Monday, September 24, 2012

Perhaps it wasn't really the You Tube video that pissed them off...

(Please pardon the graphic pics-- my apologies to Ambassador Stevens' family, but we need to know what the Muslim mob did that night, and why, and hold those responsible for this atrocity-- in our government and in Libya-- to account. )

Muslim mob offering "medical assistance" to Ambassador Stevens,
according to Obama Administration

The "medical assistance" offered by the mob seems to have involved
 an uncommonly thorough physical exam. 

This is hard to believe, but if it is true, it is an astonishing scandal.

According to Lebanese intelligence sources and other foreign journalists, US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was raped prior to his murder at the hands of Muslim militants who had already gotten inside the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya prior to the outbreak of violence. The question begs for an answer, who let them in, thus compromising US compound security, and why did our embassy security contingent allow the embassy grounds to be breached?
As the militants who had raped, brutalized, and murdered Ambassador Stevens paraded his half naked body jubilantly through the streets of Benghazi, Libya the US media was putting out a story that a photo depicting J. Christopher’s battered half nude body being carried by one of the militants was somehow being rushed to the nearest hospital?... Already the American mainstream media was looking for a way to cover for President Obama’s blatant ineptitude and failed foreign policy by making a sickening excuse for a brutal image that gave us a candid insight into the savagery of the Muslim intolerance for any ideology but their own.

The Obama Administration and their court eunuchs in the mainstream media have portrayed this murder of our ambassador as the result of spontaneous outrage from a You Tube video, although recently the Administration has admitted that it was a carefully planned pre-meditated military-style attack.

There are many credible reports, and accompanying photographs, to suggest that Ambassador Stevens was sexually assaulted by the Muslim mob at the time of his death. 


Why was he raped by the Muslim mob?

Perhaps this is why:

Two sources in Chicago diplomatic circles identify Ambassador Chris Stevens as gay (meaning State Department sent gay man to be ambassador to Libya)

"Ambassador Chris Stevens in the 70s with male companion Austin Tichenor, whose Facebook profile has been displaying photos and remembrances of Stevens the last few days including references to the gay-themed novel..."

From Breitbart:

In the report, not written in a way derogatory toward the ambassador, the Serbian consulate is questioned and he alleges that Stevens' homosexuality was common knowledge: he also says that because of it, Stevens should have been sent somewhere other than a Muslim country.

The report contains pictures of Stevens and an alleged male romantic interest from the 1970s, and is based largely on conversations with gay Chicago city officials and consulates in Chicago. 
Here's the question: If Stevens was a homosexual, as the Serbian consulate and others claim, why was he sent to Libya, especially if officials there knew of his homosexuality? It just seems like one more way the Obama administration needlessly enraged the passions of protesters in that part of the world.

From American Vision News:
You won’t hear any of this in the media, no doubt, but in Chicago’s diplomatic circles at least there is no doubt that Chris Stevens was gay and that pretty much anyone in the diplomatic world knew that. That includes the Libyans who were hired as security at the consulate in Benghazi who betrayed Ambassador Stevens and assisted in his murder. 
Which raises the question of why Hillary Clinton and the State Department would make him America’s ambassador in a viciously anti-gay Muslim environment. 
[emphasis mine] 
Kyle Rogers writing for explains:
Hillary Clinton has been spending US taxpayer dollars to fund homosexual pride events in foreign countries. Her actions have prompted backlashes against the US in Italy, Russia, Pakistan, and other nations. Last year, Barack Obama made it official US policy to fund homosexual rights groups overseas with US tax-dollars
In Pakistan, the staff of the US embassy in Islamabad was placed in serious danger after being ordered to host a homosexual pride event. Pakistanis rioted outside the embassy and burned American flags. 
Friends of Christopher Stevens in Chicago say he was gay. A member of the Serbian diplomatic team based in Chicago told that the State Department knowingly sent a gay man to be the ambassador of Libya. reports ”in Chicago’s diplomatic circles at least there is no doubt that Chris Stevens was gay.” 
The question is, did Hillary Clinton know this? If so, she knowingly sent him into an environment where his presence would be considered a provocation. Hillary Clinton’s track record in North Africa is absolutely dismal. The US State Department has successfully turned Libya and Egypt upside down and placed militant Islam in charge of those nations. . . . 

According to leading Arab media outlets, the murder of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was even more horrible than what was reported in on the US media. The Arab media reports that Stevens was beaten, gang raped, killed, and then his body was publicly displayed in a manner similar to Gaddafi.

HillBuzz writer Kevin DuJan got the scoop on the brutal killing:

The Serbian consulate employee identified himself to me as “Dino” and wouldn’t give me any more of a name than that, but 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. There’s a good chance this guy was Muslim too, and gay, which makes my head spin more than a little since he seemed to have no anger at all in his voice that Muslims in Libya assassinated the American ambassador and then sodomized his corpse. 
“He should not have gone there” was the general consensus from this man.

If this story is true, it explains why the Obama administration appeared panicked and has dissembled in such an amateurish way.

It boggles the mind. This is a news story of astonishing gravity-- the allegation that an American ambassador was murdered and raped by a Muslim mob in Libya because he was gay, and that the Obama administration sent him to Libya knowing he was gay-- perhaps they even sent him to Libya knowing his presence would be a provocation, and that the State Department gave him a Muslim-Brotherhood security detail that would know that he was gay, and that the Obama administration has lied about  the circumstances surrounding his rape and murder, and that the Obama administration staged the unconstitutional 'show arrest' of the filmmaker to cover their own ass, and that the mainstream news media is cooperating in the coverup of this story.

Is the Obama administration in a lying frenzy to cover-up the fact that their incompetence and their idiotic effort to add a little Gay Pride to our foreign service in Islamic countries just got four innocent men-- including our Ambassador-- killed?

Why aren't these rather obvious questions being asked by the mainstream media?


  1. Why aren't these rather obvious questions being asked by the mainstream media?

    Because most people are not clinically insane? Just a guess.

  2. Wow. Just when you think Egnor couldn't possibly sink any lower... he reaches a new depth of insane depravity.

    1. Michael,

      When you write 'I point out that leftie assholes (charming terminology) find "homophobia" everywhere. Why not here?'. I take it that the 'here' means this blog?...

    2. I didn't know that Libya is especially "known for its murderous hatred of gays", although I must admit that Stevens probably would have felt more at home in the Vatican. I hear there's actually quite a vibrant gay underground in North African countries, mostly due to a lack of available young women, whose male relatives you don't want to mess with.

      But to suggest that Stevens was sent to Libya because he is gay in order to provoke, that's sick.

    3. @troy:

      The facts of the matter speak for themselves.

      What I'm asking is this: why aren't these issues being addressed by the mainstream media and by the Administration and the State Department?

      They seem quite relevant to the events. Why the silence? Why is my little blog the first you've heard of this?

    4. What I'm asking is this: why aren't these issues being addressed by the mainstream media and by the Administration and the State Department?

      Because they aren't lunatics who believe insane conspiracy theories. Which differentiates them from you.

    5. The fact that you don't think it is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean you aren't engaged in one. When you start "just asking questions" you are in conspiracy theory territory. That's the bailiwick of "9/11 truthers".

      When you start making wild-eyed accusations that Stevens was somehow planted in Libya as a deliberate provocation for Muslims, then you are in conspiracy theory territory.

      The answer to "why" is pretty obvious: Stevens was an experienced diplomat who spoke Arabic and was familiar with the Islamic world generally and Libya specifically. He had previous diplomatic assignments in Damascus, Cairo, and Riyadh, and two tours in Libya itself. Foreign service personnel choose assignments, and while they are not guaranteed to get them, their choices are given weight. Stevens was in the middle-east because he wanted to be in the middle-east.

      Your bullshit conspiracy theorizing is just that: bullshit conspiracy theorizing.

    6. @anon:

      I point out, in passing, that your reference to 9-11 truthers is hilarious. Fully a third of registered Democrats believe the US had something to do with 9-11. Obama even hired a Jobs Czar who was a truther (Van Jones). The truther wackos are your guys, pinhead.

      My questions about Stevens' murder aren't a conspiracy theory, anymore than questions about Nixon's actions in Watergate are "conspiracy theories". I am merely pointing to questions raised in the public domain, and asking why these questions-- which are quite explosive and could bear a great deal on the motives and accountability for Stevens' murder-- haven't been asked by the people who professionally ask questions-- the press.

      Way Stevens gay? Was his sexual orientation a factor in his murder by the Muslim mob? Was that why he was raped? Why was a gay man (if he was gay) posted to a very dangerous assignment in a country full of homicidal anti-gay Muslims? Why was a gay ambassador so poorly protected, and why was his security detail comprised in large part by Muslim Brotherhood appointees?

      No conspiracy theory. Just questions that aren't being asked by the people who ask all kinds of questions about other things-- Ann Romney's horse, Sara Palin's clothing, Mitt Romney's tax deductions, ...

      Why no interest in the public lynching of a gay American ambassador?

    7. Fully a third of registered Democrats believe the US had something to do with 9-11.

      Citation needed.

      Way Stevens gay?

      An irrelevant issue. And conspiracy theory bullshit.

      Was his sexual orientation a factor in his murder by the Muslim mob?

      Who knows. Given that two other American personnel who as far as we know were not gay were also killed, probably not. Your question is just conspiracy theory bullshit.

      Was that why he was raped?

      Who knows. Once again, your question is conspiracy theory bullshit.

      Why was a gay man (if he was gay) posted to a very dangerous assignment in a country full of homicidal anti-gay Muslims?

      This , and everything in your post is conspiracy theory bullshit.

      The real answer is: Because he was a middle-east specialist with a long history of working in posts in middle-eastern countries and was very familiar with the situation in Libya, having served there twice before.

      and why was his security detail comprised in large part by Muslim Brotherhood appointees?

      Given that the Muslim Brotherhood has condemned the attacks, and the security members you malign appear to have fought capably to defend the consulate in Benghazi, your "questions" are yet more conspiracy theory bullshit.

    8. @anon:


      Do learn how to use the internet, pal. It's amazing what you can learn.

    9. That's your citation? A six year old poll that when you go to the primary source, the Scripps Center, you find that it doesn't actually show any kind of breakdown by political party. Once again, when you are called upon to support your claims, all you can do is provide bullshit.

      Of course you didn't bother to answer anything else. I suspect that is because you realize that your conspiracy theory bullshit just doesn't hold any water.

  3. So let me get this strait. When it comes to insulting anti-Muslim propaganda our laws and values demand we do nothing but stand by and live with its consequences, but when it comes to homosexuals, we should be sensitive to the wishes of Muslim extremists and discriminate against highly qualified individuals as not to cause trouble. Got it.


    1. I don't support discrimination against gays. I also don't support imprudently abetting the murder of gays. Are you really arguing that gays should be put in danger of their life for the purposes of "non-discrimination"?

      These are important questions about Stevens' murder, and they are not being asked.

  4. As I noted a few days ago "4) Does no one recall the deliberate provocations to Moslems of hosting "gay" "pride" events at US embassies in Moslem countries?"

  5. @Ilion:

    Excellent point. It's funny that lefties freak out when we make cogent criticisms of Islam because they fear we'll anger them, but they have no problem with Gay Pride Week at the US Embassy in Pakistan.


  6. I wonder why the Bush administration sent Stevens as deputy chief of mission to Libya (2007-2009).

    Stevens served under 4 presidents in various middle eastern countries.

    What were they thinking???

    1. Good question.There is a difference between 2009 and 2012 in Libya, as you may have noticed.

      My point is simple: these questions are relevant and important: did we put Stevens in an unnecessarily hazardous position? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But it's an obvious question.

      The problem is that the question is down the memory hole. Silence.


  7. Why?

    Because most people are not insane. Asked and answered. Sorry if you can't handle the truth.

  8. The poor guy’s body hasn’t even made it back to the states and already conservatives are dragging his reputation through the mud. I can’t find a single reference to Steven’s sexuality prior to his being killed. At this point it’s all right-wing fake outrage and conspiracy theories based on the friend of a friend of some right-wing blogger who knows some guy in the Serbian consulate and a picture from the ‘70s that shows him wearing an ascot *gasp*.



    1. Why is suggesting that someone might be gay "dragging his reputation through the mud"?

      You're a homophobe.

    2. It’s a smear when conservatives use it to convince other conservatives they should blame the victim for having brought the crime on himself with his immoral behavior.


    3. Of course Stevens didn't "bring the crime on himself". He was an innocent courageous man serving our county who was brutally murdered. We owe it to him to know what happened.

      Why don't you want the circumstances of his murder to be investigated?

    4. I never said I didn’t want it to be investigated. The FBI is there right now and I hope they get to the bottom of it.

      Do you really expect anyone to believe posting what you and other conservatives think are gay looking pictures of the Ambassador taken when he was a kid in the 70’s is pertinent to the murder investigation? Give me a break.


    5. I am not talking about the FBI investigation, which hopefully will vet these issues completely and tell us the truth.

      I am talking about the astonishing disinterest in this perspective by the media, which is very quick to jump to "homophobia" allegations, except when the allegations would reflect poorly on their pets, which include the Obama administration (who may have recklessly cost Stevens his life) and Islamists, who will look even more vile if they raped and killed Stevens in part because he was gay.

      The New York Times ran in depth articles on Ann Romney's horses, Mit Romney's tax deductions, etc.

      Why is there no interest in this obvious question?

    6. KW,

      If the ambassador was indeed known to be homosexual or is more or less openly bisexual, then the motives and means by which he was targeted may be better investigated and understood.

      The why, who, and how are all integral, KW.

      Of COURSE his sexuality is of importance to the investigation of this bloody operation - this outrage - that took the the life of your ambassador to Libya along with some very dedicated security professionals. Men - like the ambassador - not easily replaced, and no doubt sorely missed also.
      And sexuality questions not only benefit the investigation of this single event, but also the answers to these questions can give the folks on the job insight into how to better prevent and counter such actions in the future.

  9. Egnor is just a disgusting lowlife for dragging a heroic man's corps through the mud for some perceived political gain. Enough said.

    1. @troy:

      Why, exactly, would knowing the truth about Ambassador Stevens' death be political gain for conservatives?

      Are you admitting that your Dem idols made huge mistakes and got these men killed? Are you admitting that your Religion of Peace buddies in the mob are even more vile haters than it first seemed?

      Why are you afraid of asking simple questions about the Ambassador's death? How would answering those questions constitute a "political loss" for you?

    2. Michael,

      Fabricating quotes again? You shouldn't be putting words in quote marks unless the words so included were actually used by the person to whom you are replying. Troy referred to 'some perceived political gain' and you responded with "'a political loss'".

  10. Mike,
    Thanks for writing this post.
    I mean that sincerely. It was like a breath of fresh air to read anything about this from an American source.
    The questions you pose are real and require serious consideration.
    I find it disturbing, to say the least, that your attempt to reconcile the personality of this well known diplomat with the missions and eventually to the security nightmare that resulted in his tragic death are immediately dismissed as insane 'conspiracy theory' and tied into the election cycle somehow.
    This election-connection is equally disturbing in itself.
    While I can understand these incidents weighing on a decision of who (or which party) to vote for in the fall, I must stress this concern should be secondary.
    Of primary importance is that an ambassador has been killed and the US consular buildings sacked, attacked, and even pillaged all over the Muslim world - all surrounding the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks.
    As Dr Egnor asks: 'Why don't you want the circumstances of his murder to be investigated?'
    Does the election mean that much to you?
    If so, why?

    Here's my point in a nutshell:
    Someone is sending you a very powerful message.
    You can either
    A) Investigate the specifics of that message, 'decode' it, and the counter it with a reasonable response that works in the long term interests of the United States and her Allies - no matter the political price.
    Or, alternately if the politics are put before all other considerations you can always
    B) You can pretend that there was no 'conspiracy'. That 'random', 'spontaneous', or 'emergent' events have occurred. In effect you will be asserting something along the lines of 'some crappy, idiotic, low budget flick created a spontaneous global mob of idiots who just managed to over run a diplomatic outpost manned by contractors, marines, and a security detachment in a war zone - with former T1 people present. This all occurred by sheer random coincidence (of course!) on the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks.... '
    By why not, eh? After all 'shit happens'.

    Obviously, I say go for A, eh.

    1. Crus,

      Thanks for the support. This post seems to have made the lefties/dhimmis nuts.

      It just takes a little request for the truth to set them off.

    2. Michael and CrusadeRex,

      There's another potentially more probable conspiracy theory than the one you seem to favor. Our (ie America's) crazy fundamentalists conspired to upset their (ie islam's) crazy fundamentalists by making a cheap nasty film about Mohammed (whom I don't think existed anyway) in order to create anger amongst Muslims and confirming Christians' opinions of Muslims.

      And in the meantime, al Qaheda (or one of its franchises) decides to take advantage of the uproar by engaging in another one of their attacks. Another way in which Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq has made the West so much safer.


      You still don't get it. When you put something in quotation marks, such as 'a political loss', you're quoting someone. It would have been entirely correct to have left out the quotation marks, because politics is usually a zero-sum game.

      Putting words not used in quotation marks is fabricating quotes, similar to quoting incompletely out of context, both of which you do. Rather typical of creationists in general actually.

    3. single ' ' marks are a paraphrase. Double " " are a quote.

      Maybe it's different in Australia, but in the right-side-up part of the world, that's how it is.

    4. Michael,

      You don't have a clue (as usual). Have a look at the Wikipedia article on quotation marks. Single and double quotation marks are equivalent. Double ones generally preferred in America (and also Canada and Australia). Single ones in Britain. But they mean the same thing, they're a matter of personal preference, and indicate reported quotations. Nothing about paraphrasing. Occasionally used as 'scare' marks - indicating something that the reporter doubts - for example, being served with 'food', when the reporter doubts that it is.

      As you can see, I go for the British system, with single quote marks. I use double quote marks when I have to enclose single quote marks.

    5. Michael,

      And paraphrases are indirect speech, which don't have quotation marks. You're as clueless as to punctuation as you are with the meaning of words (remember 'imaginary'?)

  11. What’s really ironic is that when conservatives talk about hate crime laws they argue against even considering the victim’s sexuality when examining the motives of the perpetrator; fighting against any laws that give that motivation any weight whatsoever. Now, all of a sudden, we need an investigation to see if this terrorist act was also an anti-gay hate crime!

    Why the sudden concern? Because Egnor gets to say “Is the Obama administration in a lying frenzy to cover-up the fact that their incompetence and their idiotic effort to add a little Gay Pride to our foreign service”. What Egnor wants is a witch hunt.


    1. One can certainly argue about whether or not "hate" is an aggravating factor in sentencing for a crime.

      There is no question that hate is a factor to be considered in the investigation of a crime, as to motive.

      Why don't you care?

    2. I do care. I care enough to rant that I’m sick of right wing smear tactics. This whole thing is based on nothing more than a “friend of a friend says” rumor started on a right-wing bog and supported by what conservatives think are some gay looking old photos. You should at very least wait for the FBI to conclude its business instead of relying on anonymous “Lebanese intelligence” sources before going on about the Ambassadors’ anal rape.

      I don’t for a second believe that the men who perpetrated this attack would have done otherwise if they felt certain the ambassador was strait. As I said before, I can find no reference to Stevens being gay that pre-dates the attack. It strains credulity to think that some Muslim jihadists in a compound miles outside Bengasi would be obsessing about the rumored sex life of the American Ambassador. What did Hillary know and when did she know it? Who gives a shit, other than those who want score cheap political points based on rumors.

      You really are disgusting.


    3. Should we wait for the FBI report before we blame the attack on a You Tube video?

      Or do you have a double standard for what the media can discuss before the FBI reaches its conclusion?

    4. There was no protest at the consulate the day of the attack. This was a carefully planned military assault. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the video, which was used as a posttext by Muslim spinners and their dhimmi, like you.

      I don't claim that Stevens sexual orientation was the only motive, or even the major motive. The fact that he was the American ambassador is the obvious motive.

      But Muslim hatred of homosexuals may well have contributed to the hate, and have been the reason that he was raped.

      Again the question: why is the press incessantly invoking the bullshit video "motive", and not looking at other quite plausible motives?

    5. The first report I saw that suggested the assault on in Bengasi was something other than a manifestation of the video protest was on the Rachel Maddow show. Your assertion that the press in insisting this murder was the result of the video is a straw man.


    6. Good for Maddow.

      Why did the Obama administration stonewall for many days, insisting that it was the video and a spontaneous demonstration?

    7. Good question. I saw a an administration officials on the Sunday morning shows insisting that the attack was the result of the video after I saw the Maddow report on the attack. I wondered what the calculus was that lead her to be so insistent and thought she was making a serious mistake. A day or two later the administration seemed to get on the same page as everyone else, but by then they had opened themselves up for some legitimate criticism.


    8. Maddow is unusually smart for a leftie journalist, and although I can only watch her for brief periods (her sneer) she does occassionally do a decent job uncovering the truth, even about her buddies.

      If Maddow and conservative bloggers knew that the video rationale was bullshit, so did the State Department and the White House. They have access to all of the information.

      But. They. Lied. for days, in a coordinated effort to mislead the public. They knew they'd be caught, and have to change their story. So why lie?

      Here's my guess. They knew that they fucked up bigtime- the security was crap, they lost a ton of intelligence (in addition to the deaths), and it was an obvious inside job with a carefully planned professional attack. There may also be the gay issue-- they knew that they would be asked questions about the prudence of posting a gay ambassador in a hotbed of violent factions who hate gays.

      The Obamaoids knew that the truth would come out, but if they could delay it, fewer people would be paying attention, and they could get their media eunuchs in line and limit the electorial damage.

      Which is all they give a shit about.

    9. You may be right. It could very well have been a blundering political call. Personally I doubt the “gay ambassador” accusation has anything to do with it. They should have just shut up.

      I’m only speculating, but there may have been other reasons for them to send out misleading public messages. If it where up to me, I doubt I would want to announce to the public that we suspect it was an inside-job if the investigators didn’t have a real good handle on exactly what happened.

      I will say this. Regardless of the Ambassadors sexuality, you and your cohorts in the right wing blogoshere have provided the Muslim extremists with pages and pages of what they will claim are credible Americans giving evidence that they killed the gay American ambassador. You are giving them a reason to retroactively justify the riotousness of their actions. We have already seen shoes thrown at Clinton in Egypt because of Michele Bachmann / Glenn Beck conspiracy theories. You righties are making it worse by constantly trying to score cheap political points. Please try to keep in mind, that unfortunately for us all, religious Americans aren’t the only ones taking you seriously.


    10. @KW:

      "Cheap political points"?

      I'm not the really high government official lying about about the murder of our diplomats to protect my ass in this election season.

      I've noticed an amusing trait in you lefties.

      You invariably accuse conservatives of doing precisely what you are doing at the time. Freud called it "projection".

      It's the Obama administration and its groupies who are trying to score political points here, by redirecting valid questions about these murders and outright lying about the circumstances.

      When I ask honest questions, I'm accused of "trying to score cheap political points".

      You guys are lethal to an open democratic society.

    11. I’m not buying it. The Obama administration did itself no favors and some damage by initially insisting the murder was the result of the video. Hell, even I’m not supporting them on that decision, like I said; they should have just shut up.

      I doubt you’ve asked an honest question in years.


    12. Obama is still insisting that the video was the cause (his UN speech). He's still lying.

      The Administration did itself no damage by lying. The strategy is this: lie as long as you can, while the issue is hot. The truth will out, eventually, but by then it will be on page 28, with a cooperative press, after the election.

      Chicago Democrat politics.

  12. Thank you for bringing this to public awareness Dr Egnor. This is stunning and it explains a lot. Now it makes sense. The Obama administration is blaming an obscure video that no one had ever seen before this, but it wasn't the video. It was the Obama administration sending an openly homosexual man to serve in a country that hates homosexuality. Why the brain dead Obama zombies cant understand that is beyond me - well not really.