Lost in Translation

Just checked out the New York Times “latest story on gays in the military.”:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/us/politics/08gays.html?_r=1&oref=slogin In it, Hillary Clinton complains about the army’s decision to discharge gay and lesbian translators. But don’t you think that having a gay Arabic translator is actually a lot more dangerous than having no Arabic translators? I mean, imagine how gay Arabic translators might be tempted to twist language to promote their homosexual agenda?! “The captain wants to speak with you” could easily become, “The captain wants to kiss you on the lips.”

One thing’s for certain: they won’t going AWOL to go “antiquing in Baghdad.”:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2942449.stm

What do you think?

About The Author

4 Responses

  1. mrnhghts

    I really like the picture, but what on earth does it have to do specifically with homosexuality? I guess it is one of two (and perhaps, both) things. Either you are saying that only Lesbian Arab women are attractive, or you are you saying that Lesbian Ara

    Reply
  2. mdmadman

    Where did you guys even get that picture? Secondly, the culture over there frowns on any sin of the flesh especially homosexuality.

    Reply
  3. Hesed

    mrnhghts says:

    “I really like the picture, but what on earth does it have to do specifically with homosexuality?”

    I think the pic is part of the militarys new way to get around the “don’t ask, don’t tell” rules. They post the pic around the rifle ra

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This will close in 0 seconds