[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

MUSK is going after WOKE DISNEY!!!

Bondi: Zuckerberg Colluded with Fauci So "They're Not Immune Anymore" from 1st Amendment Lawsuits

Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon

FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate...

Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt.

You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump

President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director

Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine

President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture

Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA

F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon

Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid

Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye

Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls

Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge

Jewish Land Grab

Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner

Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release

AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women

What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination

Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author

Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own.

Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room

Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister

Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals

German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human'

Berlin Teachers Sound Alarm Over Educational Crisis Caused By Multiculturalism

Trump Hosts Secret Global Peace Summit at Mar-a-Lago!

Heat Is Radiating From A Huge Mass Under The Moon

Elon Musk Delivers a Telling Response When Donald Trump Jr. Suggests


World News
See other World News Articles

Title: Bomb kills 25 at Shiite funeral in Pakistan
Source: AP Wire
URL Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap ... NH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD96F64G80
Published: Feb 20, 2009
Author: Ishtiaq Mahsud
Post Date: 2009-02-20 08:39:07 by war
Keywords: Pakistan, Talibian, Muslim, nuclear
Views: 1283
Comments: 107

ISLAMABAD (AP) — A bomb tore through a huge funeral procession for a slain Shiite Muslim leader in northwestern Pakistan on Friday, killing at least six people and wounding several more, police said.

Rising sectarian violence threatens to further destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan just as it faces renewed U.S. pressure to crack down on Taliban and al-Qaida militants.

Friday's explosion tore through crowds streaming toward a graveyard for the burial of Sher Zeman, a Shiite leader who was gunned down in the city the day before.

City police official Miran Shah said at least six of the estimated 1,000 mourners were killed. Others wounded by the explosion were rushed to nearby hospitals, he said.

Police said people angered by the attack fired on police officers rushing to the scene. An Associated Press reporter in the city heard the gunfire and said troops had arrived to help restore order.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack.

However, relations between this Muslim nation's strong Sunni majority and Shiite minority are under growing strain from a series of attacks attributed to sectarian extremists.

Much of the violence has been in the northwest, where the Taliban and other violent Sunni groups have gained sway.

In the deadliest recent incident, a car bomb killed 29 people and wounded scores near a Shiite mosque in Peshawar in December. On Feb. 5, a suicide bomber killed 24 people at a Shiite mosque in a central city.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 85.

#1. To: scrapper2 (#0)

So what if they gain control o' the nukes, right?

war  posted on  2009-02-20   8:40:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: war (#1)

So what if they gain control o' the nukes, right?

"They" have had control of nukes for a while and nothing has happened. Who do you think Pakistani intel officers are but Sunni and militant sympathizers? Wake up. It's not Pakistan or any other Islamic nation state that has threatened the ME and the world at large with the Samson Option.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-20   22:57:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: scrapper2 (#2)

Who do you think Pakistani intel officers are but Sunni and militant sympathizers?

Boy, you are confused.

war  posted on  2009-02-21   8:15:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: war (#4)

Boy, you are confused.

Confused? No, I am the one who sees the light. It's you who are over taken by the propaganda of our MSM, who have admitted that they take info from the feds and write it up as "truth", as "news."

I know the "enemy" that has manipulated us into multiple wars, that has attacked our military and killed them, that takes our tax money and uses it to bribe our congress critters and manipulate our foreign policy. I know the "enemy" that has left us without friends and ridiculed on the world's stage as a bully. The "enemy" that has brought our nation to ruin is NOT AQ. Open your eyes and identify the "enemy" correctly so you can get your panties out of twist.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-21   13:01:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: scrapper2 (#6)

It's you who are over taken by the propaganda of our MSM

Further underscoring your confusion...

The ISI is populated mostly by the western educated which spills over into their lifestyle. Pakistan is the guy bike riding on the high wire holding onto the balance pole instead of the handle bars and who suddenly discovers that he's been pedaling backwards with a flat tire. Of course there are going to be Taliban sympathizers in their government...as there are in China which is hardly a Muslim country.

Start there and ponder that...

Open your eyes and identify the "enemy" correctly so you can get your panties out of twist.

Pay attention, doofette...I know what our insane Israel-o-centric foreign policy has cost us in both money and lives. I also know that we could cut Israel loose tomorrow and it won't make any difference whatsoever to those fanatics. That's a realization that you've yet to get smacked with so it's no coincidence that is where your intelligence quotient goes into deficit. I could care less how much you hate the Jews. I care how much those mountian dwelling fanatics hate us.

war  posted on  2009-02-21   17:07:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: war (#7)

I also know that we could cut Israel loose tomorrow and it won't make any difference whatsoever to those fanatics. That's a realization that you've yet to get smacked with so it's no coincidence that is where your intelligence quotient goes into deficit. I could care less how much you hate the Jews. I care how much those mountian dwelling fanatics hate us.

Why don't we put your theory to the test about Israel and cut Israel loose and see what happens?

Regarding my "intelligence quotient", what gives a person like you who is of limited intellectual reflection and who is so easily fooled by MSM anti-Muslim propaganda the right to sit in judgment?

Regarding your statement about hating the Jews - dead ADL talking points give-away. See you around, ironpanties.

Regarding mountain dwelling fanatics, strange how such primitives -as you yourself describe them - could know enough technology and have such aviation skill sets to fly 2 commercial jets into the middle of Manhattan and DC. How lucky for cave dweller fanatics to manage such feats!

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-22   1:17:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: scrapper2 (#9)

Regarding my "intelligence quotient", what gives a person like you...the right to sit in judgment?

ROFLMAO...putting aside the fact that I was born with that right, your assumptive that you've tried to pass off as a premise about my relationship wit the MSM is false. Id suggest that you go back to square one but I'm not sure that you could find a map with your ass designated as the starting point.

The West has problems in that region that pre-date the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.

Regarding your statement about hating the Jews - dead ADL talking points give-away.

So what are you telling me here...you're not only stupid you're paranoid?

Regarding mountain dwelling fanatics...

Another assumpitve...they don't "dwell" in caves but from time to time use them as military assets.

war  posted on  2009-02-22   9:20:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: war (#10) (Edited)

The West has problems in that region that pre-date the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.

Problems with the ME arose after the Allies betrayed their promises in 1915 to the Arab countries that they [including the Palestinians] would get their independence from colonial rule if they would throw in their lot with the Allies in WWI. Instead the Allies gave the Zionists a thug state called Israel, super- imposed on the Palestinians, the significant majority indigenous people in Palestine at the time. And fyi, the Palestinians gave shelter and refuge to the European Jews who escaped from the Naziis during WWII, before the West's ultimate betrayal had become known.

Read the poignant October 7, 1947 speech given by Pakistan's Ambassador to the UN, Zafrullah Khan , to gain some insight and historical perspective as to the identity of the First Terrorists in the ME and how the West betrayed the Arabs, Persians, and in particular the Palestinians after WWI/WWII .

aleemkhan.files.wordpress...afarullah-khan-speech.pdf

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-22   14:14:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: scrapper2 (#15)

The last person from whom I need a history lesson is you.

Thanks.

war  posted on  2009-02-22   18:50:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: war (#17)

The last person from whom I need a history lesson is you.

Thanks.

You opened up the subject with your broad-brush stroke false historical reference to Muslims always being a problem for the West even before Israel was created by the UN.

I simply corrected you with regards to the falsehood you were trying to pass off on this forum as historical truth.

As for the so-called "history lesson" - I wouldn't waste my time trying to teach a bigoted dullard like yourself about ME history. That's why I thought the October 07, 1947 speech of the very learned and highly esteemed Zafrullah Khan, former Pakistani Ambassador to the UN and later the President of the UN might help you get up to speed so you would not display your ignorance in public again.

aleemkhan.files.wordpress...afarullah-khan-speech.pdf

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-22   22:49:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: scrapper2 (#19)

As for the so-called "history lesson"

It was an attempt at further underscoring what a pedantic little snot you are.

I told you that your knowledge base about me is 0. You don't even realize that you and I are in general agreement on the issue of US/ME policy. Your failures are two fold...one is to recognize that the issue of Islamic radical fundmentalism holding the west to be an enemy is not a late 20th century phenomenem. The other is personal and which we've discussed.

Are you, in fact, a Moslem?

war  posted on  2009-02-23   1:23:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: war (#22)

Are you, in fact, a Moslem?

Righto. And the Catholic Church has been very tolerant of my desire to hold dual religious membership.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   1:51:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: scrapper2 (#23)

And the Catholic Church has been very tolerant of my desire to hold dual religious membership.

As long as you give them enough money they could probably give two shits what you do...

war  posted on  2009-02-23   8:20:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: war (#30)

scrapper: And the Catholic Church has been very tolerant of my desire to hold dual religious membership.

war: As long as you give them enough money they could probably give two shits what you do...

You really are a crude rude piece of work.

You find it so easy to insult Muslims and Catholics - your contempt falls right off the tip of your tongue.

But say anything about the Zionists, and you get your nose out of joint.

Your actions are self-revealing.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   8:52:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: scrapper2 (#32)

But say anything about the Zionists, and you get your nose out of joint.

The Catholic Church has a pedophile issue that it refuses to address.

I have a serious issue with Moslems because the "moderates" won't stand up to the fundamentalists much like the US Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopals etc etc etc won't stand up to the American Taliban. The rest of the western world laughs at how backwards we are in terms of declaring ourselves religiously pure while requiring everyone in pubulic service to wear religion on their sleeves.

As for your myopia regarding my opinions about Zionism/Israel, i.e., it's grossly disporporationate influence on American foreign policy, I can't help you there as you seem to be rabidly content to pretend that they don't agree with yours.

war  posted on  2009-02-23   9:44:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: war (#35)

The Catholic Church has a pedophile issue that it refuses to address.

Wrong. Pope John XXIII in 1961 banned gays in the priesthood. US seminaries ignored that ban for decades and now it is estimated that the American Catholic Church has anywhere from 25% - 50% gay priests.

The pedophile ( or more correctly described as pedarest)abuse cases that occurred was by and large an American Catholic Church problem because over the past 30 years it had developed a culture of homosexuality within its seminary midst - the Purple Palace as it is commonly known. It is no surprise considering that US society - unlike Europe - has experienced the ascension of very powerful gay lobby groups here along with their MSM cheerleaders and our Hollywood inspired culture of depravity and anything goes along with the ACLU suing any organization that would dare to say no to employing a gay person in a position of trust with access to children and teens.

Btw, the statistical number of gay priest pedarest abusers are no different than what occurs in the Jewish faith or Protestant faith. But the numbers of abused were obviously much greater in the American Catholic Church's instance because of the nature of male on male sexual promiscuity effecting greater numbers of sex objects.

The Vatican and the new Pope has been actively trying since 2005 to implement policies to prohibit gays from becoming priests, albeit a somewhat watered down policy version of Pope XXIII's). However, lobby groups in the USA have been vocal in their criticism of such policies. The American Catholic Church has been resistant to the Vatican's policy positions, because of the great numbers of gay priests it has on board already.

Personally, I feel that the Catholic Church was targeted by the Christophobes, who wanted to strike at the heart of organized Christianity - what better way than to infiltrate the oldest and largest Christian church - the Catholic Church. The American Catholic Church provided the gateway.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28677174/

"Less gay behavior in seminaries, Vatican says" 01/15/09

www.boston.com/news/world...ts_said_to_prohibit_gays/

"Vatican policy on priests said to prohibit gays: Italian newspaper says pope has approved document" 11/12/05

www.catholicculture.org/n...es/index.cfm?recnum=58524

"Vatican reaffirms ban on homosexual seminarians" 05/20/08

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   11:25:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: scrapper2 (#44)

Pope John XXIII in 1961 banned gays in the priesthood.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are entirely different issues.

The US Cathloic Church for years refused to defrock and expose its pedophiles and merely chose to play a shell game when them whenever complainats arose.

war  posted on  2009-02-23   11:39:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: war (#48)

Pedophilia and homosexuality are entirely different issues.

With regards to pedarest abuse cases that occurred in the US Catholic Church, which I thought was the subject under discussion, the vast majority of abused involved young males and their abusers were gay priests.

The Vatican had a study commissioned to study the particulars of all the cases, and over 85% were male predator on young male cases.

But perhaps this was all an unfortunate "coincidence."

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   11:48:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: scrapper2 (#50)

the vast majority of abused involved young males and their abusers were gay priests.

I hadn't seen anything that had revealed that they had also engaged in adult same sex relationships.

war  posted on  2009-02-23   13:40:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: war (#52)

I hadn't seen anything that had revealed that they had also engaged in adult same sex relationships.

Well, it's obvious that you have not bothered to read the 3 article links I provided you earlier which described the seminaries of the US Catholic Church as being riddled with actively practicing homosexual priests.

Here you go - a nice little article about the Sodom and Gomorrah environment of US Catholic seminaries by Stanley Kurtz from The National Review, a journal which you appear to trust and like reading.

www.nationalreview.com/03june02/kurtz060302.asp

"Gay Priests and Gay Marriage" By Stanley Kurtz 06/03/02

Some cut and paste:

"...After Vatican II, and in conformity with the broader cultural changes of the Sixties, the U.S. Catholic Church allowed homosexuals to enter the priesthood in increasing numbers. The homosexual orientation itself, it was stressed, was not sinful. So as long as a homosexual adhered to the very same vow of celibacy taken by his heterosexual counterpart, there was no reason to deprive him of a priestly vocation. This was a compassionate stance, and one that promised to incorporate a heretofore stigmatized minority into a venerable institution, thereby strengthening the institution itself.

Yet imagine that an opponent of this new openness to homosexuals in the priesthood had uttered a warning cry. Imagine that someone had said, back in the 1970s, when homosexuals were flooding into Catholic seminaries all over the U.S., that substantial numbers of gay priests, far from accepting the rule of celibacy, would deliberately flout that rule, both in theory and in practice. Suppose that someone had argued that homosexual priests would gain control of many seminaries, that many would openly "date," that many would actively cultivate an ethos of gay solidarity and promote a homosexual culture that would drive away heterosexuals — especially theologically orthodox heterosexuals — from the priesthood. Suppose this person went on to argue that, at its extreme, the growing gay subculture of the priesthood would tolerate and protect not only flagrant violations of celibacy, but even the abuse of minors. Then suppose that this person predicted eventual public exposure of the whole sordid mess, an exposure that would precipitate a crisis within the Church itself.

Naturally, anyone prescient — and foolish — enough to say all of these things in the wake of the Sixties would have been excoriated and ostracized as a hysterical gay-hater. It is simply bigoted, he would have been lectured, to claim that large numbers of homosexuals would take the vow of celibacy without making a good-faith effort to adhere to it; and even more so to claim that gay priests would embark on a campaign to deliberately subvert the Church's sexual teachings. And surely our foolish (and hysterically homophobic) friend would have been assured that an institution like the Catholic priesthood would attract only the most conservative homosexuals, not a bunch of "queer" radicals. Besides, even if a very few homosexuals did go so far as to actually abuse the children who had been given into their care, surely the number of such cases could never rise to the point where the stature and credibility of the Church itself would be put into doubt.

SUBVERSIVE SUBCULTURE

Yet all of these things have happened. Consider Jason Berry's extraordinary account in Lead Us Not Into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children (1992), all the more striking for coming from the pen of a liberal Catholic who would himself like to see a liberalization of the Church's sexual teachings. According to Berry, as the proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood increased dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s, many gay priests were visiting the seminary "on the make," frequenting gay bars, and "befriending" high-school students. Berry reports a study of 50 gay Catholic priests, only two of whom said that they were abstaining from sexual activity: "Sixty percent said they felt no guilt about breaking their vows. Ninety percent strongly rejected mandatory celibacy . . . and slightly less than half reported that they engaged in sex in public toilets or parks." According to Berry, Richard Wagner, author of the original study of these gay priests, found that 34 percent of his interviewees called their sexual partners "distinctly younger." (Wagner did not say how young.) What's clear from Berry's account is that sexual abuse of boys by homosexual priests (the typical form of abuse in the current scandal) was part and parcel of a larger gay subculture within the priesthood, a subculture that effectively enabled the abuse of minors by encouraging flagrant homosexuality, and openly flouting the rule of celibacy itself. Indeed, in a now infamous case, a priest who has been the subject of abuse allegations over a period of three decades, the Reverend Paul Shanley, went so far as to advocate abuse in an address to the convention that led to the founding of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Here, the connection between sexual abuse and an openly "queer" culture was frighteningly direct.

Of course, it is true that powerful conservative bishops, who were in no way part of a homosexual subculture, played a critical role in covering up the abuse. They bear responsibility for their actions, yet their cover-up was itself motivated by their knowledge of the size and significance of the problem: To expose any given case was to risk a public unraveling of the larger problem of sexual abuse, disregard of celibacy, and the place of the gay subculture within the Church as a whole.

It is also true that cultural changes abroad in America in the wake of the Sixties eroded the ethic of celibacy among heterosexual priests as well. Yet heterosexual priests disenchanted with celibacy tended to leave the Church. Gay priests who rejected celibacy, on the other hand, tended to remain within the Church and, in word and deed, opposed the requirement of celibacy.

The existence of an influential and intentionally subversive gay subculture within the Catholic priesthood has everything to do with the question of same-sex marriage. To show this, I want to hark back to "The Gay Marriage Debate," an extended exchange I had (on National Review Online and in a number of other venues) in the summer of 2001 with Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch, the two most prominent conservative advocates of gay marriage. Although both Sullivan and Rauch have honorably and ably defended same-sex marriage as the best way to "domesticate" sexually promiscuous gays, the priesthood scandal is powerful proof that just about every one of their fundamental assumptions is mistaken.

In our 2001 exchange, Sullivan assumed that only those gay couples prepared to be governed by the traditional ethos of monogamy would marry. I challenged that view, citing an important sociological study by a lesbian advocate of gay marriage — which showed that many gays with no commitment to monogamy, indeed with a conscious desire to subvert it, planned to marry. The priesthood scandals take us beyond even this predictive research: They represent a concrete and historically important case in which a significantly expanded homosexual presence in an established institution did in fact result in the undermining of traditional sexual morality, rather than in a "sexual-domestication" effect.

In my exchange with Sullivan, I also challenged his "arithmetical rebuttal" of the cultural-subversion argument. Sullivan had argued that any subversive effect on marriage coming from the open promiscuity of gay-male couples would be numerically offset by the notable fidelity of lesbian couples. I countered this point with the example of a strict college honor code — one that leaves it up to students themselves to refrain from cheating, and to confront and report those who do cheat. It would take only a small number of rebels against this honor code to subvert it, I said, since any significant group willing to sign the pledge against cheating, while also openly acting and speaking in violation of the code, would tend both to "break the spell" of the code and to put honest students at a disadvantage. In effect, this is what has happened with the open subversion of clerical celibacy: The open flouting of the rule, in belief and in practice, has helped to demystify it, and also put those who continue to uphold it at an unfair disadvantage. And particularly when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors, we have seen that egregious violations of a sexual code of honor by even a relatively small number of individuals can bring suspicion and discredit on an entire institution — and to the code that governs it..."

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   17:07:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: scrapper2 (#55)

Well, it's obvious that you have not bothered to read the 3 article links I provided you earlier which described the seminaries of the US Catholic Church as being riddled with actively practicing homosexual priests.

I never said nor would I say that the priesthood was not "riddled with" gay men.

I did say that it's never been shown that the gay men were also pedophiles.

war  posted on  2009-02-25   10:52:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: war (#56)

I never said nor would I say that the priesthood was not "riddled with" gay men.

I did say that it's never been shown that the gay men were also pedophiles.

With regards to the US Catholic Church, if you read the articles and the remarks I posted previously on this thread, the following was noted.

a. the US churches and seminaries were riddled with actively practicing gays

b. the vast majority of the abuse cases in US Catholic churches were those involving adult male priests victimizing young male alter boys or parishioners

With regards to statistics about risk factors of pederasty/pedophilia in the gay population re: adult male on young males, I have read the following statistics in a report by physicians:

The doctors cite the Journal of Homosexuality in demonstrating an overlap between the homosexual activist movement and the promoters of pedophilia. Moreover, the paper references studies showing that while “the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%,” “the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.” It concludes: “Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.”

The authors of the report are John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MR! CGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist

www.lifesite.net/features...fence/SSM_MD_evidence.pdf

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-25   13:32:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: scrapper2 (#57)

Authors of this report: John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MRCGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist

You don't "see" antything odd about that group? It lept right out at me.

war  posted on  2009-02-26   9:20:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: war (#58) (Edited)

You don't "see" antything odd about that group? It lept right out at me.

I see that several of the MD's are noted as being Canadian. What did your wee biased closed mind see?

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   13:04:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: scrapper2 (#61)

What did your wee biased closed mind see?

Given that I am on the Board of Trustees of a Canadian Prep school, believe that the US should adopt a hybrid of the Canadian Health Care model, specifically, its prescription drug program and that I am in Canada just about every 6 weeks, do you wish to revise and extend your ignorance based remarks?

war  posted on  2009-02-26   13:09:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: war (#63)

Given that I am on the Board of Trustees of a Canadian Prep school, believe that the US should adopt a hybrid of the Canadian Health Care model, specifically, its prescription drug program and that I am in Canada just about every 6 weeks, do you wish to revise and extend your ignorance based remarks?

What do your "credentials" mean exactly and how are they relevant to anything and in particular to this discussion about medical statistics regarding gays having a higher risk of male on male pederasty than heterosexual adult males??

And why should I revise my remarks about your closed biased mind?

You ridiculed the findings of specialist MD's, who individually have 8-10 years more of education and training than you, just because you assumed they were Catholic and that religion would make them less credible. You made very revealing snide remarks because your mind is mired in PC thinking and is closed to statistics that show gays in an unfavorable light. You want to believe that Catholic gay priests abused young males not because they were lecherous homosexual males, abusing their positions of trust and authority to prey on young males but rather because the Catholic Church prevented the priests from marrying and they had pent up sexual urges that they released on altar boys out of "convenience. "

As I said before you display a closed biased mind and it has nothing about being biased to Canadians per your attempted "dust up" to cloud the issue at hand.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   13:32:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: scrapper2 (#64)

What do your "credentials" mean exactly and how are they relevant to anything and in particular to this discussion about medical statistics regarding gays having a higher risk of male on male pederasty than heterosexual adult males??

Please. I know its not raining when someone pisses on my leg. You immediately ASSumed that I was somehow BIASED against Canadians. It was a stupid thought and even more stupid thing to riposte with.

You ridiculed the findings of specialist MD's

The moderator deleted that post.

You ridiculed the findings of specialist MD's, who individually have 8-10 years more of education

A) You have no idea how much education I have, snob.

B) You have not successfully argued that being a cardiologist or a radiologist somehow qualifies one as an expert on pedophilia, homoosexuality and the priesthood. Nor have you succesfully argued that their "research" is in fact supported by anything other than your own willingness to quote it.

C) Chew on this...Look familiar at all?

war  posted on  2009-02-26   13:41:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: war (#65) (Edited)

A) You have no idea how much education I have, snob.

B) You have not successfully argued that being a cardiologist or a radiologist somehow qualifies one as an expert on pedophilia, homoosexuality and the priesthood. Nor have you succesfully argued that their "research" is in fact supported by anything other than your own willingness to quote it.

C) Chew on this...Look familiar at all?

b. Are you naturally thick or do you only get thick when the topics - eg. gays and higher risk of pederasty - are near and dear to your heart? The physicians did not do the research. They analyzed the results of research that appeared in a broad spectrum of medical journals. They are MD's and are very accustomed to doing research themselves because in the course of their 2-3 year fellowships - which many appear to have pursued - they had to do mucho research. They are bringing their credentials to attention to demonstrate that that they are not people with basket weaving undergraduate degrees. They are medical professionals. One more time - they analyzed research from other medical journals, peer reviewed medical journals. One does not get published in medical journals like one does in Redbook magazine.

c. Chew on this:

"A group of physicians has presented to Canadian Parliamentarians scientific evidence that homosexual marriage is a health risk to Canadians. The heavily referenced brief titled "Gay Marriage and Homosexuality, Some Medical Comments" warns that the new law will result in the further normalization of homosexual sex which has already resulted in severe health risks and related costs to care for and treat persons affected by risky sexual behaviour."

Don't you get it? Life Site got permission to publish the report from the physicians who made their presentation to the Canadian Parliament. The physicians were not paid by Life site to do the research for the Catholic Church.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   14:02:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: scrapper2 (#68)

Are you naturally thick or do you only get thick when the topic - gays and higher risk of pederasty - are near and dear to your heart? The physicians did not do the research. They analyzed the results of research that appeared in a broad spectrum of medical journals.

BLAH BLAH BLAH

NOWHERE have you or your beloved doctors shown that adult gay males, that is males who have consensual sexual relationships with other adult gay males are more likely to also be pedophiles than adult male HETEROSEXUALS in HETEROSEXUAL relationships.

war  posted on  2009-02-26   15:17:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: war (#69)

BLAH BLAH BLAH

NOWHERE have you or your beloved doctors shown that adult gay males, that is males who have consensual sexual relationships with other adult gay males are more likely to also be pedophiles than adult male HETEROSEXUALS in HETEROSEXUAL relationships.

a. First off, you appear to be quite thick as well as PC brain-washed and therefore are unable to comprehend the gravity of the statistics that the MD's whose analysis I cited with regards to demonstrating the 10-25 times higher risk factor associated with gays engaging in pederasty/pedophilia. Let me repeat the statistics for you.

"... the paper references studies showing that while “the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%,” “the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.” It concludes: “Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.”...

The authors of the report are John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MR! CGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist

b. Secondly, as for your changing the terms of the discussion about gays and the high risk of their potential for engaging in pedophilia/pederasty and the incidents of gay priests' sexual abuse of young males representing the vast majority of abuse cases in the Catholic Church, which represents a real life situation supporting the medical statistical data, to your new topic of gays and heterosexual males in "made in heaven" consensual adult relationships - sorry, you are rather clumsy when it comes to kicking up dust [ changing the goal posts] on a debate that you have no courage to admit you lost.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   15:34:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: scrapper2 (#70)

Secondly, as for your changing the terms of the discussion about gays and the high risk of their potential for engaging in pedophilia/pederasty and the incidents of gay priests' sexual abuse of young males representing the vast majority of abuse cases in the Catholic Church, which represents a real life situation supporting the medical statistical data, to your new topic of gays and heterosexual males in "made in heaven" consensual adult relationships - sorry, you are rather clumsy when it comes to kicking up dust [ changing the goal posts] on a debate that you have no courage to admit you lost.

WTF are you babbling about? I've asked you the same gioddamed question from the onset.

war  posted on  2009-02-26   16:00:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: war, Ferret Mike (#72)

WTF are you babbling about? I've asked you the same gioddamed question from the onset.

I'm done with you. It's a waste of my time.

It's obvious that medical statistics that jar your deeply entrenched PC ideas about the risks of gays and pederasty are unacceptable to you.

So go engage a "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil" about homosexuality PC-blindered poster like Ferret Mike. I'm sure you will enjoy a much more mutually supportive discussion with Mike.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   16:20:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: scrapper2 (#74) (Edited)

It's obvious that medical statistics that jar your deeply entrenched PC ideas about the risks of gays and pederasty are unacceptable to you.

Just like data about black on white vs. white on black violent crimes fall deaf on PC ears.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-27   12:06:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: Rupert_Pupkin, scrapper2 (#79)

Just like data about black on white vs. white on black violent crimes fall deaf on PC ears.

Two different issues. The fact is, given the relative populations of hetero and homo and stipulating to scrappie's data. a child would still be more likely to be sexually assaulted by a hetero. Which, of course is irrelevant. What scrappie is failing to recognize is that a good snick of pedophiles have 0 adult sexual relationships but get lumped into homosexual because their pedophilia is manifested against children of the same gender. What she has been asked and failed ot provide is of the priests so identified as pedophiles, HOW MANY were practicing homosexuals outside of their pedophilia. It's a very simple question. It's also one she hasn't answered.

war  posted on  2009-02-27   12:41:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: war, Rupert_Pupkin (#82)

. What scrappie is failing to recognize is that a good snick of pedophiles have 0 adult sexual relationships but get lumped into homosexual because their pedophilia is manifested against children of the same gender. What she has been asked and failed ot provide is of the priests so identified as pedophiles, HOW MANY were practicing homosexuals outside of their pedophilia. It's a very simple question. It's also one she hasn't answered.

What the fudge are you talking about? Adult males who choose to have sex with boys and/or men are homosexuals, are they not? Do these adult gays need to have gay "relationships" with adult males before they prey on and bonk adolescent boys in the anus to satisfy your "high standards" of scientific method that they are indeed both gay and pederasts?

Here are the facts:

1. According to the John Jay report that was done on behalf of the American Catholic Church, over 80% of the abuse cases involved adult male priests sexually preying on adolescent males as well as young boys. "... 22 percent of the victims were under 10. It added that 51 percent were 11 to 14 years old and 27 percent were 15 to 17 years old..."

www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0401118.htm

Why do you think these adult male priests chose to get their sexual gratification by abusing young males rather than young female parishioners?

2. Here's the article, I posted earlier to you about the Sodom and Gomorrah environment of US Catholic seminaries written by Stanley Kurtz from The National Review, a journal which you appear to trust and like reading showing that American Catholic Churches and seminaries had a growing sub-culture of gay priests indulging in decadent sexual promiscuity.

www.nationalreview.com/03june02/kurtz060302.asp

"Gay Priests and Gay Marriage" By Stanley Kurtz 06/03/02

Some cut and paste:

"...After Vatican II, and in conformity with the broader cultural changes of the Sixties, the U.S. Catholic Church allowed homosexuals to enter the priesthood in increasing numbers. The homosexual orientation itself, it was stressed, was not sinful. So as long as a homosexual adhered to the very same vow of celibacy taken by his heterosexual counterpart, there was no reason to deprive him of a priestly vocation. This was a compassionate stance, and one that promised to incorporate a heretofore stigmatized minority into a venerable institution, thereby strengthening the institution itself.

Yet imagine that an opponent of this new openness to homosexuals in the priesthood had uttered a warning cry. Imagine that someone had said, back in the 1970s, when homosexuals were flooding into Catholic seminaries all over the U.S., that substantial numbers of gay priests, far from accepting the rule of celibacy, would deliberately flout that rule, both in theory and in practice. Suppose that someone had argued that homosexual priests would gain control of many seminaries, that many would openly "date," that many would actively cultivate an ethos of gay solidarity and promote a homosexual culture that would drive away heterosexuals — especially theologically orthodox heterosexuals — from the priesthood. Suppose this person went on to argue that, at its extreme, the growing gay subculture of the priesthood would tolerate and protect not only flagrant violations of celibacy, but even the abuse of minors. Then suppose that this person predicted eventual public exposure of the whole sordid mess, an exposure that would precipitate a crisis within the Church itself.

Naturally, anyone prescient — and foolish — enough to say all of these things in the wake of the Sixties would have been excoriated and ostracized as a hysterical gay-hater. It is simply bigoted, he would have been lectured, to claim that large numbers of homosexuals would take the vow of celibacy without making a good-faith effort to adhere to it; and even more so to claim that gay priests would embark on a campaign to deliberately subvert the Church's sexual teachings. And surely our foolish (and hysterically homophobic) friend would have been assured that an institution like the Catholic priesthood would attract only the most conservative homosexuals, not a bunch of "queer" radicals. Besides, even if a very few homosexuals did go so far as to actually abuse the children who had been given into their care, surely the number of such cases could never rise to the point where the stature and credibility of the Church itself would be put into doubt.

SUBVERSIVE SUBCULTURE

Yet all of these things have happened. Consider Jason Berry's extraordinary account in Lead Us Not Into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children (1992), all the more striking for coming from the pen of a liberal Catholic who would himself like to see a liberalization of the Church's sexual teachings. According to Berry, as the proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood increased dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s, many gay priests were visiting the seminary "on the make," frequenting gay bars, and "befriending" high-school students. Berry reports a study of 50 gay Catholic priests, only two of whom said that they were abstaining from sexual activity: "Sixty percent said they felt no guilt about breaking their vows. Ninety percent strongly rejected mandatory celibacy . . . and slightly less than half reported that they engaged in sex in public toilets or parks." According to Berry, Richard Wagner, author of the original study of these gay priests, found that 34 percent of his interviewees called their sexual partners "distinctly younger." (Wagner did not say how young.) What's clear from Berry's account is that sexual abuse of boys by homosexual priests (the typical form of abuse in the current scandal) was part and parcel of a larger gay subculture within the priesthood, a subculture that effectively enabled the abuse of minors by encouraging flagrant homosexuality, and openly flouting the rule of celibacy itself. Indeed, in a now infamous case, a priest who has been the subject of abuse allegations over a period of three decades, the Reverend Paul Shanley, went so far as to advocate abuse in an address to the convention that led to the founding of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Here, the connection between sexual abuse and an openly "queer" culture was frighteningly direct.

Of course, it is true that powerful conservative bishops, who were in no way part of a homosexual subculture, played a critical role in covering up the abuse. They bear responsibility for their actions, yet their cover-up was itself motivated by their knowledge of the size and significance of the problem: To expose any given case was to risk a public unraveling of the larger problem of sexual abuse, disregard of celibacy, and the place of the gay subculture within the Church as a whole.

It is also true that cultural changes abroad in America in the wake of the Sixties eroded the ethic of celibacy among heterosexual priests as well. Yet heterosexual priests disenchanted with celibacy tended to leave the Church. Gay priests who rejected celibacy, on the other hand, tended to remain within the Church and, in word and deed, opposed the requirement of celibacy.

The existence of an influential and intentionally subversive gay subculture within the Catholic priesthood has everything to do with the question of same-sex marriage. To show this, I want to hark back to "The Gay Marriage Debate," an extended exchange I had (on National Review Online and in a number of other venues) in the summer of 2001 with Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch, the two most prominent conservative advocates of gay marriage. Although both Sullivan and Rauch have honorably and ably defended same-sex marriage as the best way to "domesticate" sexually promiscuous gays, the priesthood scandal is powerful proof that just about every one of their fundamental assumptions is mistaken.

In our 2001 exchange, Sullivan assumed that only those gay couples prepared to be governed by the traditional ethos of monogamy would marry. I challenged that view, citing an important sociological study by a lesbian advocate of gay marriage — which showed that many gays with no commitment to monogamy, indeed with a conscious desire to subvert it, planned to marry. The priesthood scandals take us beyond even this predictive research: They represent a concrete and historically important case in which a significantly expanded homosexual presence in an established institution did in fact result in the undermining of traditional sexual morality, rather than in a "sexual-domestication" effect.

In my exchange with Sullivan, I also challenged his "arithmetical rebuttal" of the cultural-subversion argument. Sullivan had argued that any subversive effect on marriage coming from the open promiscuity of gay-male couples would be numerically offset by the notable fidelity of lesbian couples. I countered this point with the example of a strict college honor code — one that leaves it up to students themselves to refrain from cheating, and to confront and report those who do cheat. It would take only a small number of rebels against this honor code to subvert it, I said, since any significant group willing to sign the pledge against cheating, while also openly acting and speaking in violation of the code, would tend both to "break the spell" of the code and to put honest students at a disadvantage. In effect, this is what has happened with the open subversion of clerical celibacy: The open flouting of the rule, in belief and in practice, has helped to demystify it, and also put those who continue to uphold it at an unfair disadvantage. And particularly when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors, we have seen that egregious violations of a sexual code of honor by even a relatively small number of individuals can bring suspicion and discredit on an entire institution — and to the code that governs it..."

3. A number of MD's presented to the Canadian Parliament at the time legislators were considering legalizing gay marriage and adoption of children by gays their analysis of peer-reviewed medical journals including the Journal of Homosexuality regarding the "dark side" of homosexual behavior and risks therein. The findings of the learned good doctors as to the risks of gays engaging in pederasty/pedophilia were as follows:

"... The doctors cite the Journal of Homosexuality in demonstrating an overlap between the homosexual activist movement and the promoters of pedophilia. Moreover, the paper references studies showing that while “the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%,” “the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.” It concludes: “Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.”...

The authors of the report are John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MR! CGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist

4. What more proof do you need, war? You have sat on your iron pantied butt and have produced nothing to rebut what I presented. Hey, go ahead and hire a gay babysitter nanny for your male grand child in the future. In fact, hire a gay couple to do the baby sitting. Be my guest and put your PC theory to the test.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-27   13:16:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: scrapper2 (#84)

Adult males who choose to have sex with boys and/or men are homosexuals, are they not?

No. Men who have sex with men are homosexual. Men who have sex with children are pedophiles.

war  posted on  2009-02-27   16:24:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 85.

#91. To: war (#85)

No. Men who have sex with men are homosexual. Men who have sex with children are pedophiles.

Men who have sex with male minors are homosexual pedophiles/pederasts.

Men who have sex with female minors are heterosexual pedophiles/pederasts.

Unless they are bisexuals themselves, adult pedophile/pederasts seek out their minor victims based on their own sexual persuasion be it hetero or homo.

To omit reference to the sexual predators' personal sexual persuasion is to pretend that the sex of the minor victims is random and unfocused. This is dishonest and an example of transparently false PC thinking. It's your kind of PC blindered misguided lefties who promote the idea of gay males adopting young male children is being A-okay, not paying attention to the statistically higher risk for sexual abuse in those situations, not paying heed to the statistics of male on young male abuse that occurred in the American Catholic Church.

Here's what happened when practicing gay priests were put into positions of trust with access to male minors. Do you want this to be repeated with adoptees so you can hug yourself with regards to your non-judgmental open and tolerant mind? You are not the young boy/teen who is being bonked by his adopted fathers in the dark, so it's easy for you to parse precise descriptors of pedophiles/pederasts.

"...Consider Jason Berry's extraordinary account in Lead Us Not Into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children (1992), all the more striking for coming from the pen of a liberal Catholic who would himself like to see a liberalization of the Church's sexual teachings. According to Berry, as the proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood increased dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s, many gay priests were visiting the seminary "on the make," frequenting gay bars, and "befriending" high-school students. Berry reports a study of 50 gay Catholic priests, only two of whom said that they were abstaining from sexual activity: "Sixty percent said they felt no guilt about breaking their vows. Ninety percent strongly rejected mandatory celibacy . . . and slightly less than half reported that they engaged in sex in public toilets or parks." According to Berry, Richard Wagner, author of the original study of these gay priests, found that 34 percent of his interviewees called their sexual partners "distinctly younger." (Wagner did not say how young.) What's clear from Berry's account is that sexual abuse of boys by homosexual priests (the typical form of abuse in the current scandal) was part and parcel of a larger gay subculture within the priesthood, a subculture that effectively enabled the abuse of minors by encouraging flagrant homosexuality, and openly flouting the rule of celibacy itself. Indeed, in a now infamous case, a priest who has been the subject of abuse allegations over a period of three decades, the Reverend Paul Shanley, went so far as to advocate abuse in an address to the convention that led to the founding of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Here, the connection between sexual abuse and an openly "queer" culture was frighteningly direct...."

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-27 18:21:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 85.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]