Reply #19: don't lie if you've got an open-and-shut case anyway

[dusmcj]

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.