Mitchtv issues Fatwa against Ali al Sistani

I figure that the old homophobe can call for a painful death for Gays, well turnabout is fair play. Would it be wrong to make a $-pledge?

Al Sistani called for the Iraqi government to make homosexuality a capital crime.

He did NOT issue a fatwa or say gays should be killed "in the worst way possible".

Al Sistani is, imo, very wrong in his view of homosexuality; but he did not issue any fatwa.

His political ideas deserve a "hit" any any respect.It's called self defense

Al Sistani called on the Iraqi govt to make homosexuality a capital crime.

Al Sistani did NOT issue any fatwa.

Let me begin by saying that the charge leveled by some, and mentioned at Pandagon, that Sistani has called for the killing of Sunnis, is completely untrue.

The implication given by exiled gay Iraqi, Ali Hili, of the London-based gay human rights group OutRage, that Sistani has called for vigilante killings of gays, is untrue, though it is accurate that Sistani advises that the state make homosexual activity a capital crime"
http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/sistani-on-homosexuality-andrew.html

all the time.

The "Sistani fatwa" lie os from a group called "Outrage", and they are not a reliable source, imo. Way too much agenda and far too little facts. This isn't the first time they've put out total bullshit.

It hurts their own cause to pull this kind of shit.

It remains that a reign of terror on Gays in both those sad countries calls for armed resistance, in a gay way

-gay or straight- is gonna be left alive.

is silenced worldwide, and mainstream sources have been proven to lie as often as not. So we accept (sometimes mistakenly) gay news sources. as for Outrage , at least someone is standing up.

Then when someone DOES stand up, they're ignored out of hand for being just another liar.

OutRage does more to hurt their own cause than any homophobe, imo.

Stand up, and tell the TRUTH...be it gay rights, women's rights, or anyone else's rights. That's the ticket, imo. :)

bad move on the part of the gay community. I had a sense that Al-Sistani was actually one of the rare individuals with vision in the Iraqi sphere, and with enough brains to understand the concept of the interests of the people and the nation, as opposed to his little interest group. Further, he had a surprisingly humanist (prior to this story, whatever the actual facts are) approach to society, at least compared to the fascist psychotics which populate the rest of the Muslim theopolitical space. Way less of the kind of enthusiastic role definition and segmentation of society than that mainstream generates, which so directly gives rise to failed societies, corrupt governments, and institutionalized abuse of women, the tribal-survival-and-fear-of-weakness mentality in short. Which I would presume, not being a member of the community, to claim is the core of the forces which have oppressed the gay community historically.

The facts are needed here. If Sistani called for homosexuality to be made a capital crime, then that ain't far from what he was accused of saying, so there would be little to salvage. But since the story was misstructured to make his remarks truly inflammatory, one needs to ask, is there a reason on someone's part to toss him into the enemy's camp ? Speaking of camp, one also needs to ask if there is some misplaced enthusiasm for primarly male fascists, along with their hag female lackeys and enablers, who strut around keeping order and facilitating a society based on fear and oppression dynamics ? Not the right venue in which to look for ways to pop a rod... One needs to consider what Mr. al-Hili's background is, and what his motivations might be. A clarification from him or his familiars would do wonders. The suspicion that is raised is that he is coopted, or a collaborator.

The answer may be that it is the sad truth that Sistani is just another fascist enabler like the rest of his fellows in the Muslim religious 'leadership'. But given the particularly egregious lie which has been exposed here (egregious because it was obviously intended to inflame, with the direct result (predictable by the originator) that it would obscure) we should avoid making any conclusion until the actual facts are known.

The story has always been that men with an excessive enthusiasm for military order and punctiliousness have a higher than average rate of homosexuality, the Nazis were the reference example of this. Let's hope that this doesn't correlate with unresolved issues related to social order which lead, as putatively in this case, to misjudgements in the political arena, and that instead, this was an appropriate political response to a situation which is largely as bad as it was portrayed to be.

>>>>The story has always been that men with an excessive enthusiasm for military order and punctiliousness have a higher than average rate of homosexuality, the Nazis were the reference example of this.>>>>>

for just about every social ill from the collapse of heterosexual monogamy to stale cornflakes. Let's put the above in the category of mythology ( if not defamation) unless you can provide some substantiation.

you take my meaning wrong if you interpret that I suggest that if someone is homosexual, then they are a Nazi. Rather, there is a historical correlation between some of the worst goosesteppers of the Nazi time, and practicing homosexuals of one stripe or another. This has historical antecedents in militaristic societies through the Templars and back at least to the Romans, particularly certain branches of their military - the old fear-of-weakness dogma is translated into personal culture as, it's a male thing, and ideally we create an exclusively male society in _all_ aspects; brotherly love taken to its full extent, including peer-to-peer and top-bottom, optimizes unit cohesion. This general phenomenon is not some invention of mine or mouthing of a homophobic stereotype, it's documented history out of the mouths of the participants. Even if we accept the notion of biologically determined homosexuality, there is still no implication that that is the root cause of the phenomenon (though fools might try to assert that). What is not just an implication is that there are repeated historical instances of cultural structures with one core aspect being a particular flavor of homosexual interaction, also having as another core aspect vigorous practice and espousal of what clearly deserves the label fascism - for the participants, both contributed to an integrated whole, in a very ideological and cultural, as opposed to biological, way... in this case higher consciousness and volition, as opposed to biology, created the - for them - consistent gestalt and life view. And if in the case that they also happen to be homosexual, fascists are supposed to get a pass for the crap they dispense, then we have a problem. Enjoy being gay; if however you bind it to a lifeview which in other aspects is fascist, you're doing the rest of the homosexual population a particular disservice, as well as the general populace.

Of course we can consider the general threat posed by ideology and the drive to impose on reality, more or less well-considered and coherent models which it urges, or more broadly the continuous versus the discrete, but we should probably leave that for another time.

A mob of men in control of the world does not mean they're motivated by gayness or butt diddling.

I think you have an awful lot of speculation in your commentary and not a lot of studied documented fact - or at least, not an appropriate differential diagnosis.

Homosexual is a very clinical term not often used outside of describing the specifics of sexual behavior rather than an agenda. The way you've used it describes something akin to mental illness - I'm afraid you won't find that many people agree with that view here.

I'll revert to Usenet style:

>I think you confuse "homosexual" with sexist

Huh ? I state that there are multiple historical instances of active homosexuality being espoused as a necessary part of a culture and lifestyle which is patriarchally authoritarian in nature. There is clearly a conjunction between the overemphasis on the male moment as the guiding line for all activity in such an environment, and the usual role definition and oppression directed against women (actually members of both biological genders who refuse to relinquish their individual volition and their inherent civil rights). But in the instances I refer to, there was no argument about the presence of active homosexuality as part of the cultural whole, the participants' own writings as well as eyewitness evidence attest to it. So sexism was certainly present, but homosexuality was certainly not absent.

>A mob of men in control of the world does not mean they're motivated by gayness or butt diddling.

My point exactly in my last post - this is about correlation and simultaneity, not cause-and-effect. (Although again, I'm sure the usual suspects would be precisely interested in the kind of cause-and-effect you refer to. But then they're the usual suspects, so who gives a shit. Watch out for flying bibles...)

>I think you have an awful lot of speculation in your commentary and not a lot of studied documented
>fact - or at least, not an appropriate differential diagnosis.

You know, I can dredge up the cites if you want. As far as I'm concerned, the evidence that Roehm and others of the early flavor of Nazism were homosexuals is so easily available that maybe you can go find it instead. Same for the emphasis on an exclusively male culture, including active homosexuality, practiced by some Roman army units, presumably derived lineage-wise from the Greeks. I can go hunting for the same material on the Templars if you like. Culturally it's about viewing the domination dynamic as the fundamental basis for human interaction - doesn't really seem like that much of a stretch to conceive of people who might think that (I can find enough Republicans in a 5-minute search who would qualify easily).

>Homosexual is a very clinical term not often used outside of describing the specifics of sexual
>behavior rather than an agenda. The way you've used it describes something akin to mental illness -
>I'm afraid you won't find that many people agree with that view here.

I wonder if I'm bumping up against my vocabulary not being appropriately precise and up-to-date here. I use 'homosexual' and 'gay' interchangeably with regard to men, to mean folks who practice same-sex sexual contact. If I'm an uninformed straight twit, please enlighten me and enlarge my vocabulary.

Also, I'm not trying to diagnose anything, nor remotely assert anything about mental illness (I want 'fascist tendencies' and 'compulsive conformity' to find a place in the DSM, how's that sound - we know who the obvious defectives are, same as it ever was. And forgive me if I sound intolerant, I'm tired of losing ground to shitheads.) I'm attempting to make cultural observations, so anthropology or sociology are as scientific as I'm going to try to get.

I still don't agree with you on some of your observations but I respect couching the issues in terms of cultural anthropology.

I do know that in hypothesizing about cultural and anthropological motives you have to have more than one explanation, just as you would with a medical diagnosis - and these by the way are awfully male-centric. That's why I suggested a differential diagnosis of the problem.

Historically the practice of male homosexuality has been documented and hinted at to a much greater extent than women, with the exception of the legends of the Amazons and the Isle of Lesbos in the hazy and nearly mythological past. We like epics and drama and masculine role models and sexual titillation and so the Band of Thebes is famous, and the greek practice of "mentoring" a youth into a proper form of masculine manhood was acceptable as long as it didn't continue into marrying age, and Irumator/Felator relationships in Rome were acceptable so long as the Felator was clearly the underclass, and likewise a youth.

What bothers me about the idea that Nazis were suppressed homosexuals (if I summarize correctly) is that the real motive behind their evil wasn't suppressed sexuality; it was purely control of resources. What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, aided and abetted by a sociopathic mien. I think there are many more high functioning sociopaths among us today (and have been, historically speaking) than there are repressed homosexuals, and that the diagnosis of homosexuality is not at all a primary one or even relevant to explaining the evil that the Nazi party spawned.

Certainly Mehlman and Santorum are probably repressed three dollar bills, but there is a whole party of sociopaths and half the voting base that we're dealing with right now whose pathologies have less to do with repressed sexuality than just being raging piss poor protoplasm without a properly functioning limbic system, and they've even built these diaphanous glittering philosophies celebrating greed and self-centeredness and conquest to justify themselves intellectually.

Some of those republican and neocon players aren't mentally very far at all from their structural counterparts in the early Nazi regime to which they love to decry comparison.

>>>>Rather, there is a historical correlation between some of the worst goosesteppers of the Nazi time, and practicing homosexuals of one stripe or another.>>>>>

an historical correlation between absolutely *everything* in human history and practicing homosexuals. Why focus on the Nazis, and the like ?

Also, ( let's leave antiquity aside for the moment and focus on the the Nazis as they provide a more relevant comparison, closer in time , etc) aren't you cherry picking just a bit? Seems to me Nazi ideology and the *behavior* of top Nazis glorified *heterosexuality*, not it's ....ummmm 'opposite' (?).

Also, unless you are implying some kind of causal relationship, why bother pointing out the alleged correlation at all?

Perhaps some specifics re. higher-than-average homosexuality among members of the Nazi movement might serve to persuade.

and they did indeed go stale. So one, just ONE homosexual was responsible for stale cornflakes.

It's okay, I peed and forgot to flush once.

Do you think that as a capital crime being put in an Iraqi prison for a couple of years, tortured and then executed in the classic muslim manner of death by stoning is BETTER than vigilante killing?

Whoa.

MitchTV I'm right with you on this - and I would add that I have ZERO TOLERANCE for anyone who calls for our deaths, in America or any other pathetic country on this planet.

He's calling for the state sanctioned murder of some people for being born with green eyes.

I say tomayto
I say Cap the motherfucker

Killing gay people through mob violence = a terrible thing.

Killing gay people through state-sanctioned executions = nothing to get upset about.

what is ''capital punishment''?

death -- execution style -- yes?

an official, government sponsored fatwa, no?

particularly not in situations which have sensitive political implications for areas which _are_ in our backyard (as in, do you think if Iraq becomes more of a cesspool than it is, that will _help_ remove G.Doober and the Monkeymen ? Try again!).

If Sistani said that being gay should be a capital crime in Iraq, no more needs to be said - he's an asshole like the rest of them, the flower of 1400 years of Islamic culture grows elsewhere (and it's a very real thing, we just haven't been able to find it of late what with all the psychos running loose) and whether he said it like a kindly old grandpa clucking his tongue or like a lunatic whose turban was about to catch fire (sorry, that's not racist, I have a problem with the mullahs who all crown themselves with the white imam's turban wrapped just so and then proceed to emit streams of bullshit from just below it) matters not one iota - he's no different than the chickenshit garbage who killed Matthew Shepard or anyone else of their ilk.

So then why do we need to add anything to the story, like drama about the bad Ayatollah saying they should be killed in the worst possible way, by vigilantes ? His statement is more than enough of an indictment of him, mainstream Islam in Iraq, as well as the bankruptcy of "dominant" culture there and of the US-installed and -supported government and "leadership" (although I doubt things were better in this regard than under Saddam, probably instead of mullahs coming after gays, Uday and Qusay were looking for a little fun). Why does Mr. Al-Hili need to add bullshit which 1. makes the gay community look stupid, particularly disadvantageous when the Iraqi instance is trying to motivate international support, 2. throws sand at a significant figure in the Iraq equation which is easily refuted, and 3. generally does nothing towards then end of reversing this edict, regardless of wording.

after all, this is an MSM(and strait) version of a "gay" news item. How much of it can be believed? It's funny that the only thing they did was debunk the Outrage claim, true of not, why wasn't the call for capital crime status covered?

You have the power of youth and I don't. If I can't have any, you can't use yours.

FTS