Nimroddery
Someone sent the following photo which was posted in a Facebook group called ‘Wipeout Homophobia’ over the caption “hubbie in afghanistan raising a gay pride flag”.
And now the US military is wasting resources to investigate the incident according to Stars & Stripes;
Navy Cmdr. Bill Speaks, a Defense Department spokesman, was quoted in the Daily Caller report as saying the U.S. military has no rules “that would prohibit an individual servicemember from doing this.” But he noted that the International Security Assistance Force, which U.S. troops in Afghanistan fall under, may have different policies specifically for the Afghan theater.
Military officials said in the article that they still haven’t determined where the flag was flown.
The only person who should be worried about this picture is the wife of “hubbie”. Why would a straight guy risk raising a gay pride flag if he doesn’t have a vested interest in promoting gay rights? She might be in danger of losing “hubbie” to the other team. And i suppose it’s easy to believe that the military puts up flag poles every where for no apparent reason. Why would there be a flag pole outside of a maintenance hut? And even the guy who is a few feet away is more interested in doing his job than some nimrod flying a rainbow flag.
Tony Perkins uses the event to predict the fall of the US military in Afghanistan (UK’s Daily Mail link);
Mr Perkins compared the flying of the gay flag to the accidental Koran burnings earlier this year.
He wrote: ‘After February’s accident with the Korans, American lives were lost.
‘What price will we pay because some want to use the military to show their gay pride?’
And of course, gay rights groups are using it as their “Iwo Jima” moment.
Drama Queens all. Knowing the mindset of military members like I do, I suspect that it was a prank. Everything gay is still funny.
Category: Military issues
That is so gay
Makes perfect sense – you cannot hoist a US flag in country but the rainbow is AOK. Riiiiight.
/sarc
This really isn’t much different than the pirate, Gadsden, NASCAR or other flags flying around COPs and FOBs.
It was probably a prank, but if not, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he has “a vested interest interest in promoting gay rights”…..he could well be a civil libertarian who would promote the rights and privileges for all Americans.
another dumb@$$ way to get home early? In the 70’s if you wanted out of submarines you went to the DAPA representative, Got a Lecture then went out and Got a Bag of grass, and got caught… as far as the boat was concerned you no longer existed. Now they can shoot a Bunch of civilians, Bitch about the Chain of Command, Fly a Hi visibilty Target Identifier…etc.
Aviation maintenance unit? I don’t recall tall tents like the one in the right panel of this tepid triptych.
I’m surprised that the flag doesn’t have Barry’s picture on it like this one: http://www.therightscoop.com/another-obama-flag-shows-up-this-time-in-south-jersey/
You assume that the person who is referring to their “hubbie” raising the flag is a chick… just saying! Prolly a dude and that’s why they are all hyped up over it. Anyway you slice it it’s still stupid. That flag didn’t happen to fly on April 1st by any chance…?
This was on FOB Reacharound. The unit there’s motto…”Never Leave A Man’s Behind”
The tent is a standard A-frame maintenance tent. Any maintenance person has seen one of these at least once. It will completely house a hemmit and close the doors.
Maintenance tent – looks like a veritable mansion! The maintenance tents I recall had rounded tops like a quonset hut. Plenty of room to work on trannies out of the weather.
“…work on trannies out of the weather”-I see what you did there.
@8
Quote of the post! the trannie is pretty good though too!
I’m with Jonn and CI, most likely a joke…
@10 – Damn…I missed that the first time through…..that was good!
What kind of power do they run in those facilities? AC/DC?
To be honest, I think “Wipeout Homophobia” has been had. When I first saw a FB link to this article:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/its-an-obama-world-gay-flag-flies-at-afghan-base-but-the-christian-cross-is-banned/
I got curious and dug a little deeper. It led me to the wife’s page: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1163803230&sk=photos
It’s a bit gender-bender-rrific and something is quite “off”. Zero mention or pics of a Soldier husband. And I’m not entirely convinced the pics of the lavish, big Christian church wedding are “her’s”.
I would have put it up just to stir up shit. when we were in Bosnia, I “borrowed” a story from “The Onion” about a gay pride parade— I re-wrote it to have taken place at Eagle Base in Bosnia the weekedn before. I e-mailed it to “friends” of mine in Bosnia, and they sent it to other soldiers.
I stareted getting e-mails back from people I didn’t even know who said things like: “How could the US Army allow this sort of thing?”
Some folks thought it was real….which made it twice as much fun!
Actually, wait. I take that back. I just did a few more mouse clicks and was reminded the wedding photos have numerous tags.
This is the husband’s page: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1113900312
Good find, Kriste
Thanks, streetsweeper…
I predict the happy couple have a shit-storm in their future. I’m wondering if the Mrs. has any idea what she’s unleashed and if, in fact, that’s even her Soldier raising the flag.
The interwebs, esp since the advent of social-media, have taken that beloved preschool game of “Telephone” to a whole new level. This is why I tend to clickety-click-click whenever I read an “Outrage of the Day” post. I found the one from the Gateway Pundit to be a tad over-the-top.
This is why I opposed open service. Serving openly was never the ultimate goal.
Kristie: Dunno if it’s my setup or not (don’t think so, but maybe) – but the wife’s Facebook page you reference in #15 seems to be “Temporarily Unavailable”.
@20: Concur. Repealing DADT was never the goal, only the first step in the GLBT agenda of forcing their lifestyle choices down the throats of Americans as “normal”. Well, Homosexuality is NOT normal. It’;s a lifestyle CHOICE. There is no homo gene. There never was and never will be. The GLBT community lives in abject fear of the day there might be one found, because if there ever is, it will be seen as proof that homosexuality as abnormal behaviour, and that gene as a “birth defect”. As soon as that happens, it means they will all be placed in one of the left’s own victim classes, and subject to attempts by the scientific community (and other support and enabling groups) to find a cure for homosexuality, an eradication of the “defect”. Homosexuals better be damned careful of what they wish for. The whole lot had it damned good under the DADT system, but some of the more strident, shallow and narcissitic of the lot decided that that wasn’t good enough for any of them. Oh no, they needed to be able to serve “openly”, as if everyone in the command didn’t already have a pretty damned good idea who the homos were, and didn’t really give two shits about it either. Let me be candid here: I served alongside two damned fine sailors and aircrewmen who were homosexuals. THEY didn’t flaunt it, per se, and the rest of us could have cared less about it because they were both squared away and damned professional at their jobs. One of them was a roommate of mine for one deployment. We got along famously, because neither of us cared what the other did on liberty. But this whole thing just pisses me right the fuck off. This is political theater, a kabuki theater as well as a Busby Berkely production that is taking away time from the real mission, and burning millions of dollars of an already paper-thin defense budget. Money we CANNOT afford to be spending on this shit. No one that I no of cares if some soldier, sailor… Read more »
@22 – “There is no homo gene. There never was and never will be.”
Mighty strong talk from someone who’s likely not a geneticist.
Yep, serving openly and having the same support system in place as straight Soldiers really is a burden on you isn’t it?
Political theater is correct, the cast is larger than you give credit to however.
@#20. Agree, Dave. Just normalizing the abnormal.
To be honest I don’t give a fuck if you’re a pole smoker just keep it in the rear (pun intended?) and aim center mass when you’re in the zone. What you do on your free time is up to you.
You know, it don’t take much to raise a gay pride flag in Afghanistan.
Now flying THIS FLAG in Afghanistan……
…requires a set of Brass Balls
[THIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSS BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGG]
CI,
You’re a fucking retard.
@Ben – And yet, based on your post, you’re the one who comes off looking like one. Ironic isn’t it?
“Yep, serving openly and having the same support system in place as straight Soldiers really is a burden on you isn’t it?”
Well, actually CI,, since you brought it up and all – having exactly the same support system as every other soldier/sailor/airman/Marine is simply not the issue, is it? The “same support system” is precisely what every member of the military currently has, and always has had. Sure, being able to access that system is sometimes difficult, or nearly impossible, depending upon one’s assignment, but the system is there. The same for everyone serving.
Evidently what you are advocating is some additional support systems for homosexuals above and beyond what is available for everyone in the military?
@ 29 – “Evidently what you are advocating is some additional support systems for homosexuals above and beyond what is available for everyone in the military?”
Before DADT repeal, a gay Soldier could not have his husband/wife see them off for deployment with any affection, and said spouse would not be flown to Landstuhl if they were grievously wounded; could not have the FRG support afforded to straight Soldiers.
So what “additional” systems am I advocating for?
Oh, piffle. You seem to be advocating something “special” for folks just because. Plenty of folks have had injuries in theater without having family members flown in to be with them.
@30: The problem started with the forced legalization of homosexual “marriage”. Marriage is a union of one man and one woman, which is codified in the Federal “Defense of Marriage” law. As such, the military cannot legally accept any homosexual “marriage” nor grant rights to any alleged “spouse” because such a marriage cannot legally exist.
As to your snide comments earlier, you are correct inthat I am not a geneticist, but that doesn’t mean I can’t read or research papers in the field.
To date, there is not a single peer-reviewed paper that shows any link between homosexuality and someone’s DNA. There is no “Gay Gene”. Period. There have been lots of speculative writings, but that isn’t conclusive despite the GBLT community’s best wishes and clicking together of ruby slippers. There is no proof that homosexuality is anything other than a chosen or acquired lifestyle.
On the other hand, there IS a long-term study, published and peer-reviewed, by the Albert Einstein School of Medicine of 10,000 self-identified homosexual men. In every single case, their homosexuality was found to be a product of either being raised in a family sans male influences, or through association with other homosexuals. In short, it reinforced that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not something which is the result of genetic predisposition or other biological factor.
As stated above, by OWB @29, having the same support system as everyone else in the military is NOT what the GBLT community is pushing. They have an agenda which seeks to force the social acceptance of their lifestyle choice down the throats of everyone else in this nation, regardless of the societal consequences. They are using the military as a social engineering petri dish, and the resulting disaster will further erode our military’s effectiveness and degrade morale.
Should homosexuals be allowed to serve in the military? That is the question and were the system to remain in place as it was under DADT, I would have no problem with that. But that’s not what happened here.
@31 – But many have had that opportunity, haven’t they. Please explain what it is that’s “special”.
@32 – There’s also no conclusive proof that many situations are genetic, that doesn’t preclude that from being the case as genetic science continues to progress.
I agree with your conclusion re: DOMA. I also believe that the Federal Government has no charter to dictate regulations regarding marriage. Your Einstein study is one of many competing studies of equal or varying repute, but none of them adequately address the fact that homosexuality has existed since the dawn of recorded history, at least.
You parse the ability of gays to function in society on equal terms with straights as a negative factor. I hold the view that maximum liberty should be afforded to all citizens where their actions do not harm me, steal from me or restrict my liberties. Gays do none of the above.
Regarding DADT, I actually thought the repeal could have stood to be postponed a few years, but once in motion, I have no argument against it.
And though I can respect your opinion, I have learned through my years to take with an enormous grain of salt….the agenda of a group or person as espoused by a diametrically opposed group or person.
CI, here’s how it boils down–I don’t give a shit if you like pussy or dick. But I don’t want to know about it, hear about it, see it, etc. I know there were gay/bisexual guys on my boat (one became HIV+.) But until that day, nobody gave a shit.
The second it interferes with the mission or “good order and discipline”, shitcan them–I don’t care if they’re gay, straight, white, black, male, female. Play ball, or get the bat shoved up your ass. Period.
I agree with your boiling down, but theory doesn’t equal practice. Everybody says they didn’t give a shit about the sexuality of their battle buddy, but go forbid they tries to talk about their spouse in casual conversation, like everybody else could.
What people forget is that every time I walked into the PX with my wife, or took her to a Mil Ball, my sexual orientation was being broadcast. This sort of thing was never acknowledged as such, but somehow when a gay Soldier would wish to do likewise, people “don’t want to know about it, hear about it, see it, etc”.
@33: Any time an opportunity is afforded to someone which is not available to everyone else it is “speical,” in my lingo.
No, the vast and overwhelming majority of injured military members do not have the support you describe as something homosexual members of the military ought, in your mind, to have.
You are evidently also saying that the unit FRG with which I have been associated for a couple of decades now is also special because we don’t give a flip who the POC is or how they are related to the unit member – each unit member declares the POC with whom we communicate during deployments. Are you saying that we are violating some reg because we fail to ID and communicate only with legal spouses??
@37 – “No, the vast and overwhelming majority of injured military members do not have the support you describe as something homosexual members of the military ought, in your mind, to have.”
You will note of course that I never stated that the overwhelming majority of wounded Soldiers get their immediate family and/or spouse brought to Landstuhl, WAMC or Brooke. But there are many who do. That’s not a right, but it is a privilege. A privilege that is extended to spouses of heterosexual service members, you know, a “special privilege.
Perhaps FRGs nowadays communicate with whomever the deployed Soldier designates as their POC. During my service, it was spouses and sometimes girlfriends….do you figure a gay partner would have been welcomed?
It is also rather tedious answering statements I didn’t make. But you still haven’t explained what I advocate that is in any way special. I haven’t brought anything up that isn’t “available to everyone”.
Well, CI, it was you, up there in your previous comments, that brought up having spouses brought to injured military members in European hospitals. That is something which is simply NOT availbable to the vast majority of injured military members. It was YOU who suggested that homosexual mates should be given that perk in spite of it being unavailable to most military members. Ergo, they should be treated differently from other military members and their families?
It’s why I asked the question of you, and why I pointed out that it appeared that you were advocating something special for homosexual military members. Your following explanations have clarified somewhat but not completely.
And it really doesn’t matter much. The issue will not be settled here to the satisfaction of those of us who simply see the sexual activities of military members (or other work groups, for that matter) as something with which we just do not want to be forced to participate. Orientation just doesn’t matter to me – keep it private and were are good to go.
@OWB – “Ergo, they should be treated differently from other military members and their families?”
You’re simply wrong, perhaps confused. I didn’t think that I should have to break it down to such an extent. I specified grievously wounded Servicemembers, which automatically excludes the “overwhelming majority”. And in no statement did I ever posit that gay spouses should receive preferential treatment above and beyond that given to spouses on a regular basis. You’re framing an argument of your own making.
How about this clarification: to the extent that spouses in general are brought to the side of grievously wounded Servicemembers, that privilege should be extended, post DADT repeal, to same sex spouses as well.
“…..who simply see the sexual activities of military members (or other work groups, for that matter) as something with which we just do not want to be forced to participate. ”
You haven’t been nor will be; unless of course you voluntarily partook of barracks conversations about somebody’s latest conquest, for example…..but they were heterosexual, so you would have likely categorized it differently somehow.
“Orientation just doesn’t matter to me – keep it private and were are good to go.”
Fair enough…you’ll extend that to hetero orientation as well, right?
“That privilege should be extended, post DADT repeal, to same sex spouses as well”. With DOMA still a law, is that possible? If the marriage isn’t recognized, is it a marriage?
@41 – That’s a good question, possibly not. Though I’m still stumped at how DOMA is a valid law to begin with.
CI Says: “Though I’m still stumped at how DOMA is a valid law to begin with.”
==========
The only reason DOMA even came into existence is because the GLBT movement worked to arbitrarily redefine marriage to suit their lifestyle. Would not have even been necessary had the GLBT community just accepted civil unions. But they wanted to redefine the word marriage for themselves. Thus, DOMA was born.
@43 – So DOMA was sort of a tantrum because a group of people wanted to use the term “marriage” to describe a committed relationship with each another?
I was actually speaking to the power of the Federal government to pass a law such as this where there is clearly no enumerated power to do so.
CI Says: So DOMA was sort of a tantrum because a group of people wanted to use the term “marriage” to describe a committed relationship with each another?
==========
I’d say that it was a push-back against the tantrum by the GLBT community who whined when they were told that one does not just get to redefine words to suit their lifestyle. Of course, it should be expected that they would work to redefine more words, considering they hijacked “gay” to now mean “homosexual” instead of “happy”.
I understand where you’re coming from…though I’m not sure that anyone can claim ownership [outside of copyrights and trademarks] of words.
I’d say both groups are generally even, given the transformation of ‘faggot’ to a pejorative.
Tim, you know I love you dearly. And my fondness and respect for you is the only reason I’m wading any further into this discussion. Normally I’d just roll my eyes and clickety-click-click on to the next thing in life like I always do when a bunch of grown-ass men get all wound up, pissed off and terrified of something they clearly don’t understand.
You can wave your one peer reviewed paper as long and hard over your head (pun intended) as you’d like but that’s when I have to ask, “Did you ever ask your own shipmates why they’re gay?”
Did you? Did you ever sit down and have a conversation with them about it? If not, is there anyone currently in your life, that you respect and care for, that is gay? Have you ever discussed it with them? If your answers to those questions are, “No.” then I’m sorry, but you simply aren’t qualified to declare that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. It’s not. It’s no more a choice than heterosexuality is.
And your line about homosexuals living in abject fear makes me chuckle. It’s the other way around, dear; how do you think the term “homophobia” came to be?
My “street creds” on this one? I do have people in my life that I respect greatly and care for deeply, who are gay. And I’ve had many conversations with them about sexuality. I’m sorry, but that trumps your one peer reviewed paper. A paper for which I’d like the link if you have it. I’d like to read it in full, esp the methodology used in selecting subjects.
My final thought on the topic on this Easter Sunday: It saddens me when I see so many self-declared Christians with such rage and fear in their hearts for homosexuals. How they make it a crusade. How terribly UN-Chrislike they behave.
My wife and I love the British TV show “Torchwood”. The lead actor, “John Barrowman” is gay. And he had this to say, “I am against gay marriage, why would I want to be united under an orginization that doesn’t want me”.
Agreed. I am a Christian, baptist to be exact, and I have always hated the sin, not the sinner.
All I hear from the gay community is that “Christians hate us!” Well, then why are you trying to get marriage? It is a Christian thing, remember? Started in the bible? which is older than any other religion…hmmmm…
That being said, I think I am going to divorce my wife, and demand a Civil Union with her. We want all the perks of being married, just don’t want to be married.
I don’t think that will fly in court…nor the military.
TTM, out.