The Sexual Pathology of the Libyan Attackers

Pages: 1 2

Another question: If suspicions of Ambassador Stevens’ homosexuality are true, why did the administration send a gay man to an unstable hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism? Did it not realize that the possible discovery of his sexual orientation could have ramped up the danger for Stevens? Kevin Dujan at Hillbuzz reports that a Serbian consulate employee named Dino

told me it was no secret that Chris Stevens was gay and that “it was stupid to send him to Libya as the ambassador when he was a known homosexual.”

Dino explained in great detail that the brutal sodomizing of Stevens’ corpse was something that Muslims do to show the “utmost disrespect to the body” and that this is “a great insult in Islam” reserved for homosexuals. ”It is like making him a woman in death and he will be a woman now after life,” the Serbian explained to me.

Women should find it pretty offensive that this process of degrading a corpse through rape is considered “making him a woman in death” and “a woman after life.” Why aren’t feminists taking to the streets to condemn this misogynist barbarism? Oh, I forgot – they’re busy picketing Washington for free birth control, costumed as vaginas.

The American left, forever screaming about gay marriage, demanding free birth control, and spewing hate at conservative Christians whom they disparage as the “American Taliban,” is shamefully silent about real evil in the world, about the most intolerant ideology on the planet and one that stands in stark contrast to the tolerance they claim to revere.

A final question: President Obama proudly announced, almost three and a half years into his tenure, that he had “evolved” far enough to support gay marriage; when can we expect him to “evolve” enough to express outrage – not just a composed, rote condemnation of violence – at a culture that condemns homosexuals to a grisly death?

Some might argue that, to avoid igniting the Middle East tinderbox, the President should stay calm and not inflame matters more. Screw that. Islamic fundamentalists have dragged an American ambassador’s mutilated body through the streets, killed three more Americans, and stormed our embassies in other countries as well. It’s long past time for the President of the United States of America to present a righteous fury to the Islamic enemy, show them not one whit of deference or appeasement, and move to protect American interests and avenge American murders.

But that won’t happen, because we have a President whose sympathies lie with the Muslim fundamentalists seeking to tear down America and the West. Because of that he will excuse their torture and killing of homosexuals, their insanely hateful oppression of women, their violent disrespect toward our embassies, and their murder of Americans. We have a President who is busy yukking it up with David Letterman, partying with former drug dealer Jay-Z at a fundraiser, and basking in the adoration of the hosts on The View to give a damn about American lives or American interests.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • PhillipGaley

    To this well-done article, I would offer for corrections: on page 1, "Obviously these are all rhetorical questions designed to underscore the left’s disgusting hypocrisy, because the answer to all of them is never." would better reading with the commas thus: "Obviously these are all rhetorical questions designed to underscore the left’s disgusting hypocrisy because, the answer to all of them is, never."

    And, the last sentence "We have a President who is just too busy—yukking it up with David Letterman, partying with former drug dealer Jay-Z at a fundraiser, and basking in the adoration of the hosts on The View—to give a damn about American lives or American interests.".

    But in all, I concur with those who say that, Islam is not faith-based, and is not a religion at all, and to buttress statements in support of that as a categorical fact, Moslems' personalities are entwined in enforced patterns of behavior—not in beliefs which can be inquired into. And for instant example: The more mature Moslems teach mayhem (stone throwing, acid, etc.) and suicide to their young. In spread and actuality, Islamic so-called teachings, appear as more pert to a criminal organization operating under a false flag which mere color of religion, provides; and in all criticism, sure, for the illiterate or, otherwise ignorant who may be among us, if we wish to bridge to equal considerations of Christians, are the Christians chopping and hacking family members heads and hands off, burying alive, stoning, throwing acid in faces, and so much of this of Islam, done under the rubric of some so-called sense of honor.

    With its institutionalized sensuality, in its cruelty even to its own, in its history for actuality of mayhem, in the current pronouncements of many imams, and in the writings of its own book, it appears most clearly described as a philosophical invention, by bad men and for the use and maintenance in both malice and malevolence of bad men.

    And as perhaps at least some reason as to why Moslems perform as they do–or, are tolerant of those who do–Moslem nations are so deeply inbred from the practice of 1st cousin marriage, producing triple the rate of b. defects and a low IQ with emotional instability, that, like any similar disreputable cult, necessarily, it must exist as parasitic upon some larger society, that or else immediately descend into dire poverty.

    I would marvel to know just when there shall have been sufficient record of anti-social and criminal activity and mayhem—the world round—to have the nasty thing recognized in law as criminal / terrorist—assets seized, WIRETAPS, etc., the damnable thing stomped out, with every mosque an ash pit no less than five feet deep, . . . you know, do our part to make the world safe for freedom of choice, and equally for women and children, . . . but when?

    • Mullah be Damned

      A man was arrested in Pakistan for not participating in the protests. This is totalitarian behaviour for enforcing theofficial rage through the whole population.

    • commwife

      My theory is the rampant sexual abuse of children, especially of the boys, causes something human inside to die. Child victims are full of pain, humiliation,shame & are powerless. Combine with the savage might makes right cultural machismo, witnessing the degradation of women, and the brainwashing of Islam. Mix well & bottle up tightly until the right excuse comes along & you explode as rage boy. The formerly powerless now feel strong & in control & are enjoying making their victim feel it. They lost their empathy as children and just don't think of their victims as humans. That's my theory

      • gsk

        "Train up a child ]in the way he should go,
        Even when he is old he will not depart from it (Proverbs 22:6).

        If all our efforts and concern over childrearing in the West mean anything, then you're absolutely right, commwife. The only way to overcome these grievous deficiencies is with grace, and Islam does not offer that sort of healing.

        • jjbin

          dang !! foiled again by the admin ;)

  • dodo

    There's a sado sexual element to most if not all of muslim terrorism, from sick visions of sex with dead virgins to all kinds of sexual abuse before murder.

    • zionit

      exactly. Anyone brave enough to read the pages of Jihad Watch will understand exactly what contemporary savagery is and who the culprits are. 'Arab' culture IS Arape culture.

  • Kevin

    Islam is a murderous cult. They do, however, have the right opinion of homosexuality. Even Mooooossssslllums are right every now and then.

    • Ray Olson

      Thank you, Kevin bin Laden Muhammad!

    • Ar'nun

      It is not man's job to judge. Only God or God's apointed can judge the actions of man. And I doubt God's name is Kevin.

    • dionissismitropoulos

      So you do have a problem with gay marriage, like the muslims do.
      I can't help thinking that you look like a Muslim to me.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Ahh, that ever useful tool of the idiots to insult people with little rational thought = moral equivalence arguments.

        If you don't support "gay marriage," you might as well rape and enslave others, not to mention lying about anything in conflict with the circular reasoning of your cult.

        • dionissismitropoulos

          “Your cult”. Now, I wonder what that could be.

          With regards to my response to Kevin-the-Muslimlike, I only made the innuendo that Kevin’s opposition to gay marriage is in accordance with Islamic doctrines, hence in this respect he is perfectly Muslim. I did not suggest that he wants to enslave or rape others, therefore I did not suggest that he is morally equivalent with those Muslims that do want to rape or enslave.

          Islam is a set of prescriptions/valuations. Many of those are immoral. If one adheres to all of the immoral ones, she is as immoral as the Muslims. If she adheres to only some of them, she is less immoral than the Muslims.

          I would suggest that before you use terms such as “circular reasoning”, you take a course in Analytic Philosophy (the Anglo American variety of Philosophy, the rest is crap), so that you learn what the definition of “circular reasoning” is, and become able to use the term in cases where it truly applies.

          Now, how on earth do you know that I would be willing to lie in order to advance my “cult’s” interests? (Mind you, I still don’t know what cult you have in mind. Is there a chance that you are a victim of stereotypes, attributing to me membership in groups I don’t belong to?).

          Invectives such as “idiot” do not advance civilized exchange of ideas.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            dionissismitropoulos:

            "Invectives such as “idiot” do not advance civilized exchange of ideas."

            Now you want to be civilized? Fine. Start over and admit this statement, "So you do have a problem with gay marriage, like the muslims do. I can't help thinking that you look like a Muslim to me" was not.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            I would have no problem whatsoever to apologize if i had said or behaved in an uncivilized manner.
            The thing is that i didn't say anything that can be construed as uncivilized. I merely pointed out that Kevin's endorsing of the Muslim attitude towards gays turns him into a very Muslim-like person with (dis)respect to gay rights.
            The expression "muslim-like with respect to the issue of…" is not uncivilized, but the term "idiot" is (even more so when the person charged is not really one).

            I fear you have not answered even a single one of my objections to your first answer to me.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The expression "muslim-like with respect to the issue of…" is not uncivilized, but the term "idiot" is (even more so when the person charged is not really one). "

            But that is not what you said. You made an unqualified statement (that I originally replied to). Let's recap:

            "So you do have a problem with gay marriage, like the muslims do.
            I can't help thinking that you look like a Muslim to me."

            …and then in your DEFENSE you said:

            "With regards to my response to Kevin-the-Muslimlike, I only made the innuendo that Kevin’s opposition to gay marriage is in accordance with Islamic doctrines, hence in this respect he is perfectly Muslim. I did not suggest that he wants to enslave or rape others, therefore I did not suggest that he is morally equivalent with those Muslims that do want to rape or enslave."

            By adding (only when defending yourself) "in this respect" you limit the scope to the local explicit discussion, whereas before you are implying that gay marriage support is a litmus test for "Muslim" or "virtual Muslim."

            I know what you said, and you can dig your way out, but the point is that if I didn't challenge you, your statement would have remained and many who do think that all monotheistic religions are virtually the same would have taken your words as more evidence that people should believe that in fact the religions all agree on the most salient issues like gay marriage.

            Gay marriage in not salient to comparing and contrasting Islam with any other belief system. That is the point.

            I could take apart your defense further, but I see that you do actually understand that you were wrong, and need to process it a bit more. I focused only on the salient points.

            Thanks for opening your mind. Deception is uncivilized. You did it unconsciously perhaps, but you still did it. Islam is not comparable to any other belief system. It is a totalitarian system that includes religious positions that are used to shield itself by operating in stealth mode when it can get away with it. It is evil.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            Ok, two can play this game.

            (The system tells me that my comment is too long and that i have to split it in two. Here comes the first part).

            My initial statement was: "So you do have a problem with gay marriage, like the muslims do.
            I can't help thinking that you look like a Muslim to me."
            From this statement it is obvious that I use the term “Muslim” as a disparaging term, and that I am in effect saying to Kevin “hey guy, by opposing the gay marriage you do something coarse, something that Muslims do. Do you really want to be like them?”.
            Even the “you look like Muslim” that I said, instead of “you are a Muslim” should have made it clear to you that I do not consider opposition to same-sex marriage as a litmus test for being Muslim (and how could i? It is common knowledge that there are other groups that are not Muslims and do oppose such marriages). My obvious goal was to stress the similarity of Kevin’s opposition to gay marriages with the Muslim attitude on gay marriages, and I did all this in an attempt to say to those westerners who oppose it “Don’t you want to distance yourselves as much as possible from Muslim vulgarity? Why not change your attitude on the issue of gay marriages, which is one, among many, immoral beliefs that the Muslims hold?”.

            I added “Muslim in this respect” only when I was challenged by you, because you obviously had lost the meaning of my initial statement and I ventured to make it more explicit. I did not change my initial statement, I elaborated on it for your benefit.

            You said the following: “I know what you said, and you can dig your way out, but the point is that if I didn't challenge you, your statement would have remained and many who do think that all monotheistic religions are virtually the same would have taken your words as more evidence that people should believe that in fact the religions all agree on the most salient issues like gay marriage”.
            I am not quite sure that I follow, so please elaborate on what your fears concerning a possible misinterpretation of my statement were. In order to advance the discussion I will tell you how I understand what your statement means, just in case I have got it right (if not, kindly explain the meaning you intended). I understand that you claim that there are people who think that all monotheistic religions are virtually the same. Personally I have no knowledge of such people, and they must be true ignorants because there is one (among many) very salient (and well known even to atheists like myself) difference between Christianity and Islam, namely that Christians do not believe that blowing themselves among infidel children secures them a place in heaven, something that anyone who follows the Media knows. But I will take your word for the existence of such people. Your fear (if I am reading you correctly) was that these people will be corroborated in attributing moral equivalence to any pair of the monotheistic religions (“Christianity is like Islam”, “Islam is like Judaism”), based on my initial statement on Kevin, that since Kevin opposes the gay marriage, he becomes Muslim-like.
            Now, why should they do that? First of all, my intended usage of “Muslim” as a derogatory term (a usage that cannot be misinterpreted, for I was attacking Kevin by charging him with “Muslim-likeness”, and this counts as a charge only if the speaker uses the word “Muslim” as derogatory) should have signified to anyone that, whatever my views on the other religions, I do consider Islam to be the most immoral. So those people you referred to, ignorant that they are, could not have been misled by me, unless they don’t speak English.
            You also add with respect to this issue “Gay marriage in not salient to comparing and contrasting Islam with any other belief system. That is the point”. This, taken together with your reckoning that the ignorants will be misled into thinking that “in fact the religions all agree on the most salient issues like gay marriage”, seems to imply (and correct me if I misread you), that
            1 I misled people into thinking that monotheistic religions are morally equivalent.
            2 I executed my deception (unconsciously, thanks) through the trick of introducing a moral issue (gay marriage) that is not morally important (“important”, that’s how I translated your “salient”), or not morally important for comparing religions (I cannot discern which interpretation you intend, if any of the two).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            My initial statement was: "So you do have a problem with gay marriage, like the muslims do.
            I can't help thinking that you look like a Muslim to me."
            From this statement it is obvious that I use the term “Muslim” as a disparaging term, and that I am in effect saying to Kevin “hey guy, by opposing the gay marriage you do something coarse, something that Muslims do. Do you really want to be like them?”.
            Even the “you look like Muslim” that I said, instead of “you are a Muslim” should have made it clear to you that I do not consider opposition to same-sex marriage as a litmus test for being Muslim (and how could i? It is common knowledge that there are other groups that are not Muslims and do oppose such marriages). My obvious goal was to stress the similarity of Kevin’s opposition to gay marriages with the Muslim attitude on gay marriages, and I did all this in an attempt to say to those westerners who oppose it “Don’t you want to distance yourselves as much as possible from Muslim vulgarity? Why not change your attitude on the issue of gay marriages, which is one, among many, immoral beliefs that the Muslims hold?”.

            Using a verbose justification to essentially say that we all should have known what you meant because people talk like you all the time and don't mean it literally.

            So using a popular form of rhetoric does not make you a hero or a productive member of society. Many will accept your BS answer. You are wrong, but you simply have so many others talking this way that few people will care.

            Try to be constructive rather than entertaining. It is your right to say what you might, and my right to comment.

            "You also add with respect to this issue “Gay marriage in not salient to comparing and contrasting Islam with any other belief system. That is the point”. This, taken together with your reckoning that the ignorants will be misled into thinking that “in fact the religions all agree on the most salient issues like gay marriage”, seems to imply (and correct me if I misread you), that
            1 I misled people into thinking that monotheistic religions are morally equivalent."

            Your statement was absolutely consistent with this position. Was it not? Did you help to draw distinctions between Islam and other totalitarian belief systems? No you did not. What you did may have been trivial and unimportant in the greater scheme of things, but the direction of the discourse went backwards with your contribution. That is what I wish for you to consider Mr. defensive civilized man.

            "2 I executed my deception (unconsciously, thanks)"

            That is what happens when we ape others.

            "through the trick of introducing a moral issue (gay marriage) that is not morally important (“important”, that’s how I translated your “salient”)"

            Salient in this discussion means important in context.

            "or not morally important for comparing religions (I cannot discern which interpretation you intend, if any of the two). "

            Trivial is a lack of importance. Salient is something important or critical in the context of the discussion. It has other definitions if you care to look.

            People make false equivalence arguments by discussing trivial things that make the compared subjects seem the same or similar. In this long discussion about Islam and gay marriage, if you don't understand the point, I don't know what else to add other than to suggest for you to reread the whole sub-thread when you think you are finished with your emotional need to defend your original sarcastic statement, if you are rational and civilized. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not an idiot, but at least I got your attention.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            Oh God, what have I done to deserve this?

            The fact that you are evasive shows in that you did not answer the two questions that I have asked you to answer explicitly: What is the “cult” that I am a member of? And what did my close-mindedness consist in, which purportedly your arguments cured me of?

            You could not answer the first without showing that you were under the influence of stereotypes, and you could not answer the second because there never was any change of mind on my behalf throughout the thread. You just chose to deceitfully present me as granting you points that I never granted to you. This is called intellectual dishonesty.

            “Using a verbose justification to essentially say that we all should have known what you meant because people talk like you all the time and don't mean it literally”.
            On the contrary, I say that literally my statement made no comparison whatsoever of Islam with its monotheistic competitors and that’s how you should have interpreted it instead of reading into it statements about religions’ moral equivalence.

            “People make false equivalence arguments by discussing trivial things that make the compared subjects seem the same or similar”.
            I proved that I was not comparing monotheistic religions, as you charged me, and that no one (that is, except you) could have been misled to think that I did. Whatever the compared subjects were, they did not include Judaism or Christianity, because these religions were never mentioned.

            If, as you accused me, I wanted to deceive people into believing that Christianity and/or Judaism is morally equivalent to Islam, then I would have said, “Kevin, since you oppose gay marriage, you look like a religious freak to me”, or something along those lines. I would have either mentioned by name or directly implicated the other religions, if i wanted to compare them and find them equivalent. I didn't want to and i did not.
            Instead, I said “Kevin, you look like a Muslim to me. This makes it pretty clear to anyone that I have a general problem with Islam’s morality, because it is this, and no other, religion that I have chosen to put on the spotlight.

            I was declaring my pro same-sex- marriage attitude and I was telling people that I felt like chatting about it. Some might have read this as an invitation. Others might have seen it as a challenge. But no one read any assault to religions other than Islam in my statement. Of all the people, you were the only one to interpret what I said as an attempt to equate the monotheistic religions.

            And your interpretation is all the more gratuitous because you claim that those deceived would be those who already hold the view that those religions are ethically equivalent. But these people are already deceiving themselves. If they cannot see the fact that Islam is sanctioning suicidal terrorism whereas Judeo/Christianity does not, then they are liable to believe in anything. There was no reason for you to be concerned about my deceiving those that are already deluding themselves. You mentioned these people because you had a stereotype that people who support gay marriage hold the view that religions are morally equivalent, and have really no problem with Islam. You felt like you had to attack me and you made the mistake of attacking me with the term “idiot”. When I pointed out that this was a pretty uncivilized way to exchange ideas, you had to come up with a comeback reply that made me look uncivilized. And out of thin air you invented the deception of the already deceived. In this way you thought you could both bring in the forefront your interest in the moral difference of religions and at the same time make me look like a liar.

            The truth is that the only one deceived by reading my statement was you, and not because of me but because of your stereotype that pro-gay people like me are necessarily equating Islam with Christianity(or Judaism). You read things that weren’t there, that could not be there, under any reasoned interpretation of my statement.

            CONTINUING BELOW (THE COMMENT THAT STARTS WITH “YOU ARE PRETTY TENDENTIOUS”)

          • dionissismitropoulos

            You are pretty tendentious(“I could take apart your defense”, now when I hear such verbal bravado, I know someone has run out of arguments). And this tendentiousness makes you look for enemies. And that is why you took my statement as hostile to Judeo/Christianity when no thought of any other religion except Islam was expressed in my statement. And all along you were not trying to make conversation and exchange ideas, all you cared was to win the argument – which you didn’t.

            The condescending remarks in one of your answers (“… I see that you do actually understand that you were wrong, and need to process it a bit more” and “Thanks for opening your mind” ) presented me as admitting what you were saying. I admitted no such thing, i never suggested that i felt i was wrong. And i did not have to open my mind in response to you because my mind was never closed in the first place.

            Intellectual honesty commands that we give an author the charitable interpretation. Since you obviously had a problem in understanding the statement, you could have taken it to mean something that allows me to be presented in a less negative light. What’s more, you could have always asked what I meant. But, no, you wanted war, a Crusade against a perceived infidel. And later, instead of owning up to having misinterpreted me, you started a desperate thread that would allow you to save face.

            I am native Greek and live in Greece, but were I an American, I would have definitely voted for Romney because letting Iran acquire nukes is an international disaster, and the feckless Obama is not going to bomb Iran. If the disaster occurs and he is reelected, just go before your mirror and repeat the following sentence:
            “It was me and others like me that reelected Obama. Because our rhetoric scared away potential liberal voters that would have voted for Romney on account of the threat that Obama represents to both the American economy and to international peace”.

            I don’t know if this mantra will help you to find atonement. But it will certainly point you in the direction of why people vote for such bad Presidents like Obama: it’s because they don’t want to hang around with tendentious smug bigots like yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "when I hear such verbal bravado, I know someone has run out of arguments"

            In a sense that's true, because you've been such a waste of time. I could argue with you to the end of time, but would it be wise use of my resources? No. I've already wasted more time than I should have with this silly discussion that could have been clear to you if you had that motive to understand.

            "The condescending remarks in one of your answers (“… I see that you do actually understand that you were wrong, and need to process it a bit more” and “Thanks for opening your mind” ) presented me as admitting what you were saying. I admitted no such thing"

            Precisely. You made excuses but not apologies. That is the beginning of awareness of fault. You need to process it more. You are in hyper-defense mode, you are either feigning stupidity or desperately trying to "win" rather than admit what you said was not really communicating clearly what you later said you meant. My point is this:

            IT"S ISLAM IT"S IMPORTANT TO BE CLEAR OR YOU MAY BE AIDING EVIL, regardless of your intentions!

            Comparing "contemporary" Islam to Nazism is silly too, but almost anyone can be forgiven for such a naive approach. You on the other hand are using it in an extensive defense of your trivial faux pas when perhaps you should be more aware of the limits of your knowledge rather than continuing to expose them…as a defense strategy.

            Maybe you are an idiot. I don't know. I can only judge your words.

            In answer to your cult membership, it was part of a statement that illustrated the logical extension of your words, not mine. Read with comprehension before you answer. I some times miscomprehend what people write, but then if I see there is some misunderstanding, I review what I read to be sure I am not missing something I should have understood more clearly. Do you EVER do that?

            Learn to correct yourself too, and try to learn to tolerate criticism. You act like such a baby. I suppose that is why you have empathy with Islam. You understand how sensitive they are. Maybe at this point I can guess that you are seduced by socialist dogma. Cult member? I can't say at this point. I didn't say before either. You misunderstood.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Ok, two can play this game."

            Many can play games, but only you are "playing" here.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            (This is the second part of my answer, the first part must immediately below on the screen).

            As far as the first accusation is concerned, I already answered. My demonizing Islam through the derogatory use of “Muslim” made it clear to everyone that my view on Islam must be that it is the worst religion. Besides, I couldn’t have possibly intended any sort of moral comparison of monotheistic religions, since I did not mention either Christianity or Judaism.
            As for the second accusation, I will state that I brought up gay marriage as an issue because it is an issue of concern to me, and not because I intended any comparison of monotheistic religions, either with respect to this issue of marriage, or a more general comparison. And I’m certain that nothing in my initial statement on Kevin suggests otherwise.
            I do consider gay marriage a morally important issue, and it is a legitimate locus of comparison of sets of beliefs (religions included). Also, I do not think that it is the most important issue that should come up in an inter-religious comparison of Islam with other religions, but Kevin made a point about Islam being right in its prescriptions against gays, so naturally I responded by referring to the issue of gays, since that was what Kevin was talking about. I could have taken Kevin on even more harshly, since his claim was that all Muslim attitudes on gays are correct, not just with respect to gay marriage. But I chose the marriage because (apart from being an issue of interest to me) it is a controversial one, and could invite discussion on the merits of legalizing it.
            Where does interreligious comparison enter in all this? For all I know, Kevin might be an atheist.
            To recap: I did not intend a comparison of monotheistic religions, let alone a conclusion that they are all morally equivalent. Also there is nothing in my two-line initial response to Kevin that points to any attribution of moral equivalence of Islam with the other monotheistic religions, since those other religions are not even mentioned. Additionally, my usage of “Muslim” as a moral invective, shows that even if I had intended a comparison (which I did not), I would certainly not have asserted a moral equivalence of Islam with the rest, but rather that Islam is the worst (since it was the only religion mentioned or appealed to in a negative light).
            “I could take apart your defense further, but I see that you do actually understand that you were wrong, and need to process it a bit more. I focused only on the salient point”
            I claim that I do not understand that I was wrong, and that I do not need to process it any further. Kindly take apart my defense as further as you can and/or focus on the less salient points. I’ ll be waiting (there is no rush , by the way. Don’t feel that you have to answer soon).
            “Thanks for opening your mind”
            You are welcome, but what did my close-mindedness consist in? Kindly answer that explicitly.

            “Deception is uncivilized. You did it unconsciously perhaps, but you still did it”.
            Deception, if my English does not fail me, usually connotes a conscious intention to deceive. If you believe that I misled people unintentionally (something that, by the way, I have been denying a few paragraphs above, for they can’t have been misled from what I said) you could always use the term “misleading” which is less harsh: surely you recognize that inadvertent actions (such as my purported deception/misleading) deserve lighter condemnation than intentional ones.

            “Deception is uncivilized”
            Granting that it is, it is uncivilized only when intended. If someone slips and as a result ends up hitting with her fist my face (accidentally), she is not uncivilized. If she punches me intentionally, she is.

            “Islam is not comparable to any other belief system”.
            If you mean it is the worst contemporary set of beliefs, I agree. And never suggested otherwise in my initial response to Kevin.
            If you mean it is the worst ever, I would offer Nazism as more or less morally equivalent.

            I still expect to be told what my “cult” is.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "My demonizing Islam through the derogatory use of “Muslim” made it clear to everyone that my view on Islam must be that it is the worst religion"

            Ah, no. In your mind perhaps, but communication requires that you convey your message to others.

            "Besides, I couldn’t have possibly intended any sort of moral comparison of monotheistic religions, since I did not mention either Christianity or Judaism.
            As for the second accusation, I will state that I brought up gay marriage as an issue because it is an issue of concern to me, and not because I intended any comparison…"

            I recall stating that you did this subconsciously, ie without intention.

            "…of monotheistic religions either with respect to this issue of marriage, or a more general comparison. And I’m certain that nothing in my initial statement on Kevin suggests otherwise."

            You are using a lot of arguments explaining what you didn't say explicitly, when what I said was that the implications of your statement were that you supported the idea that there are no distinctions between those who are not supportive of gay marriage. Those who do not support gay marriage look like Muslims to you, whether that makes them all heroes or villains is not even the most important point. You implied that there are no more important distinctions. You only qualified the statement when I called you on it.

            "I do consider gay marriage a morally important issue, and it is a legitimate locus of comparison of sets of beliefs (religions included)."

            You didn't compare, you conflated.

            " Also, I do not think that it is the most important issue that should come up in an inter-religious comparison of Islam with other religions, but Kevin made a point about Islam being right in its prescriptions against gays, so naturally I responded by referring to the issue of gays, since that was what Kevin was talking about. I could have taken Kevin on even more harshly, since his claim was that all Muslim attitudes on gays are correct, not just with respect to gay marriage."

            If you have so many clear ideas you want to articulate, you should have thought more clearly before you used your lazy remark with the implications I described that you simply refuse to concede as a matter of defending yourself, not as a matter of logic.

            "But I chose the marriage because (apart from being an issue of interest to me) it is a controversial one, and could invite discussion on the merits of legalizing it. "

            Reread your pithy remark that I replied to and see how realistic it is for others to "read between the lines" to see what you "really meant" when you said, "You look like a Muslim to me."

            >“Islam is not comparable to any other belief system”.
            If you mean it is the worst contemporary set of beliefs, I agree. And never suggested otherwise in my initial response to Kevin.
            If you mean it is the worst ever, I would offer Nazism as more or less morally equivalent. "

            You could naively make a reasonable argument that Nazism was worse in its active years, but that was a question of opportunity to commit evil acts. Islam is infinitely worse by any objective measures unless as I said, you limit the comparison to "years the Nazis were active."

            "I still expect to be told what my “cult” is."

            Please include the original text you refer to, and then if you still can't answer yourself, I will answer the question for you one more time.

        • Sunny

          You are quite brilliant! And I seriously mean it! Are you on Facebook?

        • Sunny

          @objectivefactsmatter
          You are quite brilliant! And I seriously mean it! Are you on Facebook?

    • pagegl

      They have the same opinions of homosexuals as they do for non-believers.

    • Tabby

      Actually it's an excuse for Muslims just like everything else they do (being an non muslim or woman for instance), to judge, torture & kill others.
      They're the worst hypocrites as in their culture, if you are a child, a specialized transsexual prostitute or a servant / slave, sodomy is completely acceptable between 2 males.
      Sodomy is also Ok with females & encouraged if your wife is a small child with a vagina too small to have standard relations without deadly damage by the way. They're sick barbarians that are against everyone. Enemies #1 & #2 are the Jews & Christians. After that there's an excuse to marginalize everyone else for punishment or extermination. That's why once you see them finish the ethnic cleansing in a Muslim nation & only Muslims remain, they start killing one another using reasons such as homosexuality, all the while having sex with little boys. Just another day in the blood cult of death.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "They're the worst hypocrites as in their culture, if you are a child, a specialized transsexual prostitute or a servant / slave, sodomy is completely acceptable between 2 males. "

        But they always have a complex rationale for these standards that usually points back to their example for holiness: Mohammed the rapist pervert.

        I've said this too many times already, but I'm not sure who read any of it. Let me be very brief;

        In Islam, the Male Muslims may penetrate anyone or anything as long as he does not violate the property rights of a peer.

        The pentrater can not be considered "homosexual" because the Islamic definition of homosexuality is for an adult male to accept, attract or desire being penetrated in the anus.

        It is some times acceptable for males to accept penetration before they reach overt puberty, or for eunuchs etc.

        "Sodomy is also Ok with females & encouraged if your wife is a small child with a vagina too small to have standard relations without deadly damage by the way. "

        Exactly. But it is not then considered Sodomy. Penetrating almost anything is acceptable in Islam, the shame comes from being "unlawfully penetrated" or in attractive the attention of a male.

        Notice now the way Muslim women are required to dress. Is this starting to get clearer? Raped people are always the ones who are supposed to be shamed. They are often killed. The perpetrator is rarely chastised at all.

        We see examples of these values even in the West among unassimilated Muslim men.

        Just one circle of Muslim men:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_sex_traffic

        If you are a Muslim with an erection, do what you want and you can explain your way out of anything. Just blame what in we in the West call *the victim.*

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Here's another report from the same Lebanese site reporting the rape. Maybe the whole site is just a big farce? Or maybe something else is one big long farce?
        http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/News/PoliticalNews/a
        via translate.google.com

        LBCI At the age of eighty … Attempted to rape a neighbor's cow

        Police arrested in the state of Konya Turkish man at the age of eighty attempted to rape his neighbor's cow.

        The newspaper "Hurriyet" Turkish, that the attempt occurred when a man walked to reassure the animals in the stable area Eregli in Konya, central Anatolia, saw the octogenarian has sent down his pants and stood behind the cow and rapes her.

        The owner of the animals with the brother-in-law to expel the man from the stable, but the latter returned to the stable owner brandishing a weapon demanding not to reveal what had happened to one, and was reported to the police who arrested the octogenarian and confiscated weapons.

        The reports said that the man octogenarian was arrested in the past Bashgueth accompanied by two women after complaining neighbors on charges of prostitution.

        The incident comes about a week after the arrest of a Turkish city of Bursa on charges of raping a duck, was released later.

        —————————–

        That is 2 incidents in Turkey in a week. I also read about a youth in another Muslim country who was forced to marry a farm animal (cow or lamb, I forgot which) in order to teach him not to have sex with animals. Why? Because the boy was caught, and didn't even deny it. He claimed the animal seduced him.

        Mind you, this is nothing other than to show the skeptics here that we are not being salacious or exaggerating anything when discussing these religious and cultural issues. Does bestiality exist in the West? I have to assume it does. I just also happen to know that Judeo Christian texts condemn it absolutely, and also teach extensively why it is wrong (indirectly) by teaching to reserve one's physical love and so forth.

        There is no such moral admission to think about these kind of acts in Islam because to do so would point back to questions about "the prophet." Any man can justify almost any urge if there is any way of linking the behavior back to "the prophet."

        • dionissismitropoulos

          "Does bestiality exist in the West? I have to assume it does. I just also happen to know that Judeo Christian texts condemn it absolutely, and also teach extensively why it is wrong (indirectly) by teaching to reserve one's physical love and so forth".

          Atheist westerners (like myself) would justify condemning the practice on account of the distress that the animal experiences, and on the non-consenting nature of the barbaric practice.
          Anyway, we are on the same page concerning Islam.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Atheist westerners (like myself) would justify condemning the practice on account of the distress that the animal experiences, and on the non-consenting nature of the barbaric practice.
            Anyway, we are on the same page concerning Islam. "

            What if the "partner" of the animal can show the animal enjoys it, even asked for it? You are consistent if you believe there is no linkage between sex and morality, other than "harm," but who decides what is harmful other than the obvious physical harm? Sex with animals, should be lawful if homosexuality is lawful. It should be regarded precisely the same.

            Just something to think about. Having sex with an animal's vagina is more natural than anal sex, so how do we judge where harm occurs in tolerating homosexuality?

            These are not easy questions and not all who oppose homosexuality are trying to control personal behavior per se. Homosexuals should not be harassed or outed, but neither should they feel free to openly express that gay sex is morally equivalent to growing a family. They should be absolutely discreet and not dare expose it to children, ever.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            “What if the "partner" of the animal can show the animal enjoys it [?].
            Then it is perfectly moral (on account of the fact that the animal does not feel distress), even though I doubt that there is an animal on earth that would enjoy being penetrated by a human.

            “…even asked for it?”
            You are asking us to make a thought experiment, for it is kind of difficult in reality for an animal to ask for it.
            If somehow the animal manages to express its wish to penetrate or be penetrated, and the guy consents, that’s morally ok with me. No harm done to anyone, either physical or psychological, and even if there was physical harm, to the extent that it is consensual, it is morally ok too (I more like have in mind S/M sex among humans, a case where physical harm is morally ok because consensual).

            “You are consistent if you believe there is no linkage between sex and morality, other than "harm," but who decides what is harmful other than the obvious physical harm?”
            I spoke about distress, so this means that I extend the notion of harm to include psychological harm: even if the animal is not in pain, the fact that it is in fear makes the action immoral. Inflicted fear is a bad thing. And just to inform you, yes, I’m a vegetarian (and, incidentally, not gay).

            “Sex with animals, should be lawful if homosexuality is lawful. It should be regarded precisely the same”.
            Yes, and I would add that those two species of sexual intercourse you mentioned (homosexual and inter-species) should be regarded as being the same with heterosexual intercourse too.

            “Just something to think about. Having sex with an animal's vagina is more natural than anal sex, so how do we judge where harm occurs in tolerating homosexuality?”.
            You would have a hell of a problem in trying to define what counts as natural. But whatever definition you give, what does it have to do with the question whether there is harm in tolerating homosexuality?

            “These are not easy questions and not all who oppose homosexuality are trying to control personal behavior per se. Homosexuals should not be harassed or outed, but neither should they feel free to openly express that gay sex is morally equivalent to growing a family. They should be absolutely discreet and not dare expose it to children, ever”.
            I cannot think of any of my gay friends that would think that having sex is the same as growing a family. What they think (and I concur) is that gay sex is as morally ok as straight sex is. And that growing a family is something nice, and that’s why they should be able to adopt children.

            There is something I have not really figured with respect to your “neither should they feel free to openly express”: how do you propose to stop them, since you excluded harassment as an option? And are you really denying them their right to free speech?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…even asked for it?”
            You are asking us to make a thought experiment, for it is kind of difficult in reality for an animal to ask for it."

            What kind of animal rights advocate are you when you know so little about behaviors? Don't you understand how clearly most animals indicate their desire to mate? I didn't say "communicate in clear, undeniable human language." Primate present their junk in certain ways, other animals lift their tails and rub their equipment, etc. Kind of not my thing, but this is the threshold one crosses when trying to protect homosexual anal sex.

            "If somehow the animal manages to express its wish to penetrate or be penetrated, and the guy consents, that’s morally ok with me. No harm done to anyone, either physical or psychological, and even if there was physical harm, to the extent that it is consensual, it is morally ok too (I more like have in mind S/M sex among humans, a case where physical harm is morally ok because consensual). "

            This is consistent. I knew you would have to say that. Somehow I doubt you feel right about it though. You made the stretch to avoid falling in a trap that leads to condemning anal sex.

            "I spoke about distress, so this means that I extend the notion of harm to include psychological harm: even if the animal is not in pain, the fact that it is in fear makes the action immoral. Inflicted fear is a bad thing."

            I'd agree that would be a great guideline.

            "And just to inform you, yes, I’m a vegetarian (and, incidentally, not gay). "

            I made no judgments about you personally. This is a rational discussion about openness to sex, and openness to openly expressing sex preferences as a "civil right" with no limits.

            >“Just something to think about. Having sex with an animal's vagina is more natural than anal sex, so how do we judge where harm occurs in tolerating homosexuality?”.

            "You would have a hell of a problem in trying to define what counts as natural. "

            Natural would be "leading to natural procreation of a species."

            "But whatever definition you give, what does it have to do with the question whether there is harm in tolerating homosexuality?"

            The point is that 1)

            There are sexual habits and customs that are required for any species to avoid extinction. Extending those habits and customs in humans leads us over a steep and slippery slope where we have already ventured on to harmful ground. Gays in the military serving openly, for example, being allowed in the Navy to bunk with their sex partners? Gays demanding that churches process their "marriage?" Gays demanding month long celebrations of previously noted sexual deviates in "Gay History Month?" What the hell?

            This goes so far beyond personal choice; this is about demanding that homosexuals as a class are somehow treated as morally equal to heterosexual natural procreation (or better) by all others as though nobody has any right to make more judgments any longer. You can't keep your children from being taught that homosexuality is..whatever they say it is at any given time…the examples are endless.

            The thing that really bothers me is that this militant sex agenda comes at a time when the nation just does not have the resources to deal with these rebels. They joined the socialist bandwagon in order to subvert customs that may have had real value after we sit and evaluate them rationally. We evidently have no time for rational discussion from anyone though.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            I HAD TO SPLIT MY REPLY IN TWO. THIS THE FIRST PART

            “This is consistent. I knew you would have to say that. Somehow I doubt you feel right about it though. You made the stretch to avoid falling in a trap that leads to condemning anal sex”.

            Yes, the way I talked about the issue conveyed an uneasiness. But it was an uneasiness predicated upon the thought that the animal cannot possibly enjoy being penetrated. Even if it did, there is room for misunderstanding whether it consents, so how can we be sure? I like all animals, and I am horrified at the thought that they will suffer sexually at the hand of humans, hating every moment of it. But if it so happens that we are certain that the animal enjoys it and that it has expressed its wish that it wants sex with the human, then no problem with me. All that I consider morally relevant on this issue is the pain and the consent.
            In fact, if I encounter a genuine love affair between a human and an animal, a relationship where they don’t simply have sex, but also express intimacy and mutual trust and a sense of commitment, I would view this whole affair as nice, not merely morally ok.

            “[The definition of] Natural would be "leading to natural procreation of a species."”

            Here’s a problem with telling gay couples that since they do not have the capability of procreating, they should be assigned second-class status: they will point to the fact that male impotents and both male and female heterosexuals that are sterile should be treated in the same degrading way. And I doubt that anyone would agree to this. But if we don’t think that the inexorably childless heterosexuals deserve moral contempt, why should we think that gays do?

            “Gays in the military serving openly, for example, being allowed in the Navy to bunk with their sex partners?”

            To my understanding, the Army has the convention of separating men and women: they sleep in different dorms. And the Army surely knows more about war than I do, therefore the convention should apply to gays too: gay lovers should not sleep in the same bunk.

            “This goes so far beyond personal choice; this is about demanding that homosexuals as a class are somehow treated as morally equal to heterosexual natural procreation (or better) by all others as though nobody has any right to make more judgments any longer”.

            Yes, gays argue that as a class they should be viewed as equally moral with heterosexuals, and they are on the right. If you wish to make the case that they are morally inferior you have to offer a reason for morally discriminating them. The ability to procreate, even if considered a morally relevant reason, leads us to the conclusion that steriles should be looked down upon too. But most people would think this is unfair. So we cannot exclude gays, because we do not want to exclude the steriles (I am assuming all along that we are trying to be consistent in the application of the moral criterion of procreative ability. Applying it only to gays, but refusing to apply it to steriles would be gratuitous). Since we cannot morally charge gays based on the ability to have children, you need to come up with some other reason.

            I also think that you ask for more than being able to morally criticize gays: you also want to impose a law upon them, a law that does not allow them to get married. Even if you do believe that they are immoral, you don’t have the right to ask the State to intervene and institutionalize a discrimination, so long as gays don’t represent a threat.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            THIS THE SECOND PART OF MY REPLY

            “You can't keep your children from being taught that homosexuality is..whatever they say it is at any given time…the examples are endless”.

            We should not keep children away from being taught that homosexuality is morally ok, so long as it is true that homosexuality is morally ok. If it were not true, then obviously we shouldn’t be teaching kids that it is. But you need to prove why gays are ethically compromised. The mere fact of taking aesthetic offense in their presence does not count as a reason, or at least not as defensible reason (and it is indefensible because under the same rational we would be allowed to assign ethical blame on whomever we happened to dislike).

            “The thing that really bothers me is that this militant sex agenda comes at a time when the nation just does not have the resources to deal with these rebels. They joined the socialist bandwagon in order to subvert customs that may have had real value after we sit and evaluate them rationally. We evidently have no time for rational discussion from anyone though”.

            Two things.
            If gays are trying to subvert the heterosexual-only ethic, it is because they feel terribly about the contemptuous treatment that society reserved for them. I claim that gays have been wronged, and their anger is justified to my mind. As they become more and more accepted as morally equal, their anger will subside, and new gay generations will not be angered at all. If they channel this anger into trying to ameliorate their position, that’s morally ok. If they try to hurt their society so as to take revenge (e.g. a gay English spy selling secrets to the Russians during the cold war), that’s obviously wrong (despite my sympathizing with their anger).

            If they are joining the Social/Leftist camp, that’s because they are being given more room there than in the GOP. It is completely understandable, and makes me wonder: Why shouldn’t the GOP embrace them? All votes count the same, and I see no reason why the only party in America that has a promising economic agenda and a non-capitulating foreign policy should be deprived of the gay vote. Do we really want the votes of gay and gay sympathizers like myself to go to Obama? America faces an economic Welfare-inflicted catastrophe if Obama is reelected, and a new 9/11 with millions of casualties this time, given that Iran is going to acquire nukes if Obama stays in Office (he even refused to set red lines on Iran). Clearly Romney is the best candidate to deal with these issues, but I fear that the gay vote is lost. I suggest the GOP reconsiders its stance toward gays. There’s too much at stake for America and the world for us to allow an aesthetic whim against gays to deprive the GOP of their vote (and their political influence, I can’t help thinking of Hollywood). Iran’s nukes and Islamic terrorism, along with a Welfare State, are clear and present dangers. Gay marriages are not. I urge that at some point in time the Republicans reconsider.

            In a war with Islam I think we need all the help we can get – even if it’s pinkish.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “These are not easy questions and not all who oppose homosexuality are trying to control personal behavior per se. Homosexuals should not be harassed or outed, but neither should they feel free to openly express that gay sex is morally equivalent to growing a family. They should be absolutely discreet and not dare expose it to children, ever”.
            I cannot think of any of my gay friends that would think that having sex is the same as growing a family."

            Well, I wonder why?

            'What they think (and I concur) is that gay sex is as morally ok as straight sex is."

            Yes, of course they do.

            "And that growing a family is something nice, and that’s why they should be able to adopt children. "

            Children are just objects. We don't care what is best for them. What matters is what the favored classes desire.

            "There is something I have not really figured with respect to your “neither should they feel free to openly express”: how do you propose to stop them, since you excluded harassment as an option? And are you really denying them their right to free speech? "

            Children should be protected from some classes of speech. Homosexuals should not have any rights to lobby or teach children their political positions about deviant sexual behaviors and theories about sexual identities. That's the most salient example, and there might be others. Pulling out survivors of homosexual parents for testimonials is a really low practice, and that seems to be the most popular tactic to spread the notion that homosexual parenting is supposedly just fine for kids; "just ask them." Sure.

            I have nothing against any homosexuals as individuals. The homosexual political movements and the behaviors that have followed are largely harmful as they attempt to normalize deviant sex practices and expose children to human sexuality and deviant theories about sex and sexual identity long before they would have been taught by their parents.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            “Children are just objects. We don't care what is best for them. What matters is what the favored classes desire”.

            Of course I do care about what is best for the child. And I see a potential problem in incompetent parents. But parental incompetence can be either gay or straight (need I remind you of parents that beat their kids?).

            “Children should be protected from some classes of speech”.

            I agree. But teaching children to appreciate that there is a sexual orientation as moral as the heterosexual one is not among the classes of speech that should be restricted.

            “Homosexuals should not have any rights to lobby or teach children their political positions about deviant sexual behaviors and theories about sexual identities”.

            Ditto. Plus, gays do not see their behavior as deviant, and I cannot think of a definition of “deviant” that can stand philosophical scrutiny while at the same time giving us the right to restrict the homosexuals’ right to propagate their views on sexuality.

            “Pulling out survivors of homosexual parents for testimonials is a really low practice, and that seems to be the most popular tactic to spread the notion that homosexual parenting is supposedly just fine for kids; "just ask them." Sure.”

            I have no idea whatsoever how the American gay community defends its views on gay parenting. The “survivors” that you just informed me about sound as a good starting point for inquiry. But the onus of proof rests with those that claim that gays are not going to be good parents. We do know that there is something wrong with Islamic parenting, for we see, among other things, that their females internalize the idea that their second-class status is commanded by Allah. Here we have proof positive that a certain set of beliefs is inimical to (female, at least) children. You should come up with something like this to prove that gays are unqualified to become parents. But I fear that it is this second-class status that I despise that you want to bestow on homosexuals.

            “I have nothing against any homosexuals as individuals”.

            Despite your intentions, they will suffer if your views prevail. This is pretty much what Judith Butler (the famous lesbian philosopher, full of a progressive hate against Israel) argues in answering the charges that she is facilitating anti-Semites: “I have nothing against Israelis”. But Israelis will suffer if her views (support of the boycott Israel movement among others) prevail. Her actions against Israel are anti-Semitic in effect, if not in intention. It seems to me that your views are homophobic in effect (at least).

            “The homosexual political movements and the behaviors that have followed are largely harmful as they attempt to normalize deviant sex practices and expose children to human sexuality and deviant theories about sex and sexual identity long before they would have been taught by their parents”.

            If parents teach their children that homosexuality is morally wrong, I claim that it is the parents that are committing a moral mistake. Whether they commit it before or after their child has been exposed to a different point of view, it is still a mistake. And it is wrong because it puts ethical blame on people (homosexuals) that pose no threat to society whatsoever.
            If you take the route of allowing restrictions to gay free speech based on unsubstantiated claims, don’t be surprised when the progressives manage to restrict our own right to freely criticize Islam. There are consistent attempts nowadays to legally prohibit defamation of religions. And our right to freely criticize Islam is jeopardized if we agree that gratuitous restriction of speech (as you suggest should happen in the case of gays’ teaching) is deemed acceptable.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            This is worthy of a serious and detailed reply, and I will get to it some time as soon as I possibly can.

            You've made a lot of assumptions, but that's fine because you think you know more than everyone else. I can't say that anyone has ever explained to you the rational reasons that against your positions so in this case I will give you the benefit of the doubt (until that doubt is exhausted). I'll try to remain optimistic.

            Ponder this: What makes you so certain about what is best for children? Incompetence and sexual identity are distinct. You use that to distract from the issue about whether you truly know the impact of being raised by homosexuals when you simply take it for granted that the issue is trivial. This is wishful thinking, no more than that. At best, it can be mitigated. There is no way that homosexual couples should be given the same priority as heterosexual couples unless there are clear problems with the heteros. All other things being equal, the hetero couples should all be offered children before any homosexual couples are offered children.

            Whether you want to argue that homosexual adoptive homes are better than orphanages or other situations, that is a much easier argument to make. I'm still not sure I agree, but I can't look down on you for making it. But it is still absurd wishful thinking to believe that generally speaking without making any other qualifying remarks that typical hetero couples are no better for raising children than typical homo couples. This is an extreme example of political correctness warping the minds of those raised hearing no other opinion. You've lost your ability to process criticism that conflicts with your wishful thinking.

            As I said, I will return to this not for your benefit but because you've listed some arguments that have been widely accepted.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            “You've made a lot of assumptions, but that's fine because you think you know more than everyone else. I can't say that anyone has ever explained to you the rational reasons that against your positions”

            No, I don’t think that I know more than anyone else. The only thing that drives my thinking is a gut feeling that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with gays. And I want to hear the counterarguments because they will help my position evolve.

            “Ponder this: What makes you so certain about what is best for children? Incompetence and sexual identity are distinct. You use that to distract from the issue about whether you truly know the impact of being raised by homosexuals when you simply take it for granted that the issue is trivial”.

            I am not certain about what’s best for children. I am merely pointing out that there are heterosexuals too that are bad parents. If you insist that gays will make bad parents, it is you who should provide proof for your claim, the homosexuals do not need to come up with with proof that they will be good parents. In the absence of evidence, we should treat them as equals. And this is so, because imposing a State restriction on a certain class of people is onerous to this class, hence it is undesirable on the face of it, and acceptable only if justified. (We do impose harsh measures upon the class of the criminals, but only because we have been able to justify it on the grounds of the harm the criminals bring about).

            I do not think the issue of children upbringing is trivial. In fact I think it is crucial. I just cannot think of anything that makes gays in particular to be bad parents.

            “ But it is still absurd wishful thinking to believe that generally speaking without making any other qualifying remarks that typical hetero couples are no better for raising children than typical homo couples”.

            Well, what is that which makes hetero couples better?

            “This is an extreme example of political correctness warping the minds of those raised hearing no other opinion. You've lost your ability to process criticism that conflicts with your wishful thinking”.

            I was not raised hearing no other opinion. And I have not lost the ability to process criticism. I am willing to hear it. But it must consist in facts that point to the idea that gays are bad parents. Merely asserting that gays are not good parents does not do the trick.

            Political correctness is good if its causes are good, and bad if its causes are bad. In the case of gay and women rights it has worked wonders, and I applaud.
            In the case of Islam, political correctness will destroy the western civilization. I declare that I am Islamophobic, and consider myself perfectly rational in being so – I mean, what with their suicide bombings and their female slaves they are kind of scary, aren’t they?

            It might take some time before I answer your next reply, but I will return.

    • john

      Hey Kevin if you agree with the muslims about gays how about you go live in Libya or anyone of those savage countries? People like you make it so much harder for conservatives to make the case against Liberal hypocrosy and muslim hatred. And for that you are much worse than the people who killed our ambassador. Think about that and have a nice day ass.

  • Chanameel

    Litte did the orcs know that the Ambassador had Aids.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      Was all of this 'safe sex'?

      I mean, other than the death and torture stuff… you know?
      (sarcasm)

  • Steve Chavez

    Is "CHRISTopher STEVENs the sign I have been waiting for???

    What word is next to M-A-R-X in the dictionary? The father of Communism is next to M-A-R-Y the mother of Jesus CHRIST. There is a war between Jesus and Marx with both of their disciples spreading their word.

    In the 80's, we saw the Communist Party USA/MARXISTS using Central America to try out their LIBERATION THEOLOGY which tried to equate the teachings of Marx equal to Jesus. American Marxists were raising money in the Home of the Son of God to fund an ideology that says "THERE IS NO GOD. " Poland's Solidarity Movement was emboldened by Polish Pope John Paul who scolded the new Marxist following priests in Central America.

    Then came the fall of the Wall, the Iron Curtain, and the on CHRISTMAS DAY, Mikhail Gorbachev came on live TV to announce THE FALL OF THE SOVIET UNION, a country American Communists, closet Communists, members of Congress, university students, AND BARACK OBAMA, LOVED MORE THAN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

    TODAY THE WAR BETWEEN JESUS AND MARX IS ON AGAIN. The Christian, Mormon, and Jewish religions are being attacked as Obama's campaign depends on his surrogates to attack these religions. Just look at the vote on GOD AND JERUSALEM AT THE DNC while Obama says we should "not DENIGRATE THE RELIGIONS OF OTHERS" but he depends on it especially attacks on the "Mormon cult."

    Now a fake papyrus was found on "Jesus's wife." The taking out of God in everything. On and on. THE WAR IS ON and we know how the Communists fared in the 80's and today, THE SIGN! REJOICE!

    • gsk

      Very true, friend.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "American Marxists were raising money in the Home of the Son of God to fund an ideology that says "THERE IS NO GOD. "

      Where?

      • Steve Chavez

        Where weren't they? Me and my wife had joined St. Charles Catholic Church near our new home and I had already been "active" in going to New Mexico Peace Council meetings which was an affiliate of the U.S. Peace Council, a front of the Communist Party USA. The WORLD PEACE COUNCIL was started by the Soviets in 1949 and was RUN BY THE KGB.

        At Peace Meetings the leader was not a Marxist but was the Head of the NM Marxist Educators for Socialist Action and the head of the NM Communist Party. Many peace members were also in NM Marxist Educators.

        During one of the church services, the priest interrupted the normal routine and said the first collection was for the church and then the second was for two ladies who were there to raise money for El Salvador. When they came up on the alter, I saw Marx vs. Jesus. They were in both the peace and Marxist groups. I WANTED TO SCREAM! They said it was to "help the people" which was code for funds for the MARXIST FMLN AND THEIR ZONAS DE CONTROLIDAD.

        This was a common tactic and other denominations were their main target. There were also FAKE REVERENDS THAT WOULD WEAR THEIR COLLARS AT PEACE MEETINGS and then take them off for the Marxist meetings. They were mail-order reverends and didn't have, or never had, a congregation but the collar was their deception in getting other churches to fund them. They also raised funds for Nicaragua. These people and their mission was based on aiding COMMUNISM and they invented the Liberation Theology. Rev. Wright, who said "our brothers and sisters in El Salvador," was enough evidence that he then expanded to BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY WHICH IS AS RACIST AS IT GETS on top of teaching a willing Barack and Michelle Obama the virtues of something both grew up and loved: MARX "THERE IS NO GOD!"

    • Omar

      Communism and Islamism are corrupt, period. Both ideologies advocate for totalitarianism and world domination.

      • Kufar Dawg

        Yet in Iran the Iranian Communists were one of the first groups to be disappeared in the new Islamic "Republic".

  • Guest

    Why are you asking liberals to use common sense or have a shred of wisdom? They are emotionally driven arrogant child like people. Haven't you watched any of the many youtube videos of liberals being asked questions that show their contradictory nature yet they can't acknowledge this or won't? Liberalism must simply be stamped out just like the muslim religion. That is the only way to win the cultural battle.

  • Chezwick

    Folks, before I send this out to my liberal family and friends, I want to make sure of the details. How is Raymond Ibrahim certain that Ambassador Stevens was raped? Is it merely his extrapolation, based solely on the fate of Qaddafi, or is there other evidence?

    • Chezwick

      PS – In all the photos, it appears Stevens' pants are on.

      • Advocatus

        Actually, I've been wondering just that same question. I wouldn't put it past Islamic militants to rape their victims before murdering them, but I am not sure what evidence there is of that being the case this time around. I was also not aware that Qaddafi had been raped while being lynched.

      • Cynic

        “In all the photos” you saw does not mean all the photos that were taken, especially those shown on Arabic channels or in their press, so it could have been that Raymond Ibrahim took his info from there.

    • Montaigne

      Facts:
      Ibrahim links to a well known Arabic site that says Steven was "sexually raped." He links to it in his original article and it is still online.
      One of the pictures shows that Stevens had his pants down when those guys who rescued him found him. That too seems pretty strong evidence.
      Add these two points to the Qadafi thing, and the other points in the article, and I believe he was sexually abused or raped

      • Tabby

        Yep such is standard practice in the death cult of Islam. Everything about it is so very evil & disturbing it's no wonder they don't want anyone talking about it. Then the evil would be exposed & certainly we cant have that.

    • Tabby

      It was verified in various other sources if you just google it I'm sure you'll find that. Word about the sodomy emerged almost as quickly as that of his death.

  • RichardLKentEsq

    There remains NO CONFIRMATION that the Ambassador–or his corpse–were raped.

    NO. CONFIRMATION.

    None.

    Things are bad enough. Don't make them worse.

    • moddkenwood

      and there won't be from this slimy administration

    • Atikva

      Wrong. It was triumphantly announced by a Lebanese newspaper and repeated in other muslim media. Besides, this is what these animals do, the last known instance being Khaddafi.

      • RichardLKentEsq

        What other lies from the Arab media do you believe? There are so many to choose from.

        • PaulRevereNow

          Mr. Kent: There have been far too many reports of Muslims resorting to rape in volatile situations; particularly where the violence has gotten out of control; to discount them.Why would the Lebanese press lie about rape? These animals are PROUD of it!

          • RichardLKentEsq

            Leave that brand of ugly bigotry to the bad guys, Mr. Revere. Last time I looked our society was hardly lacking in the rape department.

          • Tabby

            It's not ugly bigotry when it's a standard practice of the culture / religion. Just as all things in Islam that's one of the rules put in practice by their prophet & practiced to this day.
            Just like assimilation & jihad, Sharia, vaginal mutilation, slavery, pedophilia / child sodomy, decapitation, etc. etc. It's just Islam. I don't think anyone practicing a religion would feel it's bigotry if it were pointed out that they're following the commands as issued to them from that religion.
            Just sayin..

          • PaulRevereNow

            So, in other words, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. One problem with that–it won't get you very far with fanatics who want to kill you. Ambassador Stevens thought the same way you do. And you see what happened to him.

          • RichardLKentEsq

            You guys are staking an AWEFUL LOT on what the intelligence community calls "RUMINT". You believe that he was raped because you WANT to believe he was raped. Which says a lot more about the states of your hearts than it does about the state of the late Ambassador's body at time of death.

            I throw down the glove: show me the autopsy report showing he was raped or be silent on the subject. What happened to him is bad enough. Stick with the verifiable truth.

          • PaulRevereNow

            You are wrong. I, for one, don't WANT to believe he was raped. But Lara Logan was raped, in Tahrir Square, back in February 2011, and so have a number of others caught by rampaging Muslim mobs. Since Stevens was homosexual, and that was well-known in Benghazi, the chances of Stevens' being raped were 50/50 or better. This doesn't mean that it actually happened. However, I don't believe you are an attorney. This is because you don't know how to spell A-W-F-U-L. And I also believe you are an accomplished phony; because you adhere to impossible standards of justice, rather than force the perps to take responsibility for their actions–namely killing Stevens and four other Americans..

          • richardlkentesq

            If you didn't *want* to believe this baseless assertion without evidence. And while I have little doubt that the actual rape you discuss would have happened, it happened 600+ miles away to a woman six months ago. A rape also happened to a known individual in New York City six months ago. Does that prove your next door neighbor last week? No? No.

            As for my being an accomplished phony, you can go ahead and google me if you want. My status as a member of the state Bars of two states is established.

            Asking you not to restate an unsupported atrocity report is not an 'impossible standard of justice,' it's simple basic morality: not bearing false witness. To repeat a rumor of a crime without even the most basic authority to back you up is false witness. There's a term for a person who does that: a liar.

            These Qaida SOBS (against whom we BOTH fight, along side, in case you haven't noticed, a lot of Libyans) are bad enough. Don't make it worse than necessary. What they did was horror enough.

          • richardlkentesq

            Correction: If you didn't *want* to believe this baseless assertion without evidence you wouldn't.

          • Bogdan from Aussie

            A PATHETIC defence of the indifensible Mr richardkentsq. I would rather direct my misgivings towards Obama's administration who showed a total lack of interest in investigating all the circumstances and aspects of Ambassador Stevens'torture and subsequent death.

            It is more than clear that b. HUSSAIN obama's cohorts are doing everything in their power to get over that tragedy and make the American people to forget it.

            That makes the case for Steven's having been raped much stronger than even the Islamist media would be willing to gloat over.

          • PaulRevereNow

            I have the right to believe that Amb. Stevens may have been raped, without being called "immoral," or "liar", by your idiotic bible-thumping; and your false pride and arrogance.(What does your bible say about that?) And once again, you ignore that the Muslim would eat you too, despite your rose-colored glasses syndrome.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Correction: If you didn't *want* to believe this baseless assertion without evidence you wouldn't."

            Yes, this discussion is all the "Islamophobes" seeking titillation. We're the creepy ones because we just love talking about Islam and inventing stories about the innocent creatures who are after all, really members of just another religion no different than Judeo Christian theology. It's just another variation of "Abraham-ism."

            What's the point in discussing sexual pathology anyway but to get a thrill. The analysis is totally useless. Nothing to see here folks, return your attention to Showtime, HBO etc.

            Wait, we have evidence…never mind. The horse is dead.

          • defend

            There are so many admissions of his rape, that it is mindboggling.
            http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            I'll take a WILD guess.

            You will vote for Obama because, based on his record, Obama has done a wonderful job and warrants a second term.
            .

          • RichardLKentEsq

            A wild guess, yes, and a stupid one. I'm a conservative and I support Romney. (Predictable evidence of your bigoted droidhood. You encounter an opinion slightly different than your own and you automatically assume that the speaker must be a Democrat.)

          • blotto

            Boy Rich you are quick with the bigotry you so fervently deride in the other commentators here. Just what kind of law do you practice?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Rape is not eradicated in the West, we must never comment on others until it is.

            Chomsky thinking. We must not defend ourselves because we are imperfect. Now invent lies and exaggerations about just how awful we are, and how the enemies are virtually perfect in contrast.

            Mr. Kent, Islam does not view rape at all with the same definitions or implications as Western rape. It is sodomy to be penetrated in the rear, but not for the perpetrator. There is no shame in putting your erection anywhere. The shame is entirely on the part of the penetrated, unless that penetration is haram or forbidden. The only time this occurs is in property disputes, ie penetrating the properties (spouses or slaves) of your peers (which can only be Muslim). OK?

            Don't cry moral equivalence on such weak parallels. To be a rapist in the West is shameful. Behavior considered rape in the West is only considered shameful (as I said above) for the victim in Islamic culture.

            Are you getting the clues or do you need more details?

          • richardlkentesq

            "Look! A squirrel!"

            Do you guys work for the Obama administration?

            I'm talking about not bearing false witness, something we as Jews and Christians are supposed to do.

            Until there is SOME official confirmation that he was raped, don't say he was raped, and don't assume he was raped just because "them muzzies would do something like that." And don't repeat the charge in public unless certain.

            I'm not even asking for official AMERICAN confirmation. Something from the Libyan government will do. Or NATO. Or somebody. But DON'T ASSUME WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

            (And the fact that the last picture we have of the late Ambassador shows him still wearing pants is pretty strong evidence against.)

            Are YOU getting a clue, "objectivefacts"? THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE FACTS backing your charge. Only assumption.

          • PaulRevereNow

            Well, esquire, if you want to be completely objective about it,a picture of Ambassador Stevens wearing a pair of trousers isn't "pretty strong evidence against" rape. The fact is, we don't know for sure. However, YOU want to believe Stevens wasn't raped; this is strong evidence that YOU want to see these mobs through rose-tinted glasses. Do you really think that these mobs would eat you last, for giving them the benefit of the doubt?

          • richardlkentesq

            What I "believe" is irrelevant. It has to be based on evidence. The only "evidence" you cite is that a newspaper in Lebanon made the claim and that (in essence) "they rape guys that's what they do."

            Not good enough. The only unequivocal evidence I've seen in this column is evidence of bigotry against Muslims by some of the writers here.

            I would be perfectly happy to have the perpetrators of this crime shot. But only for the crimes for which proof can be garnered. Not rumors.

          • Mo_

            Bigotry? And comparing American society to Islamic society?

            What a perfect example of the mental bondage mentioned in the article.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Bigotry? And comparing American society to Islamic society?"

            Yes. Given that murders occur regularly on the basis of instructions from Allah and given that we can prove the Koran is based on lies, and given that many Muslims have plans to take over Western governments as soon as they possibly can, I would say that it would be absolutely irresponsible not to discuss, compare and contrast Islam with every other belief system that it opposes.

            "What a perfect example of the mental bondage mentioned in the article."

            How so? Mental bondage to what? Mental bondage to reconciling the facts? OK, guilty. Not that every discussion is purely composed only of facts, but in the end it is the facts that matter.

          • Mo_

            Sorry, you've lost me. Either I or you responded to someone else's comment in error. Too many comments here to figure it all out.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I might have been confused because it seems to me you were objecting to comparing the "societies" or cultures. Reading it again, I can see that maybe you were objecting to comparing cultures being referred to as bigotry?

            When you wrote, "What a perfect example of the mental bondage mentioned in the article," I thought you were saying that comparing cultures was an example of "mental bondage." Maybe you meant that calling the analysis "bigotry" was was the example of mental bondage?

            Sorry to lecture you if you were already informed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "What I "believe" is irrelevant. It has to be based on evidence. The only "evidence" you cite is that a newspaper in Lebanon made the claim and that (in essence) "they rape guys that's what they do."

            That's a thin and deceptive summary, or perhaps you didn't actually read the reports yourself?

            "Not good enough."

            For what standard? Trial by an American court? Who is on trial and for what? This is a discussion about an act of war by terrorists (militia without uniform or explicit national identity). What standards do you suppose apply here? Are you one who expects to try all terrorists throughout the globe in American criminal courts, and THEN we can comment once we are personally able to request the court documents for examination? What SPECIFICALLY are YOUR standards if mine are not good enough for you?

            "The only unequivocal evidence I've seen in this column is evidence of bigotry against Muslims by some of the writers here."

            Well, please show this evidence then, by your high standards. I'm holding my breath.

            "I would be perfectly happy to have the perpetrators of this crime shot. But only for the crimes for which proof can be garnered. Not rumors."

            This is trivial, but so are your comments. The sodomy is offensive to Westerners but in the larger context of what they did, almost not relevant. They are not expected to behave like us. Nobody will ever expect them to. I just try to explain why this is the case. Excuse my apparent bigotry, you just need to learn to read more carefully and think more carefully about what is going on in the world today and what the relevant historical facts are that help to understand.

            Understanding things, that is OK with you? Please show me this alleged bigotry and then I can respond to your accusations (that were notably short on evidence).

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Stevens is back home. What has the Obama administration said about the condition of his body?

            Will Obama tell the world about the condition of Stevens body, or suppress the information because it might inflame American anger, and if Obama doesn't act against the Islamofascists, Obama will be seen soft on Islamofascism.

            The ball is in Obamas court.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Stevens is back home. What has the Obama administration said about the condition of his body?"

            I like your sense of humor.

            "Will Obama tell the world about the condition of Stevens body, or suppress the information because it might inflame American anger, and if Obama doesn't act against the Islamofascists, Obama will be seen soft on Islamofascism. "

            Don't expect any changes.

            "The ball is in Obamas court."

            It never really left his court since his inauguration. Just a lot of flailing around and broken promises. I don't recall him ever actually hitting the proverbial ball anywhere.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'm talking about not bearing false witness"

            Please be explicit, I didn't catch anyone "bearing false witness."

            In my view, the official commentary from the US and the administration-biased media is where the false witnessing comes in. They describe the "rescuers" as taking the Stevens to the hospital and focus on a single picture of him that alone looks pretty brutal but not quite conclusive. You then see and hear video and other pictures with him being dragged by his feet, and clothing removed not be explosions or trauma but by "emergency efforts(?)"

            My commentary was directed at those who consider the accusations of rape to be motivated by a desire to slander Muslims as somehow possessing values that are distinct from Judeo Christian values. If this is news to you, we need to have a much larger, longer discussion. I don't retract anything I said, but if you will patiently and clearly describe or quote what I said that you consider to be "bearing false witness" or direct my attention SPECIFICALLY to what you are speaking about, I might then have agreement with your positions. So far, I can't say that I do.

            "I'm not even asking for official AMERICAN confirmation. Something from the Libyan government will do. Or NATO. Or somebody. But DON'T ASSUME WITHOUT EVIDENCE. "

            Did you read all of the comments? Your concerns have been answered.

            "(And the fact that the last picture we have of the late Ambassador shows him still wearing pants is pretty strong evidence against.) "

            This merely reveals how limited your investigation has been. This "last picture" is YOUR last picture. There are plenty more available, but this other views are not consistent with the administration dogma, and therefore not consistent with mainstream media dogma. You have to dig a bit, but if you want more evidence, you can find it. Note also that the same group thought to kill Stevens also sodomized Qaddafi, and we have those pictures without any remaining ambiguity.

            Short of a medical examiner verification, the case can't possibly get stronger than this.

            "Are YOU getting a clue, "objectivefacts"? THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE FACTS backing your charge. Only assumption."

            I admit this is from memory, but I only recall discussing facts and analysis of the history of Islam, and the rape report. It is a fact that the rape was reported, and it is a fact that evidence was discussed. I never said it was conclusive.

            I did not make any claims about the rape on top of what was reported. I responded to skeptics who accused us (those who accept the reports of rape as plausible) of using the report to slander Muslims collectively. I discussed Islamic theology and the collective effects of this ideology as witnessed by historians. Most Muslims today are just as much engaged with Western values as any other group, but getting dragged off to Mosques exposes them to the dark side of their character that we all have. This exposure over time is terribly damaging and difficult to resist for many people. Just look at the images around the world and open your eyes to the facts of these events and the facts of history.

            In addition, please help me find my errors, because you are so far merely bearing false witness against me.

          • Kufar Dawg

            Why don't you take a trip to Egyptistan and investigate this matter first hand? Please report back to us on the details — if you survive.

          • Kufar Dawg

            Fallacies of argumentation employed: Tu QuoQue, false equivalence.

            Unlike in your islamofascist sties Ali Al Taqiyya, the perpetrators of rapes
            are prosecuted in the US while the victims are not.

          • RichardLKentEsq

            "your"?

            0_o

  • BP

    Check out Tayyar news from Lebanon. They are the ones who originally reported the rape/sodomy.

    • RichardLKentEsq

      Taqqiya News?

      • Kufar Dawg

        Why would they lie?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Do you know what Taqiyya is? It is deception considered acceptable when used to advance Islam.

        • richardlkentesq

          Precisely. A news organization lies about the rape in Lebanon to "advance Islam." You guys slurp up the slime like it's truth and run with it. NOW who's helping the islamists?

          • Kufar Dawg

            You failed to answer the question, what possible advantage is there to the islamofascists to mis-representing the truth about the ambassador being raped?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You failed to answer the question, what possible advantage is there to the islamofascists to mis-representing the truth about the ambassador being raped?

            Oops. Another troll stepped in to a landmine.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Precisely. A news organization lies(?) about the rape in Lebanon to "advance Islam."

            OK, you acknowledge what taqiyya is…

            " You guys slurp up the slime like it's truth and run with it."
            Well that is interesting but you didn't show any cause to believe that a Muslims would consider this lie would advance Islam. In fact Muslims are often much smarter than we give them credit for, and they know that the target of the lies in this case would be the infidels. This defames Islam, and might inspire the lunatic fringe of the jihadis, but only the lunatic fringe would consider that an advance. Why do you agree with the lunatic fringe jihadis?

            "NOW who's helping the islamists?"

            You are lost. In this context (the thread) they've been outed and you've been a retard. I suppose *you* are helping Islam by offering excuses where none are deserved (but they've been countered effectively).

            This is not to say that it's implausible the rape report is false, but it is NOT taqiyya that I can imagine. Why is it that you can imagine this? You offer no explanation other than a few smartass, ignorant phrases here and there.

            Are you just another glorified troll trying to argue with people who go against your emotional responses to the news? It seems that way to me, and I have more evidence for my claims than you do for yours.

  • Snidely

    From what I've read, the translation of the video where Stevens' body was being "dragged through the streets" suggests the people with his body were in fact trying to help the man.

    And no, Alex Jones is not a credible counter-source.

    • Atikva

      Help the man? Like taking him to a hospital because he has scratched his knees maybe?

      Come on, Snidely, whom do you think you are kidding?

      • commwife

        The video I saw was of the guys rummaging through the rubble of the burned out building. They got his body out & a cheer went up along with the tongue trilling sound. They were dragging him by his feet first and leaving his head to bounce on the ground. Allahu Akbar as they did all this. Not the behavior of good Samaritan

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "And no, Alex Jones is not a credible counter-source. "

      Evidently your source is the redoubtable US Secretary of State.

    • Reese

      You are the most gullible idiot ever. They were not taking him to the hospital!!!! That is laughable. That's the lie / spin that Obama put on it but that doesn't make it true…in fact, if the Obama Admin said it, you can be sure it's false. They are the most corrupt, lying, non-transparent, unethical President and Administration ever in the history of America. Think for yourself for a change!

  • tagalog

    At some point in my life, I came across the claim that "wherever there's a double standard, you will find a single standard." The people who condemn opposition to homosexuality and the mistreatment of women most loudly when it comes to America and the West, but who maintain a uniform silence when it's done by Islam, are revealing a single standard that is quite simple: they dislike America and Western culture and mores.

    Any issue will do if it helps to deprecate America and the West. Today, the issues are homosexuality and the treatment of women. Tomorrow it will be other issues. These people are the inner rot that we must suffer from, and who may become strong enough in the welfare state to kill our society and culture.

    • dionissismitropoulos

      You spotted the single most important emotion driving the academic progressive elites: hatred.

      You also gave proof that this is so, by citing the double standard in their argumentation: it is bad when gays cannot marry in America, but it does not really matter when they get hanged in Iran. So it is not really that they want to protect gays, but more like that they want to badmouth America.

      If i may take your (very insightful) argument one step further, i would suggest that we should not lose perspective. The motivation of the academic elites is flawed, and nothing will ever appease them. This does not mean that all their causes are wrong, as is their indirect support (via a resounding silence when it comes to Muslim atrocities) of the barbarianism of Islam.

      I mean that, although Islam indeed represents a clear and present danger for the West, gays who want to get married and women who want to have an abortion do not. So the very fact that support for same-sex marriage and pro-abortion legislation comes from progressives full of hatred, does not mean that those two issues should be dealt with as the ramblings of malicious people. To my mind, they are legitimate causes and i subscribe to them.

      The argument i would offer is that i want a State that interferes with society as less as possible. I hate a State that interferes with the economy (through Welfare), as much as i hate a state that interferes with the bodies of women or the gays' prefered way of living.

      The fact that progressives use those two controversies so as to assign moral blame to America, instead of truly caring for gays or women, does not mean that those two issues are whimsical as their initial propagators (the progressive academic elites) are.

      I guess that if the progressive attitude toward Islam prevails (one of appeasement ), then America and the world will become a truly dangerous place. Nothing of the sort will happen if marriages and abortions are granted to gays and women respectively.

  • https://www.facebook.com/mike.villano.71 Mike Villano

    Ibrahim writes: First, when are so-called liberals going to shed the rose-tinted goggles of multiculturalism and get in touch with a righteous anger about a pathologically anti-gay, ragingly misogynist, mob culture that sexually violates and murders innocents?
    Answer: Never. For these people politics is their religion and the government is their god.
    We need to stop wasting facts on them. They are immune.

  • Aisha2

    Pedophilia, sodomizing corpses, raping women and children!!! What a religion!!!

  • AJM

    Facts would be good – please!

  • Jackie

    Facts:
    Ibrahim links to a well known Arabic site that says Steven was "sexually raped." He links to it in his original article and it is still online.
    One of the pictures shows that Stevens had his pants down when those guys who rescued him found him. That too seems pretty strong evidence.
    Add these two points to the Qadafi thing, and the other points in the article, and I believe he was sexually abused or raped

  • Ar'nun

    Wait, so they hate homosexuality, but they are able to get aroused enough to defile a man before they kill him.

    These islamists are just ridiculous; first they say sodomy is ok as long as you are only trying to widen your anus to fit a bomb in it. And now it is ok as long as you kill the guy afterwards.

    • southwood

      Exactly. This article does not see the irony in stating that the Muslim culture is anti homosexual yet the men who sodomized Stevens were homosexual. Sodomizing another male is a homosexual act. Why does the writer not comment on this. BTW I read years ago that for centuries, perhaps since the beginning of Islam they have humiliated subdued enemies by sodomizing them. Before killing them probably. But I don't think Gaddafi was sodomized.

      • Tabby

        Oh he was. They made a video of it & it was widely reported.
        Yes sodomy is standard in Islam. Especially with children. So common in fact, in one of Ann Barnhardt's seminars on you tube (I think it's called Islam Sexuality a Survey in Evil), she talks about a bunch of our Dr's in Iraq monitoring the population. They became concerned as there seemed to be trouble in a village where the the women were all unable to conceive & the husbands were angry about this.. (They had to watch for these things in case a bio weapon had been used).
        So anyway the Docs start interviewing the husbands & their wives & it turns out, they only did it that way & truly believed the wives should have been able to conceive anally. The husbands were also quite appalled & disgusted by the idea that vaginal penetration was the only way to make a baby. True story.

        • southwood

          Where's the proof Gaddafi was sodomized ? I mean he was not an infidel. I only saw some guy with a big stich prodding him. Nothing very clear. That Iraq story is not credible. The men would know the way to have sex in order to procreate. Everbody knows this. Come on, be real. This woman has been fed a myth.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Where's the proof Gaddafi was sodomized ? I mean he was not an infidel. I only saw some guy with a big stich prodding him. Nothing very clear. That Iraq story is not credible."

            google: gaddafi sodomy

            View at your own risk. You must not have looked very hard.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      I just wrote this several times elsewhere, so let me just summarize quickly and you can search for more details if you wish.

      Homosexuality in the Islamic definition is accepting sodomy. What we in the West consider rape is merely natural behavior for a virile man who was exposed to something sexually arousing. Penetrating animals etc. is no big deal. Penetrating children, unwilling women, none of this matters. Rape is never a big deal except when a Muslim rapes the wife of another Muslim because that is not respecting the property of the fellow Muslim.

      Raping anyone or anything is not shameful in Islam for the rapist. Only the penetrated victim is to feel shame. There are examples of this all over the world today.

      This seems insane, but when you see that Islam must treat their founder as a perfect prophet holy man, they must find way to justify: rape of both sexes including children. Yes the West has deviants doing similar things, but these deviants are…deviants. Sexually penetrating anyone or anything in the course of battle is not a deviation from Islamic behavior. It is engrained through teaching the examples of their so-called prophet and supportive teaching.

      Do you see the moral gymnastics required to maintain Mohammed is the perfect example to follow and why it is offensive to expose his behavior? This ties directly back to what was claimed to have motivated this…

      Therefore if you do not think the Western critical view of Islam is coherent, you just don't have all of the awful truth yet.

    • Mo_

      Pious, Mohammad-following Muslims are hypocrites as well as savages? Whoda thunk it!

  • BLJ

    Anyone who does not believe that Stevens was not raped I have some swamp land for sale. It is really cheap.

    • BLJ

      I meant "was raped".

  • Schlomotion

    Mr Tapson goes all out in the close of this week's Frontpage attempts to either capitalize upon or hide the Nakoula controversy. The amusing irony is that he cites Raymond Ibrahim, who serially publishes false information, most of it gratuitous and se.xual. Mr. Tapson is trying to distract with the salacious details of sod.omy, and he calls in the man who along with Robert Spencer cross-promotes people like Brigitte Gabriel and Nakoula's buddies Klein, Sadek, and Abdelmasih. No, unfortunately the public will not pay more attention to Christopher Stevens' hindquarters than to the trouble wrought this week by the Melkite and Coptic mafias.

    • Pontotoc Bill

      Between Raymond Ibrahim and you, SchloMo, I highly believe he publishes the truth. You, on the other hand, post innuendo, half-truths, and outright falsehoods. There is credible sources concerning what happened to the Ambassador and you reject them out of hand. Then you attempt to tie the "movie" to this without a bit of evidence.

      Try again, mental midget.

      • Tabby

        No doubt I'm with you!
        Obviously a Muslim practicing taqiyya to take attention from their pathetic excuse for a religion. Can be pretty sure about that. And Briget Gabriel is a hero who speaks the truth about Islam & so are the rest. Obviously an attempt to defame the individuals who speak truth & educate the masses. & – "Coptic Mafias" LOL yeah like the ones being crucified in Egypt right now for the sin of being Christians. Good grief!

    • Mo Schlotion

      I bought some Melkite dinnerware at Walmart. It was on sale.

    • Ghostwriter

      I don't even WANT to know from what part of your mind your most recent post came from. It's too disgusting to think about.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Nakoula controversy"

      Pretext.

      "Raymond Ibrahim, who serially publishes false information"

      This is based on the accusation of "electronic intifada." Any clue what that is? I didn't think so.

      "Mr. Tapson is trying to distract with the salacious details of sod.omy, and he calls in the man who along with Robert Spencer cross-promotes people like Brigitte Gabriel and Nakoula's buddies Klein, Sadek, and Abdelmasih"

      The substance of your argument is what? I didn't think so.

      Troll.

    • Kufar Dawg

      Did you practice Bacha Bazi as a child? Or as an adult? Or both?

  • drbukk

    We need to resurrect Kemel Attaturk. His sweeping changes in Turkey made it prosperous without any oil. He changed the alphabet to western, he banned the veil, opened universities to women and he banned polygamy. He had to slaughter a lot of clerics to do it. Sadly the current president, Erdogan, is restoring radical Islam.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      His only failure was not entirely eradicating Islam.

    • Kufar Dawg

      Islam never really went away in Turkey, the ethnic cleansing of Christians from Cyprus, the Istanbul pogrom of the 1950's (in which law enforcement was complicit), the persecution of non-muslims (church bells may not be rung, nor the shofar sounded are forms of persecution that have been in force in Turkey for decades before Erdogan was elected PM). Try discussing the Armenian Genocide w/a Turkish muslime and prepare to be amazed by the unbelievable lies you'll be hearing, just don't discuss it in Turkey, where it's a crime to do so and has been for decades as well.

  • Atikva

    Comments like the one from Snidely are typical of the “new” left, these liberals that no amount of reality will ever convince that this is, in fact, reality.

    They are in total denial, total mental bondage. They have trapped themselves into the democrat plantation and they can’t or won’t escape.

    Christoper Stevens was one of them. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to KNOW what is, and has been for centuries, going on in muslim countries. Even if you have never read testimonies from the past centuiries, all you have to do nowadays is look at beheadings, floggings, amputations, stonings, crucifixions, hangings and other niceties on internet, posted courtesy of the perpetrators, proud of what they do to obey their coran.

    For the past ten years or so, anyone has been able to read the signs brandished by muslims all over the Western world, over and over again, among cries of allah akbar:
    "Democracy go to hell, shariah the solution for East and West”,
    “Muslims will conquer the White House”,
    “Jihad against USA is our religious duty”,
    “Freedom go to hell”,
    “Be prepared for the real holocaust”,
    “Liberalism go to hell”,
    “Islam will dominate”,
    “No democracy, we want just islam”,
    “Islam will conquer Rome”,
    “We will attack USA”,
    “Close Guantanamo, reopen Auschwitz”,
    “Down with the West”,
    “No one can stop the rise of Islam”,
    “Democracy is the cause of oppression, islam is the solution”,
    “The world has been divided into two camps: islam and disbelief. Muslims will be victorious”, and in Spanish “Hemos vuelto (we are back!)”

    Anyone has also been able to witness the hangings of homosexuals on cranes amid insults and jeers from the perpetrators, not to mention the insulting and threatening comments on muslim internet sites toward this section of the population.

    And one can’t possibly ignore such acts of terrorism as perpetrated in Munich 1972, New York, 1993 and 2001, Madrid 2004, London 2005, Mumbai 2008, to mention only a few, since an exhaustive list would be too long to be published here.

    From all these facts, anyone with a brain in his skull KNOWS without the shadow of a doubt (1) that the islamists are on the war path to conquer the West; (2) that they abhor freedom and democracy; (3) that they are able and willing to kill anyone who won’t submit to their "religion" (giving first priority to the Jews); and (4) that they hate homosexuals.

    Yet after years of academic study and practice, Ambassador Stevens DIDN’T KNOW any of this. He stood unmoved next to Khadafi’s lynched corpse, without a clue that he would share the same fate. He didn’t think he needed protection living amid a savage mob, he probably never thought that taqyiah applied to him too, and if the rumours concerning his sexual orientation are true, apparently he thought that he alone in the whole muslim world would be immune to the diktat of the coran concerning homosexuals. So strong were his erroneous convictions about islam that he insisted to be posted to a muslim country overtaken by tribal strife.

    Woah!

    What kind of History do they teach at the University of California, Berkeley, what kind of “national defence” do they teach at the National War College? How are they preparing their volunteers at the Peace Corps? Are they just brainwashing our young people into becoming complete morons?

    And what to think of a Commander in Chief raised and educated in the islam faith in islamic countries who thought nothing of giving such a hopeless assignment to someone obviously as ill-equipped to fulfill it as Mr. Stevens? Unless, of course, he is as ignorant and brainwashed himself on the same subject as the unfortunate subordinate whom he sent to his death.

    The only way M. Obama can now redeem his international policy and prove us wrong is to undertake a goodwill trip to Libya in the same circonstances as Chris Stevens, i.e. without any prerequisites or protection except that of the Libyans. Let’s see how long he will last.

    • Tabby

      You said it!! Excellent post!
      I have a gay friend that's astounded by the stupidity of the gay & female democrats that don't understand who really has a 'war on women' or gays. These libotards call truth about Islam 'propaganda' yet all they need to do is see what Muslims say themselves. All the while allowing radical Muslims to open the DNC with their 2 hour Jumah. (They were also telling visitors to it that Muslims discovered America before Columbus & that they are the real Native Americans). It's beyond argument that liberalism is a mental disorder that indoctrinates college students like the plague from professors dominating every American university campus. Complete insanity!

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "They were also telling visitors to it that Muslims discovered America before Columbus & that they are the real Native Americans"

        They don't just state this casually, they have comprehensive theories. For example, some claim Columbus was Muslim. Even if he was, only in a collectivist ideology would that somehow give credit to their culture to have a stealth Jihadi aboard Western missions planning and funding the whole thing. They never cite individuals, they cite collective "achievements" because these are easier to lie about and defend, and because they are collectivists.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Comments like the one from Snidely are typical of the “new” left, these liberals that no amount of reality will ever convince that this is, in fact, reality.

      They are in total denial, total mental bondage. They have trapped themselves into the democrat plantation and they can’t or won’t escape.

      Christoper Stevens was one of them. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to KNOW what is, and has been for centuries, going on in muslim countries."

      They know this, but then they compare alleged "Christian crimes" of the past to draw supposed moral equivalence. You have to understand collectivist thinking to arrive at this point. You then have to arrive at the conclusion that the "religious class" needs to be "civilized" by the secular class. You see, part of their historical revisionism is that the secular classes used scientific arguments to tame the religious classes in the West. Now they just need more time with the once-isolated religious classes.

      They are bigots, but this is well-veiled in "progressive" collectivism, well-veiled that is to the other progressive bigots who all vouch for each other in their "anti-racist" bona fides. Anti-racism is the form of racism approved by leftists as being "progressive."

      I know this sounds confusing to anyone who hasn't heard of all this. I don't want to be redundant for those that have. I'm happy to explain more if anyone would like me to.

  • Bob Somebody

    Disgusting hypocrisy is not a quality reserved for the left alone.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      OK, but do you have an example that is on topic?

  • Omar

    What is wrong with the Islamists? Have they lost their minds with the consulate attack? We need to defeat the Islamists and their dangerous agenda.

  • R.C.

    The Marxist left–is in favor of all manner or sexual perversions–and their policies and laws promote it!

    • kaled

      hlo

  • Can'tStopLaughing

    hahaha!!! This is the most ridiculous, racist, homophobic, sexist, ignorant article ever written. I can't even take this seriously. Was this meant to be serious? I'm really asking. And quick survey, do you agree with the following statement: "America should invade Libya and establish a democracy over the course of 11 years. Budget, morals and common sense be damned! Anyway, we can always blame everything bad on the socialist-marxist-fascist-whatever libs. If only we could nuke the country….." (I wonder if this comment will even make the board.)

    • http://www.facebook.com/BodhiJones777 Tommy Jones

      Indeed, this is an especially fearful lot … Sound facts, reason & logic see no light here …

  • A. Keen Observer

    Christopher Stevens was a man who had a deep and abiding love for Arabs and Arab Muslim culture. Yes, he was gay and yes, somewhere in his consciousness he knew that homosexuality is so reviled, it is a capital offense in most muslim cultures. However, the human being has a tremendous capacity for self-delusion. Unfortunately for Chris Stevens, such delusion killed him. The silver lining to this story: Chris Stevens finally learned that it is very important to look at reality. The truth of Islam has literally set him free (of his physical body) and he has a great appreciation for the pain and suffering of non-muslims in muslim societies. In his next incarnation, Mr. Stevens may choose to tell the truth — to himself and others. He brokered arms deals to the very people who killed him because at the time he thought they would kill others — not him and that was okay. He has since learned the error of his ways.

  • richardlkentesq

    "Look! A squirrel!"

    Do you guys work for the Obama administration?

    I'm talking about not bearing false witness, something we as Jews and Christians are supposed to do.

    Until there is SOME official confirmation that he was raped, don't say he was raped, and don't assume he was raped just because "them muzzies would do something like that." And don't repeat the charge in public unless certain.

  • Pontotoc Bill

    False witness is when someone LIES about another.

    Islamic media is reporting that the Ambassador was sexually assualted. It is NOT false witness to repeat their claims.

    Understand the difference?

  • lisag

    In the world two groups of people are pursuing a special class of citizenship; Muslims and Homosexuals. Both are demanding that negative speech be made illegal against them. They both want special laws enacted to protect them and they demand that all people give them total deference in any dealings with them. Radicals from both denigrate and want to subjugate others faith. We see how a confrontation of these two groups would turn out. Isn't it interesting how gay activists have not claimed Stevens as one of their own. They have not outed him or claimed him as a gay champion of the Arab Spring. Why not. Surely it is not because of their sensitivity to the situation. Most likely they are shaking in their shoes.

  • chowching259

    Decapitation by a dull blade is often used by Muslims. The call for the head of the editor of Charlie Hebdo magazine is an example of their preference for mutilation before death. Israeli soldiers when entering the Golan Heights found the ears and testicles of their captured comrades hanging from Tefillin on trees.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      " Israeli soldiers when entering the Golan Heights found the ears and testicles of their captured comrades hanging from Tefillin on trees."

      This is normal for warfare with Jihadis. What is abnormal is allowing reports to surface about it.

  • Toecutter

    If there is any justice in this world, then all those femmo nazis, with their boyish haircuts, their man-hatred, and all their other crap will get their just desserts.

    As far as the homos in Islam (and there are many)… we’ll see… We will.

  • defend

    http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/News/PoliticalNews/a… news source reported Stevens as having been raped.

  • fireinmysoul

    Our best and greatest hope is to OFFEND THE MUSLIMS AND STAND THEM DOWN or they will STAND US DOWN DEAD!_

    _In following the rule of “Do more of what works and less of what doesn’t” Bullying only creates more bullying. Intimidation that wins only creates more intimidation that wins. We have only to look at all destruction of the US Constitution by Obama’s thugs to see how successful intimidation works. Look what intimidation has won to date for Obama: Unchallenged by any American judge of Obama’s eligibility, Obamacare, the corruption of the US Supreme Court—Judge Roberts, Obama’s financing and support of all the ME revolutions via by passing Congress & the House, the takeover of GM, TSA, banks, . . . . . . . .

    We have only to look at what Islam is doing in all the Western countries including America to see their intimidation is working: Hillary Clinton grovelling with a 1000 apologies over a stupid video produced in a country where free speech used to be honoured and supported

  • thecollegeadmissionsguru

    Wow, does the FAR RIGHT have no boundaries at all, no depth they will sink to, no integrity at all? There has been NO reports of this kind coming out of Libya, this is a fabricated story by a delusional writer who is looking to incite the Right Wing Base against the entire Muslim Religion. I have to question the whole "sexual" content of the story and ask this: Exactly WHAT is the obscession those on the FAR RIGHT have with sex. You do know that for the most part, it is a very natural and quite normal process; by constantly obscessing on the negatives, the FAR RIGHT just looks like a bunch of weirdos. I'm just saying, from my LEFT SIDE of the conversation; Thanks. Now let the vitriole begin!

    • L8gr8usa

      The Libya american embassy is being re-built and they need a college administration guru in their staff. Put your "open minded" and compassionate heart where your leftist brain resides; go there and help them. Put to practice what you so deeply believe.

      From my right side of the conversation, I KNOW what will be the outcome, like so many who have tried it before. But maybe this time, with you there, it will be different. Care to take my challenge??

  • trickyblain

    I just think it's funny/disturbing/stupid/droolingly imbecelic that FPMers cling to to this one shady, debunked story from the Arab media. Do they also think that the IDF executed 9/11? The Arab media agrees!

    • Kufar Dawg

      "Debunked" where? In the delusions of your mind?

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Again the religion of peace shows another side of it's perfidious self……necrophilia.
    Just how disgusting are these cretins, what will be next in their array of crimes aganst
    humanity while being fawned over by the Obama Admonistration………………William

  • chowching259

    Those that pray five times daily would love to get the chance to behead those that do not pray at all. The only way an infidel can survive among a Muslim community is to pay dues called Jizya. It is against the wishes of Allah to slaughter an infidel that is paying Jizya. The protest in Libya was against those that murdered the Jizya paying Americans.

  • Jon_Babtist

    These are the same wonderful people we partnered with to overthrow Gaddafi.
    All those who were so giddy about the Arab Spring should realize what fools they were (are).

  • kafir4life

    It's just islam.

  • Ricky Michael

    This is disgusting. Sickos.

  • Doris Enow

    wy ae we in contact with these Muslims? why do we let thim into our country, when they don't want to adhere to our laws…let the stay where they are..We have no business there..the only business we have with them is buying oil…you don't need to be there to buy oil..so what do we want from them? but they should not be able to attend our schools..go to Germany or elsewhere and study, but here comes the greed the universities want their money…and as long as they pay they are welcome…our believe system also wants to be liberal fair…they should stay in their land and find a way to better their land and we have no right to waste the taxpayers money on them at all…let them kil each other, that is what will happen if we leave them alone…our christian ways and faith have nothing what so ever to do with Islam…and if our president thinks so , he should retire…and if our secretary of state thinks so she should get fired not even wait to retire…and her perks after retirement should be limited…

  • doris enow

    one thing I believe and i don't like Obama that much, but I believe he will revenge the death of Stevens and his men…I can't believe he will walk away from that….regardless what this puppet of a libyan president says who isalso as corrupt in my opinion as Karzai is or he woud have send his guards and libyan troops to defend defend the compound…and consulate….we want revenge of the worst kind…we will not be satisfied with seond best and we want this revenge before election…

  • sndwave

    From the start I have to say I myself am an atheist. 95% of all wars are in the name of religion, the others are drug related. I’m not a fringe lunatic as have come to light within the past few years, but I have no religious reason to recognize anyone higher than me in life. My girlfriend, my daughter are equal in my eyes, as I treat everyone I meet, work or have any dealings with.

    Reading an article on several news services today in Afghanistan within the last few days a woman was beheaded because she would not become a prostitute for her mother in law. I’m questing this because if she became a prostitute would not her outcome be the same? She was 18/19 and unmarried. She was brave to stand for her right not to become a sex slave, but Islam was going to murder her one way or the other because for the mother in law’s greed for money.

    I do not understand their logic and do not want them trying to trample the US or its Constitution. Obama is doing that from within just fine and needs to be stopped before all in the US have lost every bit of dignity to the world that NObama has the answers to lead us down the path of world humiliation.

    I am retired USAF and have served my country as many have not. I believe in this country and also have the hope to see it shine once again with better direction from help from our elected officials this fall as it did so many years ago.

    • expletivebmp

      the world is a cesspool of the have and have not and the can and the can't. there is no logic only madness and death. Go into Afghanistan and slaughter all who won't see things your way, and maybe, just maybe, things will change. enough talk! without death and horror, there can be no change. Rape is power, murder is power so either you're the killer or the killed, the rapist or the raped.

  • Lizzie

    It’s amazing to pay a quick visit this website and reading the views of all friends on the topic of this paragraph, while I am also zealous of getting knowledge.

  • TCMSOLS

    It is a common tactic as a prisoner or war, they are animals, we cannot say it an we have to be careful of the tag subhumans. The whole lot of them money or not they are animals.

  • TCMSOLS

    I am inclined not to give them anything in relation to peace.

  • Tudorrose

    Well there will never be world peace that is for sure not now not ever.

  • TudorRose

    The Arab muslims are worse than the Asian muslims!

  • Benghazi Local

    The art of fabricating stories ; Chris was abandoned in a locked room . savers had to break the window and rushed him to the hospital ,This was the story on the ground , how u 'd like to it to appear for the reason of distorting facts or hiding them or distorting the image of Libyans or Islam , is an other case of ill minded attitude .

  • Ken Colgate

    Ambassador Stevens … Personally, I am furious about your treatment (as well as our service men in East Africa. … sorry for a terrible end to your life … “but difference does it make, anyway” ? Hillary in 2016; so you know will answer that call at 3:00 in the morning.