2009

  7. [...] 4:  Gay Patriot is working on it, [...]

    Pingback by Faster, Please! » Who Are the Suicide Bombers? — February 4, 2009 @ 9:34 pm - February 4, 2009

  8. Unfortunately the gay advocacy groups are more pro left than pro gay. They don’t avoid mentioning Islamic terrorism b/c they are too busy or understaffed. They avoid it b/c they are lefties, and they’d rather hate conservatives than face reality. They are so wed to leftist idealism that they anything that contradicts their illusions must be decried or avoided. Right you are for calling them on their stuff, Gay Patriot.

    Comment by Drake8 — February 4, 2009 @ 9:47 pm - February 4, 2009

  9. Lots of confusion in this blog entry.

    Their response to outrages against gays in the Islamic world are so predictable, that I’m certain that either this latest…

    Why is it assumed that the rape victims are gay? There would be shame if they were, but the shame would be greater if they weren’t and according to their sick, twisted logic more psychologically damaged and thus better warriors. Homosexuals are considered so abhorrent in these societies that I assume raping them would be considered too dirty, like touching lepers.

    …intense social stigma and fear of more gay sex attacks leaves Muslims prepared to die.

    and

    Shouldn’t gay organizations want us to ramp up the war on terror to defeat those persecute gay people and use gay sex for nefarious purposes?

    I have trouble with the term ‘gay sex attack’. Rape isn’t sex and never has been. The purpose of rape is power and humiliation, not pleasure. This is not a use of “gay sex for nefarious purposes”.

    Intense social stigma? As that stigma increasingly fades in Western societies …leads to the persecution and execution of people just because they’re gay.

    There’s no argument that the stigma of homosexuality is a significant problem for homosexuals in societies such as Islamic tyrannies, to put it mildly. But I believe the primary stigma here is rape and is used for the purposes stated. That it’s homosexual rape surely adds to the stigma, but if the victims are heterosexual, rape would be the only logical means of this kind of humiliation for heterosexual victims. The two stigmas aren’t interchangeable because their targets are usually different populations.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 4, 2009 @ 10:51 pm - February 4, 2009

  10. I have yet to hear any outrage from the left about how women, gays, children are treated in the middle east. What they are doing to these people is pure evil. And to think that is what they want to do to us. Now it’s Israel that is the bad guy for defending their people. It is so insane, nothing the left says would justify defending that , nothing. It’s like they don’t research anything. You can’t tell me they have read everything there is to read about each of these subjects and come to the conclusion it’s all about Bush or the Republicans. They are lazy or stupid, take your pick.

    Comment by jan — February 5, 2009 @ 2:27 am - February 5, 2009

  11. why castigate these organizations for not addressing issues that are outside their scope? why would you even politicize this issue in the first place?

    Translation:

    “If it doesn’t happen to me and my pussy-assed martini happy hour, who cares what happens to the sand niggers?. If HRC doesn’t think they can rake in a few thousand more per year for Salmonese at a cocktail party, who cares? Ooops! my limousine’s waiting to take me to my private jet so I can tell the Harrod’s shoe guy how much of a prick he is for not using a CFL.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 5, 2009 @ 4:35 am - February 5, 2009

  12. Given the left’s historic ability to fuck things up worse than they were in the first place, wouldn’t the potential suicide bombers be better off it this weren’t mentioned to the liberals?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 5, 2009 @ 4:44 am - February 5, 2009

  13. [...] GayPatriot comes a second report of rape being used as a barbaric al-Qaeda recruitment tool, this time on men [...]

    Pingback by Al-Qaeda Militants Using Rape of Men and Women to Produce New Suicide Bombers : Jenn Q. Public — February 5, 2009 @ 7:12 am - February 5, 2009

  14. it’s fair to criticize these organizations for being overtly political when they hold themselves out as apolitical. but that’s not what’s going on here.

    Indeed, because chad, your are misunderstanding or misrepresenting GPW’s point. It’s simple. Why does the HRC (as one example) find the time to promote the feckless and possibly corrupt Eric Holder – even “launch[ing] a grassroots campaign to counter the delay tactics”, in the HRC’s own words – and yet, *not* find the time to issue even so much a pro forma condemnation of the horrendously wrong and exploitative use of homophobia by Islamic terrorists?

    Granted that the latter is not their main job. Launching a grassroots campaign for Obama administration appointees is surely also not their main job. Or is it? Heh. I mean, they can’t find the time to type out a 10-minute pro forma condemnation of the former, yet they spend resources on official HRC “campaigns” over the latter?

    what’s going on it seems like you’re seizing upon this story to advance your own narrative: that hrc, nclr and ngltf are radical left wing groups that spend all their time taking pot-shots at republicans.

    It’s not a “narrative” if it’s simply the truth.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 5, 2009 @ 9:30 am - February 5, 2009

  15. (P.S. to be clear: I am the one who is now agreeing *in part* with chad’s extreme straw man that “hrc, nclr and ngltf are radical left wing groups that spend all their time taking pot-shots at republicans”. It wasn’t part of GPW’s post. Hence, chad claiming it was GPW’s point remains a misrepresentation, by chad. GPW didn’t even mention anything about how NGLTF treats Republicans until his afterthought.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 5, 2009 @ 9:46 am - February 5, 2009

  16. I have trouble with the term ‘gay sex attack’. Rape isn’t sex and never has been. The purpose of rape is power and humiliation, not pleasure. This is not a use of “gay sex for nefarious purposes”.

    OMG, talk about confusion! True, they probably weren’t raping for pleasure. And they weren’t raping for power or humiliation, either. Western templates don’t apply here; that’s part of the point. They were raping specifically to exploit cultural stigma to drive the person to become a terrorist suicide bomber. How is that not “a use of gay sex” (where the rapes were same-sex) “for nefarious purposes”? And if not, then what ever could be?

    Why is it assumed that the rape victims are gay?

    But GPW didn’t assume the rape victims were gay. GPW, as you yourself quoted, had said this:

    [U.S. gay groups'] response to outrages against gays in the Islamic world are so predictable, that I’m certain that either this latest…

    In other words, from context, he was speaking of the groups’ *past* lack of reaction to known gays being mistreated (or executed, etc.) by Islamic terrorists and/or countries. Notice his word “predictable” in there? You know how the past can sometimes form a basis for predicting the present or future? Think GPW might have meant that? Nothing in his post even hinted that the rape victims under present discussion should be considered gay.

    I have trouble with the term ‘gay sex attack’.

    GPW was quoting Weasel Zippers who in turn were quoting Pink News, so tell it to them:
    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11023.html
    BTW, they also do not treat the rape victims as gay.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 5, 2009 @ 10:13 am - February 5, 2009

  17. Chad, like most gay liberals, lives in his own world with rules of his own making, sort of like the Red Queen in “Alice in Wonderland.”

    Hmm…gay liberals…Red Queen…I see a connection here.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 5, 2009 @ 11:36 am - February 5, 2009

  18. The men being raped aren’t gay. Al Qaida is using the rape as a tool to shame these young men, as did that lovely Iraqi woman to 80 young women.
    It is a well known fact that a raped woman is responsible for what happened to her, and is shamed forever. Often killed.
    So in order to prevent more shame for her family – she agrees to become a suicide bomber – thereby gaining pride rather than shame for her family.

    For the men it is even worse. It’s not that the rape has suddenly made them gay, but the utter shame of such a thing happening to them. It puts them on par with raped women and once again – must die.

    These evil terrorists are using rape as a tool.
    My brother had discussed with me at length what it takes to ‘make a suicide bomber’. There is little free choice in the matter, the brain washing is continuous. A handler is with the person until the last possible moment, since these people need to be controlled.

    So of course giving the person a very valid reason to prefer death over life makes the job much easier. And rape is the perfect tool.

    Comment by Leah — February 5, 2009 @ 11:42 am - February 5, 2009

  19. But GPW didn’t assume the rape victims were gay. GPW, as you yourself quoted, had said this:

    [U.S. gay groups'] response to outrages against gays in the Islamic world are so predictable, that I’m certain that either this latest…

    What GPW wrote:

    “Their response to outrages against gays in the Islamic world are [sic] so predictable, that I’m certain that either this latest [outrage against gays] escaped their [members of gay organizations] attention…” GPW is clearly stating that the responses to outrages against homosexuals in this region are predictable (I’m guessing he means either predictably quiet or predictably tolerant — he’s not really clear except that at the end of his entry, he states that HRC is “…silent on gay rape as a terror tactic…“)

    And they weren’t raping for power or humiliation, either. Western templates don’t apply here; that’s part of the point. They were raping specifically to exploit cultural stigma to drive the person to become a terrorist suicide bomber.

    Humiliation is the result of the cultural stigma associated with having been the victim of rape, in this case a homosexual rape. Their humiliation (shame at having been violated) is the motivation for raping them, thus breaking their spirit and their desire to live — and to end their humiliation ‘honorably’ by suicide/homicide bombing.

    How is that not “a use of gay sex” (where the rapes were same-sex) “for nefarious purposes”? And if not, then what ever could be?

    This is not a use of gay sex because rape isn’t sex. An example of sex for nefarious purposes is, say, someone using sex for the purpose of extortion or using sex to gain access to someone’s personal property or some such. Rape is a very different animal.

    I would hope that homosexuals would agree that rape and sex are not interchangeable terms and that this activity is clearly not ‘sex’. Rape is violence. Of all the ways homosexuals can take large steps backwards from societal tolerance and acceptance, confusing these two very different activities is surely one of the best. As presented, this is not really a ‘gay issue’ because the activity doesn’t concern sexual orientation and I as a gay man don’t like attempts at being associated with it merely for that reason. Those doing the raping in this case may have deep-seated homosexual issues (it takes an erection to penetrate and I’m assuming these rapes were accomplished with penises rather than foreign objects or other body parts — but I could be wrong), but any sexual pleasure experienced by the perpetrators in these cases is not purposeful.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 5, 2009 @ 11:54 am - February 5, 2009

  20. GPW is clearly stating that the responses to outrages against homosexuals in this region are predictable

    Nope. Your misinterpretation of GPW’s words still doesn’t work, sorry. I think you went wrong here:

    Their response to outrages against gays in the Islamic world are [sic] so predictable, that I’m certain that either this latest [outrage against gays][thing involving the Islamic world] escaped their [members of gay organizations] attention…

    I took the liberty of fixing it for you. Moving on:

    Their humiliation (shame at having been violated) is the motivation for raping them

    Again, not in any sense envisioned by the normal Western template. *An expected secondary consequence or result* toward which the humiliation/rape was a tool, not the exercise of power or humiliation per se, was the motivation.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 5, 2009 @ 12:45 pm - February 5, 2009

  21. rape isn’t sex

    It isn’t consensual sex, certainly. It isn’t “nice” sex. It isn’t “making love”. But, tell you what: Let’s consult the English language as an authority:

    1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.

    OK? Or to put it another way:

    I would hope that homosexuals would agree that rape and sex are not interchangeable terms

    You are aware of the difference between genus and species, are you not? Rape is non-consensual sexual activity. Note the qualifier, making it one species of sexual activity. “Consensual sex”, “hooking up”, “making love”, etc. would be other species.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 5, 2009 @ 12:45 pm - February 5, 2009

  22. P.S. To be precise, I should have said that rape ‘may be defined as’ non-consensual sexual activity. From another viewpoint, rape may be defined as a species of crime, said species involving sex. But either way, you can’t have rape without sex. Making such an obvious (to most people) point in no way makes the word “rape” interchangeable with “sex”; the argument that it does is absurd. Bottom line, and my real point: GPW’s post was not guilty of using the words incorrectly.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 5, 2009 @ 1:06 pm - February 5, 2009

  23. Their response to outrages against gays in the Islamic world are [sic] so predictable, that I’m certain that either this latest [outrage against gays][thing involving the Islamic world] escaped their [members of gay organizations] attention…

    I disagree. “…this latest…” in his sentence clearly means GPW is referring to “this latest outrage against gays”. The phrase “…thing involving the Islamic world…” doesn’t appear once in his entry and he’s not discussing gay activist silence re. “Islamic things” but the specific outrage of rape, i.e. rape being the “latest” outrage.

    Again, rape is not sex, particularly in the context of a blog decrying outrage against those of a particular orientation; GPW is stating that gay sex is being used for nefarious purposes, mistakenly pointing to the example of rape. That rape usually (but not always) utilizes the sex act doesn’t mean that the act automatically constitutes sex. The two are entirely different in motivation/purpose and thus this isn’t a gay issue based upon the tentative connection of same-sex rape. Rape is a subset of crime, not of sex.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 5, 2009 @ 3:08 pm - February 5, 2009

  24. Who knew there was an Anthropology of sex?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 5, 2009 @ 3:42 pm - February 5, 2009

  25. Well what is the motivation behind these acts? For it to be a “gay sex act”, the perpetrators must be doing it for the purpose of having gay sex. This is not the case, and the article that was referenced to clearly states that is not the primary motivator.

    Instead, it’s rape as it has the primary intention of exerting power over the victims, with the power being making them into suicide bombers.

    And while you may have a point with domestic based groups and international incidents, I’ll point out that while Iran and Saudi Arabia have identical punishments against homosexual activity (death penalty for both), but Iran’s human rights record in other issues is slightly better. GP has pretty good coverage of Iran’s human rights violations, coverage of Saudi Arabia is much much smaller – especially given that most of the results for a SA search return results in 1) comments, 2) posts criticizing Iran or 3) posts criticizing the UN. Why is that? The cynic in me says that the contributors to the blog don’t really care about muslim gays, and would much rather score points against Iran. Please don’t make me think that, this is the only conservative blog that I still have a reasonable opinion of :(

    Comment by Bart M — February 5, 2009 @ 4:30 pm - February 5, 2009

  26. The phrase “…thing involving the Islamic world…” doesn’t appear once in his entry

    Au contraire. A reference to something “in the Islamic world” appears only words earlier, as you yourself have quoted multiple times now.

    This point of difference between us would appear to revolve around what is the precise referent of GPW’s phrase, “this latest”. I agree that GPW isn’t always a perfect wordsmith and a perfect wordsmith could have spelled out his reference better. Nonetheless, his reference was clearly to an outrage (which in earlier haste I called “things”) that possesses the characteristic of having occurred in the Islamic world. You want to find fault with GPW’s post, so you convert “this latest” into a reference to something else, i.e., a reference to outrages possessing the characteristic of having occurred against gays and gays alone, thus creating the new grammatical meaning that you can proceed to knock.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 5, 2009 @ 6:24 pm - February 5, 2009

  27. For it to be a “gay sex act”, the perpetrators must be doing it for the purpose of having gay sex.

    So – it’s only gay if they meant it? Um, I thought only closet cases – say, closeted “straight” frat boys – thought in such terms.

    “Gay” is often, and in the phrase “gay sex act” is very clearly, a short-hand for “involving parties all of the same sex”. Just as “straight” is often, and in the phrase “straight sex act” is very clearly, a short-hand for “involving parties of the opposite sex”. I’m amazed to be explaining that on a gay blog.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 5, 2009 @ 6:27 pm - February 5, 2009

  28. Again, rape is not sex

    Again, rape is non-consensual sex. As contrasted to consensual sex.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 5, 2009 @ 6:42 pm - February 5, 2009

  29. I’m not sure what some of the commenters here are trying to say in suggesting that rape isn’t sex.

    Those terrorists raping young men are clearly engaging in a gay sex act. It’s what’s called nonconsensual sex. And it’s a bad thing when one party forces himself on another who is unwilling.

    Let me make clear that I decry this kind of sex as I decry any forced sex, hence the expression in the post “nefarious purposes,” nefarious meaning “wicked” or “criminal.”

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 5, 2009 @ 6:45 pm - February 5, 2009

  30. Well, in conversation do you say “sex” or “consensual sex”? If someone tells you that they had “sex”, do you immediately question whether it was consensual or non-consensual? Sex usually refers to consensual acts, while rape does not. Biologically, they are the same as biology is blind to the feelings or intentions of those involved. But in a semantics sense of the word, having sex with someone is very different to raping them.

    Comment by Bart M — February 5, 2009 @ 7:03 pm - February 5, 2009

  31. GPW, some would appear almost to believe that the word “sex” must be reserved for consensual acts, because it inherently wasn’t sex, and must not be called “sex” (as in my phrasing, “rape is non-consensual sex”), unless it was consensual. A position that I find, shall we say, contrary to logic and to English usage.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 5, 2009 @ 7:03 pm - February 5, 2009

  32. Well, in conversation do you say “sex” or “consensual sex”? If someone tells you that they had “sex”, do you immediately question whether it was consensual or non-consensual?

    No, because rape is reprehensible and criminal, and in normal conversation – or at least in my normal conversation ;-) – one does not presume one’s partner to be a criminal. Nonetheless: There is consensual sex and there is non-consensual sex. Both are sex. Rape is non-consensual sex.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 5, 2009 @ 7:07 pm - February 5, 2009

  33. I’m not sure what some of the commenters here are trying to say in suggesting that rape isn’t sex.

    I’m not suggesting. Rape isn’t sex. Rape is a crime of violence usually using the sex act as its vehicle. A rapist doesn’t “have sex with” his victim — he violates her/him utilizing a/the sex act. As for your phrase nefarious purposes, I agree the purpose of these rapists is nefarious, but raping their victims isn’t “having sex with” them, thus my disagreement with your using the phrase in the context of gay sex. Once again, rape is a crime; merely because it most often utilizes a sex act doesn’t make it a sexual activity. The gratification of rape is power over the victim whereas the gratification of sex is, among many things, physical pleasure. Perhaps if you compare rape with, say, the crime of prostitution it might make things a bit clearer.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 5, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - February 5, 2009

  34. Just so there’s so misunderstanding, as some of the comments suggest there might be, I am not claiming that the victims of the rapes were gay.

    I think I would have done well to craft my second paragraph more carefully. I did not mean to suggest that the “outrages against gays” included these rapes, but that this was an abusive use of gay sex. So I have since corrected the paragraph to reflect that.

    In the original version, “latest” referred to outrages, though I can see how someone might have misinterpreted it.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 5, 2009 @ 7:17 pm - February 5, 2009

  35. “Once again, rape is a crime; merely because it most often utilizes a sex act doesn’t make it a sexual activity.”

    “Most often” utilizes a sex act? Rape DOES NOT EXIST w/o some kind of sexual contact. Read the definition of “rape in a statute–or the Model Penal Code. Just because *you* think that rape isn’t sex doesn’t mean that you’re right.

    Comment by jellibean — February 5, 2009 @ 7:28 pm - February 5, 2009

  36. Au contraire. A reference to something “in the Islamic world” appears only words earlier, as you yourself have quoted multiple times now.

    Again, you’re wrong. GPW isn’t referring to “something” in the Islamic world. Quoting him:

    “Their response to outrages against gays in the Islamic world are so predictable…”

    He is referring to what he considers an outrage against gays, not “things in the Islamic world”, a phrase that doesn’t appear in his blog. The basis of his entire blog entry is that these rapes are an outrage against gays and that mainstream gay rights organizations are silent. I disagree. In fact, I find the attempt to link same sex rape with gay sex offensive and irresponsible.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 5, 2009 @ 7:32 pm - February 5, 2009

  37. Rape DOES NOT EXIST w/o some kind of sexual contact.

    Precisely. There is a metaphorical sense in which rape can be non-sexual, as in “The rape of the American taxpayer” or “The Rape of Nanking” or acts of seizing and carrying off in general. But the sense is just that: metaphorical. And obviously it’s not the sense GPW meant in his post.

    I am not claiming that the victims of the rapes were gay… I have since corrected the paragraph

    Good enough :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 5, 2009 @ 7:33 pm - February 5, 2009

  38. In the original version, “latest” referred to outrages, though I can see how someone might have misinterpreted it.

    Thank you. Exactly what I thought.

    I did not mean to suggest that the “outrages against gays” included these rapes, but that this was an abusive use of gay sex.

    But how does that square with

    Their response to outrages against gays in the Islamic world are so predictable, that I’m certain that either this latest abusive use of gay sex escaped their attention or, if they had learned about it, decided not to comment on it

    They decided not to comment on what issue if not the rapes to which your blog refers? And why are gay rights groups responsible for speaking out against these rapes when as you’ve stated above gays aren’t the target? Do you believe the rapists to be gay? I agree these rapes are terrible and abusive, but gay and an issue of gay rights? No.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 5, 2009 @ 8:02 pm - February 5, 2009

  39. Meanwhile, once again the conservative media is talking about this exact issue:http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/02/05/raping-men-as-a-terrorist-recruiting-tool/

    I’m not going to check the Liberal gay websites, but I’m not holding my breath that it is important to them.

    Comment by Leah — February 5, 2009 @ 8:09 pm - February 5, 2009

  40. Here’s an article by Jennifer Pozner that articulates my position better than I have: Damn it! Again, children, “Rape” is not “Having Sex”. It’s HuffPo, but I agree with it.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 5, 2009 @ 8:32 pm - February 5, 2009

  41. You are arguing about rape being sex or not ??? You are offended they used gay? Snap out it! These people want to wipe us and Israel off the face of the earth and they are going to do it the ugliest, the most evil way they can. Sorry to say, but in the last 2 weeks are country has become weaker. I am no war monger but I have children. One more question, why has Obama stopped the trial of the USS Cole? Now, do you think our good men and woman in the military are going to bring these scumbags to trial or shoot them because if they bring them back here our country will not prosecute these evil people with a trial. Our president is forcing them to only do one thing whether they want to or not. What is happening to our country?? What happened to WE THE PEOPLE? Isn’t the government working for us any more? I know they are not listening to us. I know Cher is in the media today bashing those horrible christian republicans, but she will be in my prayers when I pray to God to lift this country up because guys it’s going to come fast and without mercy.

    Comment by jan — February 6, 2009 @ 11:44 pm - February 6, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.