US Embassy in Pakistan holds gay rights event

it means that Richard Hoaghland is a gay himself... that is why he is leading his community..

typical yank stupidity...talk about not having a clue!...

Maybe they simply do not care anymore.

Sure.

Maybe they did - however any sensible Diplomat would know that in Pakistan it would become a religious issue.

Maybe the US embassy saw it as a human rights issue rather than a religious one.

Hypocrisy is the Vaseline of political intercourse

Why to interfere with a country's religious atmosphere?This should have banned by Pakistani govt..Americans think they are Gods of world...

Truly undiplomatic, stupid thing to do.Even though Embassies are on 'neutral ground' and therefore do not come under the 'laws' of the land they are in - hence the term 'diplomatic immunity' - this should not give them the right to insult the host nation.We know all too well that Islam does not tolerate homesexuality - we in the West largely do. They should not tell us how we are wrong to accept it and we do not have the right to force them to acccept it.This is a diplomatic gaffe and should not be compared to acts of terroism.  

Klaatu--After you clarified it the first time, I understood what meant (btw your diplomacy explanation was the best).  I just think you should be more careful with your selection of words.  Especially when laying out such a damning critique.  Otherwise you attract God-haters like Zeitgiest.Zeit--Hey it's the only guy in the whole world who has heard of Mabo Day (except for the million or more who celebrate it, that is).  Ha Ha.  

Dont waste your time with Frenchie . How ironic that this bird-brain has a problem with your selection of  collective nouns but has no problem throwing the term anti - american into his argument to claim anyone criticing american foreign policy hates all americans. Go figure! 

Frenchie" I did not isolate a single word"

and within a breath:

"I objected to your use of "The Americans".  Make up your mind and try to be consistent.

Dear oh dear Frenchie...

Let me try to simplify it for you to illustrate the correct use of language:

The US Government and the French Government are negotiating the finer details about the WTO and in particular subsidies given to the farmers in Europe and in particular France.

The teams retire to their respective Hotels after a hard days negotiation and here follows some of the statements made:

US Team: "The French are really not willing to comprimise on this. I think we will have to move on to the subsidies given to Airbus."

French Team "The Americans are playing hardball. We will not comprimise. It will cause much resentment amongst the people"

Now do you think each team is talking about the whole nation or is this contextualised to describe the position of the American and French teams?

klaatu--I didn't take anything out of context, and I did not isolate a single word.  You're wafffling.  You wrote:  "The americans are at the forefront in the war against Islam".  I objected to your use of "The Americans".  It's that simple.  If you meant the government or the nation, then write "America" or the "United States".  When I remark on the actions of Qatar's government, I write "Qatar".  I don't write Qataris.  Because it's not the same.

Context Frenchie, context!

The subject matter relates to US foreign policy and in particular the behaviour of the US consulate in Pakistan.

Therefore isolating a word without placing it in context will of course leave you confused.

It's like saying "Terrorist'. What can you deduce what I mean here?

However if I say, "The word Terrorist has been over used and stretched to futher US foregin policy objectives post 9-11" you will understand what I mean.

Then you should write "America" or the "United States".  "Americans" refers to the people who live there, such as in your statement "americans are at the forefront in the war against Islam".Such is the difference between Qatar and Qataris, Pakistan and Pakistanis, etc., etc.  It's not just semantics.  

Frenchie "LOL!  Does this include the 7 million + American citizens who are Muslims?"

I give you too much credit. I am not talking about everying single individual; I am talking about the Nation State represented by the Executive Authority that makes decisions on behalf of the State. Of course not every american will agree with what their government is doing; however this does not hide the fact that the leadership has the authority to act and represent the State.

Hence why statements like Japan at War; or America at War etc are understood to mean the State is at war and not whether every single individual agrees or disagrees.

Capishe?

klaatu--"The americans are at the forefront in the war against Islam..this is just one aspect of the attack."LOL!  Does this include the 7 million + American citizens who are Muslims?  Time to turn to a different page and stop being puppet for someone else's propaganda.

In my opinion Men who support wife swapping are men with no jealousy and I put them than lower degree than animals, as some animals have jealousy, but these do not care if some have affair with their wives.

If nothing bad happend this time then this does not mean it is always good, other wise we will enter to the principle of coincedence.

I would say the same about you jj. 

I am declining to say anything further, Pilgram you are singularly failing to see the point

Obviously not, because nothing bad happened.

Well, I just think it was more by luck than good judgement. It was just a very dumb move

But it didn't set violence off.  Isn't that the point.  Perhaps Pakistan is developing a lot more quickly then we think.  After all the Ambassador is on the ground in Pakistan and is much better able to read the mood of the people then we are.  Perhaps he didn't see a threat, which is why nothing happened.  I think this is a case of the media blowing things out of proportion as usual.

Pilgram - are you so blinkered that you don't realise why it hit the headlines?

But one statement from a random cleric is enough to set violence off - Ambassadors should be intelligent enough to know what will light a tinder box and on this occasion, as I said before, they were either stupid or flippant

But there weren't.  Just a statement by a radical cleric.  Big woopdee doo.  Not sure why this even made the papers.  Other than to make Pakistani's look like bigoted idiots to the Western world.

The americans are at the forefront in the war against Islam..this is just one aspect of the attack. The US is targetting the Islamic social system; the rules related to men and women; the family and the ethics/morals in Islam.

Why propogate and defend such a unnatural and filthy idea? What does this say about the western culture?

Potentially...

Where were the violent demonstrations?  I didn't see any articles about that. 

You have to start somewhere to make a point, why do they need to sit back and watch while gays are killed and persecuted?   The US embassy has every right to support the gay and lesbian leaders in Pakistan.

But Pilgram, what they did was actually to incite potentially violent demonstrations - way to go, what did it actually achieve?

Pilgram, perhaps it was the way you worded your comments - if they were trying to make a point to the homophobic pakistani population then it was even more wide of the mark than I thought.

remember - a willow bends and sways in the wind but an oak is rigid and far more likely to be blown over - perhaps the embassy staff would do well to remember this.

Embassies are also there to spread the agenda of their home countries.  Gay rights is on the agenda of the Obama administration, especially after the UN declared it inhumane to persecute gays. In fact I would argue that embassies are there more to spread their own agenda then to be diplomatic.

 Embassies are there to be diplomatic. This means reading the lay of the land and acting accordingly. This is probably why Embassies in China or Russia don't make much noise about abuses and similar issues.

What do homophobic people in America have to do with this?

Since when did the US bow to extremism?  And why should they?  If they start bowing to the extremists in Pakistan, then how long till they start bowing to extremists in the US? 

Pilgram - not really the same thing. A few people who are homophobic in America cannot be compared to ethnic genocide

so either they knew it would upset the local population and went ahead anyway or they were so lackin in clue that they weren't aware of how it might offend people. Not  a good look either way

I would normally agree with you. However, given the current situation, the issues between the two countries and the fight against extremism - an action such as this, no matter how ell intentioned is playing into the extremists' hands.

They're supporting people who are persecuted in there own country. If they had held the event for say, Kurds in Iraq or B'hai in Iran, people would be saying that they are being humanitarian amabassadors and doing the right thing.

Pilgram

a little bit of thought and care should be taken into consideration about holding an event in a country such as Pakistan. This is kind of brash 'we don't care and we will do what we like' is what gives Americans/America a very poor international reputation, which is sad for a country with a lot of positive things about it.

I would agree with LP. Ambassadors are there to practice diplomacy. In this case, he erred. 

The United States has a right to support whom ever they see fit.  The event was held on embassy grounds and was a private event, therefore they had every right to do it.  I hope they do it every year.

I would say it is culturally insensitive - terrorism is far too strong a word. Real terrorism harms and kills other people - I  can't see how a few people holding a social event in an embassy in a country where homosexuality is not the religious or cultural norm will actually kill or maim, something is slightly out of proportion here.

"A leading Pakistani right-wing party on Monday condemned a recent function held in support of gay rights at Islamabad's US embassy and described it as "cultural terrorism" "

Because in our belief Islam behaving like a gay is prohobited and unaccepted, homosexuality is forbidden.

If this gay person or homosexual guys we borne like this then in Islam there is nothing against them, but at the same time a help should be given to them to let them be a useful part of the community, i.e. treating and making the gay person behaving like a normal man who is attracted to the opposite gender, same thing for the woman who are attracted to woman only.

The above is from our belief.

I think US Ambassdor in Pakistan should focus his Attention on the Relations Between US and Pakistan, rather then Provoking Protests against US...... 

This just one style the american ambassadors (CIA assets more often than not) use to interfere...of course this is part of an objective.

The tradition of diplomatic immunity/sovereignty of the embassies is centuries old.  For a long time (and still in some countries) the only places a religious minority could worship is in an embassy.  

hmmmm... so this the main problem.. i heard the news of maid abused/tortured by saudi woman in some where europe think so.. but i feel this rule will be implemented more in for the countries who are in power and the third world countries will suffer alot from this law

AD--terrorism is a bit over the top.  Arrogant, most definitely.  Insensitive, yes.  Stupid, maybe. Terrorism, I just don't see.  However, the smartest move by the Pakistanis would have been to ignore it.  Taking to the streets and making an issue of it only fuels the liberal Western media image that Pakistanis are a bunch OBL-loving, freedom-hating radicals, which is entirely false.  You know the camera is going to zoom in on the one crazed twenty-something guy in provincial dress with a misspelled sign shouting death to America.Why not just say, "it's your embassy, do as you choose; and if you choose to take actions that we believe will damn your eternal soul, then so be it.  Next week we plan to hold an anti-gay celebration at our embassy in Washington to see if your citizens behave as decently as ours."

Yes ingeniero its all part of the same thing.  It's why Western embassies here have pork and have always served alcohol.  It's problematic in ever country--in a number of GCC embassies in Europe and the US there have been reported cases of maids and workers being severely mistreated, and years ago the President of Panama fled to the Vatican Embassy to escape pursuing American troops. 

a kind of terrorism, performed in whitecolor. 

hmmm... mean this is in general rule for every embassay in the world. same like no country have right to check the bag for embassadors?any ways thanks for info...

ingeniero--an embassy is considered the sovereign territory of the owner.  This means that the Pakistani laws do not apply to what happens there, only US laws.  The same, of course, is true for the Pakistani Embassy's in other countries.  

There are "Pakistani gay community leaders"....not so closeted then.

what does technically american soil mean? didn't get you.. or can say don't understand this. can u explain this term exactly

The embassy is technically American soil, so they can do as they choose.  However, I agree with olympics that the US is treating Pakistan like a colony when it behaves in such a way, knowing Pakistanis are helpless to do anything about it.

The attack on OBL was to save humanity but this is just uncalled for.. Absolutely unnecessary I would say..

USA must not be allowed to do such bad things.  They are in Pakistan so they must follow Pakistan rules.  First attack on OBL now this.  USA treats Pak like colony.

I think they were nuts to even think of doing such a thing in Pakistan. My country is not very gay tolerant despite the fact that there are many closeted gays and lesbians in Pakistan and even abroad but it is not something they can talk about or come out as they say..  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Fatiha_Foundation

I personally detest such people as I think what they are doing is against nature. I fully support Pakistan in their stand against LGBT..

Ambassadors are selected because they know the art of diplomacy. Obviously some ambassadors haven't learnt to lie, oops, to be diplomatic.

I think this raises the question of how much liberty embassy's and ambassadors have or should be given.