Maxim Lapunov, 30, told reporters on Monday that he was demanding justice from the Russian government for the 12 days he spent locked in a blood-soaked jail cell, led out daily with a plastic bag over his head to be beaten by police officers demanding he confess to being gay...
Lapunov, who is ethnically Russian, is the first person to make a formal complaint to Russia’s powerful Investigative Committee challenging a government narrative that the “gay pogrom” in Chechnya never existed because no victims have come forward....
Kadyrov, the powerful head of Chechnya, was installed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2007 with wide-reaching powers to suppress a militant insurgency in the region. He has built a powerful cult of personality and championed conservative values in the mostly Muslim region.
“If there are any [gays], take them to Canada. Praise be to God. Take them far away from us. To purify our blood, if there are any here, take them,” he told HBO in a televised interview in July.
१६ ऑक्टोबर, २०१७
"For the first time since gruesome accounts of the systematic detention and torture of gay men began leaking out of Russia’s republic of Chechnya..."
"... a young man has gone public with his story," WaPo reports.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८५ टिप्पण्या:
Let's get to the important stuff...can he buy a wedding cake?
For others who have run out their WaPo "free" articles, here is a link to a comprehensive article at the Macon Telegraph:
http://www.macon.com/news/nation-world/article179114061.html
The Russians, not just the Chechen Muslims, have a long history of, let's say, not being gay friendly.
Why, even under Communism, homosexuality was considered a product of the social deformations caused by capitalism. Under a true socialist regime, there would no longer be the forces that created the sexual deviancy of homosexuality, & so, there would no longer be any homosexuals. Homosexuality was therefore an act of either mental illness, in which case they put you in a "mental hospital", or a counterrevolutionary act, in which case they sent you to the gulag.
It's interesting how so much of the post-Marxist Left has conveniently forgotten just how virulently anti-gay the Marxist Left was.
Well, at least this Kadyrov thug isn't linked to any powerful Hollywood director//producer. Oh wait....
I miss the 20th Century, when the CIA found people willing to rub these Russians out for just a few dollars.
It's no fun anymore... The Russians and Chinese are winning.
championed conservative values
We're invited to simply equate "conservative" with "evil". In what sense is Kadyrov "conservative"? Is he bringing the region back to the way it was from 1917-1989, when it was ruled by the Communists that the NYT has been lauding all month? Maybe "conservative values" has some relation with the phrase that follows it, "in the mostly Muslim region". The region has been Muslim for a long time. Are the "conservative values" that we are to suppose have some relation to the systematic detention and torture of gay men also Muslim values?
And just to be fair, I'll add this:
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2017/10/16/pakistani-police-beat-christian-student-death-latest-sectarian-lynching/
That recounts the murder/blasphemy convictions of a bunch of Christians in Pakistan.
It's not just gays, although it seems to be more and more common in Muslim lands that they be beaten, threatened and imprisoned. And why were we not getting any of these people through the UN refugee program? The ones who desperately, desperately need asylum?
Thanks MaxedOutMama.
I don't know if Maxim Lapunov is courageous or incredibly masochistic. This can't possibly end well for him.
Here are some maps showing countries where being gay will get you imprisoned or killed by the government.
It's interesting how so much of the post-Marxist Left has conveniently forgotten just how virulently anti-gay the Marxist Left was.
It is not that they forgot, they never knew.
The modern Left is unbelievably ignorant, even if highly educated.
Why did he pick Canada?
Do we have that progresssive a reputation? I would have thought Holland, for example, is far more LBGT enthusiastic. Half of us up here are in the benighted hinterland and don’t know what LGBT stands for.
Lapunov is courageous. Very. But I was thinking that after he gives his testimony, he should leave the country and go somewhere else. Russia, all of Russia, is not gay-friendly, and now he will be a target.
Blogger Etienne said...
The Russians and Chinese are winning
...
The Chinese definitely think they are. They call American liberals baizuo, which they see as a kind of insanity. They’re rightly contemptuous of western whites for reasons all too obvious. And yes, in their eyes we’re going to loose the game as a result. I was there for a month recently, be back again in a year. Trump is quite popular with the young.
If this is what we get in the reset, imagine how bad it could have been.
@Maxed - More importantly, Russia is not criticism-friendly, and has never been so.
Remember, these are the same guys and Obama and HRC wanted to "Reset" with - and Obama wanted more "flexibility" to work with. Same exact guys.
Used up my WaPo allocation this month. How far in do you have to read before they specifically mention Islam?
I have some Armenian in-laws, and a very wild story about one of Kadyrov’s then soon to-be wives, a pop-star, her star crossed lover running away with her, and Kadyrov tracking them down.
You know what, I’m just going to stop there....Lord knows who might be reading this.
"Why did he pick Canada?"
Not that he meant it this way, I'm sure, but I'd see it as a compliment, that Canada is known in Chechnya as a place where gays are welcome to live their lives and aren't tortured and killed.
And I’ve also heard you really don’t want to fuck with some Chechens who end up in the Russian military.
Just hearsay
Before gay rights there was civil indifference.
What do they do to sado masochists.
Blogger I miss the 20th Century, when the CIA found people willing to rub these Russians out for just a few dollars.
Pretty sure Harvey Weinstein is willing to rub one out. At least if a starlet is willing to watch.
I think you're misunderstanding what intelligence services mean by "a plant."
Trump’s buddies.
Democrats are wooing Muslims to join their coalition of identity groups, which puts Muslims in the first tier of "all groups are equal, but some groups are more equal than others." That moves gays down to the second tier, maybe (thinking of the Orlando nightclub incident) even down to the third tier. But they figure -- apparently correctly -- that as long as they periodically gin up some outrage over pizzerias and Christian bakers they can keep gays in line.
That about summarize it, Titus?
Blogger Unknown said...
Trump’s buddies
...
If you mean nationalistic and anti-immigration, yes. Otherwise you’re just being a baizuo.
Trump isn't the president who gave Putin space and stood by while he invaded his neighbors. Russia, particularly Putin, is a problem bigger than Trump.
Also, Obama strategize with Russian politicians to help him win his election. No evidence thus far Trump did the same.
Even if Putin were gay-friendly I doubt he would do much to stop this. His bigger priority is to maintain Russian control in Chechnya and the other Caucasian regions, and he's willing to sacrifice a few gays for that goal.
Unknown@6:54 - you are such a fucking bore. Grow up already FFS.
Chechens of this flavor or the Chechens of the previous flavor (of the Beslan massacre sort) are what's on offer.
There is no sort of nice Chechen that could rule there.
That's the way of the real world mostly.
Can this somehow be turned against Trump because Trump and Putin are alleged lovers? Stephen Colbert has the details.
There are a lot more Muslims than there are gays.
bgates,
"We're invited to simply equate "conservative" with "evil". In what sense is Kadyrov "conservative"?"
It's the stylebook. Conservatives are always and everywhere the bad guys. Thus the old NYT lede, "Conservatives in the Kremlin have cracked down on the importation of foreign books, banning [titles including] ...The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater."
Parents of gay children might suddenly discover the downside of uncritically supporting/defending a white house (p)resident who gets his money and marching orders from Russia.
Nor did Kadyrov seem cowed by any thought of American intervention. “America is not really a strong enough state for us to regard it as an enemy of Russia,” he said. “We have a strong government and are a nuclear state. Even if our government was completely destroyed, our nuclear missiles would be automatically deployed. We will put the whole world on its knees and screw it from behind.”
Draw your own conclusions.
But seriously, this is an Islamic problem and the way that is downplayed in the articles I read is disgusting.
"Parents of gay children might suddenly discover the downside of uncritically supporting/defending a white house (p)resident who gets his money and marching orders from Russia."
-- Trump isn't the guy who cut a deal with Russia, promising them more flexibility after the election.
It's interesting how so much of the post-Marxist Left has conveniently forgotten just how virulently anti-gay the Marxist Left was.
Which "Marxist left" are you talking about? Are you aware that there are socialists outside of Russia and the Soviet Union? Can you imagine? Why, all of Western Europe has practically staved off fascism this way. Don't tell them that they're all just really Soviets. I guess the secret can't be contained for long.
-- Trump isn't the guy who cut a deal with Russia, promising them more flexibility after the election.
That's not a deal, that's political prioritization. And there was never a question that Obama received monies from Russia or that they attempted to interfere with AND heavily financed a campaign on his behalf.
The right-wing mind seems incapable of understanding how bribes work. That's why I never trust them when they constantly claim to have superior familiarity with economics.
Of course. The quid pro quo that Obama offered, "Hey, lay off being a problem, and I'll help you out after the election," in which, we see Russia laid off, and then Obama helped them, is in no way a quid pro quo arrangement.
...lay off being a problem...
"Lay off being a problem?" WTF does that even mean? It's so vague as to mean anything, and hence it means nothing. It is meaningless.
A financial interest is an actual stake. A personal stake. Any president OTOH is obliged to deal with any country in any way he sees fit. Asking a country not to behave in ways that harm the American interest or perceptions of its standing with America is a bad thing? A personal interest? You've drunk the anti-social Republican Kool-Aid. That's in every American's interest.
Right-wingers seem to not understand the concept of even "the national interest" any more. What evidence is there that Obama's post-election dealings with Russia were designed to enrich just himself, rather than an American interest that was apparently nonetheless unpopular during the election?
Learn to think these basic things through. At some point, your country needs you to understand basic reasoning, and how it applies to the national interest. Otherwise every time you vote this country is fucked.
... You have no idea what you're talking about. Obama made a deal for Russia to stop being a problem so that he could look strong internationally, and agreed to give Russia something they wanted ("more flexibility") so that he could win the election.
Russia obliged.
... You have no idea what you're talking about.
Sounds like you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Obama made a deal for Russia to stop being a problem so that he could look strong internationally,
Again, you keep talking like a kindergarten teacher to avoid being clear. Exactly WTF does it mean to "stop being a problem?" As far as I can see right now, you seem to be a problem. Further, I assume you don't have an actual point. But I'll give you an unprecedented third chance to actually prove that instead of just being/having a problem you actually have a point to make.
...and agreed to give Russia something they wanted ("more flexibility") so that he could win the election.
Flexibility with WHAT?
Russia obliged.
Oblige your fucking duty to answer the question, Admiral Ambiguity.
All I'm hearing is, "he was nice to them. He should have been mean to them." Talk like a fucking adult and grow up.
Right-wingers have the maturity of a gnat.
Those poor gay folk. :(
Leftwingers blame Trump for their constipation... and this.
Islam is a problem. Leftists adore Islam. shared hatred and all that. it all collapses at the inconvenient gay-hate. oops.
Leftists adore Islam.
Prove it.
Where are all the mass conversions?
There's a documentary on about Marxism right now.
I think right-wingers should come up with their own slogan:
Rent-seekers of the world, unite!
Is the target just male transgender/homosexuals?
I noticed that in America, homosexual men and women prefer to distance themselves from others on the transgender spectrum: bisexuals, transvestites, crossovers, with progressive degrees of mental and physical gender deviations.
The transgressors may themselves be male transgender/homosexuals that carry out a diversity campaign motivated by an ideological or competitive rift.
Do you even know what we're talking about?
The point is that, while nothing has come up about Trump -- the dossier was a terrible hack job with factual inaccuracies, the Russian agent his team met with had her meeting cut short and she was a trusted agent that the Obama administration had used, the Russian Facebook ads promoted pro-Democrat/anti-Republican groups apparently more readily than pro-Trump ones, etc., etc.
There's nothing thus far showing any collusion about Trump. If you want to hang him, then Obama, who literally made a deal with Russia (a clear quid pro quo about missile defense/space/flexibility) involving their assistance in an election should be in jail too.
Trump and Poot coordinated and tricked feeble minded Americans into not understanding how wonderful Hillary really is.
+ Her private server - just fake news. Right NBC?
And you can look at any number of favorable dealings the Obama administration had with Russia -- the point is that we don't know because his administration was secretive. If we really want to look into Russia's influence in our elections, we should be starting with the guy who gave them sweetheart deals, supported them internationally (up until Clinton started losing the election) and agreed to be more flexible in his support of them rather than the guy who is part of the party who identified Russia as our #1 Geopolitical Foe.
Biggest con job ever: Hillary and her hack DNC press selling the poot /Trump lie.
Ah, so you let Snopes do your "arguing" for you. So does that mean I'm supposed to assume you understand the Snopes article?
Are you having trouble alleging that you think he was trying to not implement missile defense? Because that didn't happen.
Are you having trouble understanding that he might not have been honestly promising Russia anything? Do you think that national leaders don't lie to each other? If so, you are very naive.
Finally, Snopes itself concludes that your equivalence is bullshit:
Fast-forwarding to December 2016, it is unclear precisely what equivalence, if any, is supposed to exist between Obama’s 2012 vow of “flexibility” and claims that Russia took Trump’s side in the presidential election...
It might help you to actually READ the things you want to use to make your case. Here's a site that may help.
Now, do I think there was any actual nefarious deal?
Probably no more than what we've seen before. But, the fact that no one cared then makes me think this is less that people care about our electoral integrity, and more just another attempt to get Trump.
If you didn't speak up when the president put national interest aside to get a foreign country to help him win an election in return for future favors -- then frankly, I don't think you've got a *moral* or *ethical* problem with Trump maybe asking Russia for dirt on Hillary or to run a Facebook ad.
... You still don't understand the point of this, right?
The point is that it is a parody of your Trump-Russia nonsense by giving you an *actual* problem. That you are choosing to ignore for partisan reasons.
And you can look at any number of favorable dealings the Obama administration had with Russia--
Are you alleging that missile defense is unanimously supported among foreign policy experts and has no trade-offs?
Typical winger. Not understanding diplomacy. Or the fact that international relations is about nothing but trade-offs.
Or, hey, let's play the same game.
Maybe Trump just lied to Russia and wasn't going to actually do anything for them after they helped him.
So, it's all ok. Hooray for that sneaky Trumpster!
It might be worth pointing out that being a gay Chechen doesn't necessarily mean you're a good guy. You're still a fucking Chechen.
Maybe Trump just lied to Russia and wasn't going to actually do anything for them after they helped him.
Trump is a billionaire who somehow staved off the worst of the Great Recession and whose son is reported as explaining Russia as the reason why.
That's a much more personal stake than winning an election. Again, your tiny right-wing brain is not identifying a single personal, anti-American favor that Obama "repaid" the Russians for their agreement to not "cause problems". I guess you're such a right-winger that you think "not causing problems" is a bad thing that American presidents should avoid. I could see a disastrous Trump presidency defender looking suspiciously on any act that actually restrains our potential foes.
How's your president's emboldening of North Korea working out these days? Where did you study diplomacy? The School of Loud Chest Beating?
Ok, so, the answer is, no, you don't understand this conversation. No, you don't understand America-Russian relations during the Obama presidency, and you haven't got a clue what we're talking about.
I'm sorry; I assumed we were on somewhat even footing here to have a discussion. I was wrong. I'll let you go back to your two-minute hate.
If the only "favor" you can allege that Obama received was to win an election, then anything he would have done in a second term to jeopardize his presidential legacy - including actions toward Russia that could be shown later to harm/jeopardize the national interest - tacitly negate the whole theory.
You are not thinking. You are not being very bright. Winning an election is not an incentive in itself if the president's legacy is of any value to them at all. You have come nowhere near close to demonstrating let alone proving a personal/self-interest.
It's because you're a winger. You don't know the difference.
It's why your party is built off of nothing but bribes.
Ah yes. What a meaningless favor. Becoming president.
No one would ever want to become president. There's no personal motivation to this. How wrong and blind I was.
Ok, so, the answer is, no, you don't understand this conversation. No, you don't understand America-Russian relations during the Obama presidency, and you haven't got a clue what we're talking about.
No, you're the one who doesn't understand what you're saying. You cite a Snopes article that concludes the exact opposite of why you cited it.
Call up Snopes and ask them why their concluding statement:
Fast-forwarding to December 2016, it is unclear precisely what equivalence, if any, is supposed to exist between Obama’s 2012 vow of “flexibility” and claims that Russia took Trump’s side in the presidential election...
is the exact opposite of your entire reason for your idiotic 7:19 and 7:52 comments.
Parent of gay children might suddenly discover the downside of uncritically supporting/defending a white house (p)resident who gets his money and marching orders from Russia.
Oh look -- who's parroting Jacob Grimm, trying to remove capitalization from his own language to score cheap political points? Notice which proper noun he does capitalize -- what does that say?
Ah yes. What a meaningless favor. Becoming president.
He already WAS the president, Dummy.
Second term is more about legacy than winning.
10/16/17, 8:41 PM
Blogger Matthew Sablan said...
No one would ever want to become president. There's no personal motivation to this. How wrong and blind I was.
Somebody running for a second term by definition doesn't need to "become" president, because he, uh, already is.
goddamn you are one stupid motherfucker.
No credible observer has denied that Obama cared about his legacy. What did he do contrary to the national interest vis-a-vis Russia to jeopardize that legacy?
How did Nixon jeopardize his own legacy by an opening to China?
You are an exceedingly, overwhelmingly stupid man.
Keep voting right-wing.
Oh look -- who's parroting Jacob Grimm, trying to remove capitalization from his own language to score cheap political points? Notice which proper noun he does capitalize -- what does that say?
I guess this is what you do when you tire of gazing at your own navel all day.
Get it right. He's the "resident." Not a president. Of anything.
Go write him a letter about how mean you find that if it hurts your feelings.
As for the house in question, your hero himself even called it a "dump."
Go defend grammatical inanities about the place to that guy.
And ask your lab to develop better fume-mitigating ventilation. Clearly the volatile organics are depriving your non-NT mind of even more oxygen.
How's the terrorist on your blog doing, these days, BTW?
Shorter leftist:
Because Poot and Trump = lovers, ( learned it on Colbert, Kimmel, Hillary TV NBC), Gay Chechans are oppressed and tortured because of Poot Trump.
It's OK Toothless. Let out all the hate.
Kadyrov is a warlord, his father was the selected president of the Chechen republic blown by a black widow in 2004, he has enforcers called the kadyrovski who crush dissent rather liberally in an exile hangouts like Vienna. In that context he is what passes for moderate in those parts.
“Mostly Moslem region” per Wapo
The translation:
5.94 non Moslem
https://www2.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/ponars/pm_0388.pdf
Oh, and Islam is now state religion.
American snowflakes are just going to have to come to terms with the fact that the rest of the world doesn't agree with their snowflake ideas
Parents of gay children might suddenly discover the downside of uncritically supporting/defending a white house (p)resident who gets his money and marching orders from Russia.
Thank God she didn't win, you fool.
Made link clickable.
5.94 percent of Chechnya’s population is non- Muslim
2005 paper. Probably more now that Islam is the state religion of Chechnya and being pushed / used by Russia. Reminds me of Saddam Hussein’s Islamic credentials...
Differential Demographics Russia’s Muslim and Slavic Populations
I am surprised by how the Democrats now hate Russia, favor Islam, dislike Christians (religious extremists), have strong Jewish support, and favor Gay rights.
While being silent on slavery in Islamic countries, death of Gays in Iran and other Islamic countries, and no mention of how many Islamic countries are intolerant of other religions. Not to mention Islamic hate crimes against Jews.
A little background here:
www.interpretermag.com/kadyrovtsy-vladimir-putins-combat-infantry-and-ramzan-kadyrovs-henchmen
There was a touch of dark comedy, when John Oliver decided to taunt kadyrov over his missing cat, you know bambi vs godzilla.
Obama was a great friend to gay-hating regimes. Still is. Hillary lost the election when she sarcastically and cluelessly laughed as Trump, in a debate, described how gays were thrown off roofs in a country that she had strong ties to. Maybe you don't remember, because you don't care. Well, you won't see Trump fans wearing Che Guevara T-shirts - ever - but the Bernie bros and the Hillary acolytes ... you may see, once in a while, one of them ironically wearing a Che T-shirt. Or maybe not even ironically!
It was noted a little while ago how lefties seem to be coming after Althouse’s blog. They’re doing it with nonsense. This thread has been awful. I have skipped over half the posts and finally quit in disgust. Reminder: trolls, who are essentially dishonest, WANT you to respond.
The peoples of the Caucasus are Bronze Age throwbacks, a virtual relict (not relic) population from ancient times, only nominally civilized, little different in temperament from their second millennium B.C. warrior ancestors.
Recommended reading on the subject: Lesley Blanch's magnificent "Sabres of Paradise," an epic nonfiction account of Russia's Caucasian War (1817–1864). This is the book that Frank Herbet ripped off, baldy and extensively, to write "Dune." Herbert based his Fremen of Arrakis on the Dagestani tribesmen who feature prominently in Blacnch's narrative.
It's OK Toothless. Let out all the hate.
"Love me, I'm a moron," said Matthew Sablan!
Mathew, that's cruel. Funny though.
Keep it up!
"We're invited to simply equate 'conservative' with 'evil.' In what sense is Kadyrov
'conservative?' Is he bringing the region back to the way it was from 1917-1989, when it was ruled by the Communists that the NYT has been lauding all month? Maybe 'conservative values' has some relation with the phrase that follows it, 'in the mostly Muslim region.' The region has been Muslim for a long time. Are the 'conservative values' that we are to suppose have some relation to the systematic detention and torture of gay men also Muslim values?"
"Conservative" does not mean just (or even primarily) "American right wing political ideas." It is used to refer to those who adhere to stricter or more narrow ideas about what is "proper" or "improper" thought or behavior, such as we imagine was the norm in earlier times: Old (or old-fashioned) ideas, not open to thought or behavior which has long been considered negative and which now is being presented as positive, or at least "acceptable."
Muslim values that proscribe homosexual behavior are "conservative," yes, as compared with those who promote acceptance of homosexual behavior. For example: "Orthodox Jews," "Conservative Jews," and "Reform Jews."
Of course, such usage depends on broad characterization of the ideas of earlier times. There have been permissive ideas along with impermissive ideas about acceptable thought or behavior throughout human history.
Half of us up here are in the benighted hinterland and don’t know what LGBT stands for.
Lettuce, Greasy Bacon & Tomato sandwich.
It is used to refer to those who adhere to stricter or more narrow ideas about what is "proper" or "improper" thought or behavior
If that were so, we could expect to see sentences like "Conservatives working on behalf of Hillary Clinton have filed suit to overturn the Citizens United decision and limit the ability of the political right to criticize her";
"Members of the conservative group Antifa have succeeded in shutting down several campus events held by the political right";
"The conservative Obama administration has announced strict limits on the types of health insurance plans Americans may purchase".
But we don't. The word is never used in such contexts.
Didn't the NYT recently say that gay men have better orgasms under communism? I'm almost sure I read that somewhere...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा