Slain ambassador to Libya aided the jihadists who later murdered him

Sadly, so true. After all the aid and money we give them, all muslims care about is lifting their asses five times a day and killing non-muslims

Seriously, how long will it take before our leaders understand this?

Eight years I've been reading JW and the message has been the same all along. Only when the idiots-Clintons, Obamas, top brass, etc -steal that message and make it their own will it suddenly become a mainstream message. And the idiots will pretend they developed it and promoted it, and will not give a modicum of due to the Spencers and Gellers. And how could idiots give credit after calling counter-jihad freedom fighters names all these years, then heisting their message?

If they knew what is in the Koran their make believe world would collapse.

Look, if Ambassador Stevens 'deserved' what happened to him, then every American victim of jihad violence who at some point understated the evil of jihad would deserve it, correct?

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but "understated the evil of jihad"? Seriously? That's all that you think this fellow is guilty of? After studying these environments and populations for years he actively implemented policies that anyone with such experience should have known would end in disaster, and which affect us all because he was blinded by his peace-nik narcissism. As I've said before, I don't like to hear about anyone being murdered, and I condemn this savagery and these savages, but this fellow was guilty, at the least, of criminal negligence on a global scale that could, and may still, result in the death of all of us. That's a world of difference from your average American Granny who just doesn't know a whole lot about the subject. Your comparison is ludicrous. And I don't consider him a hero by any means. Going back for the other diplomats was the least he could do given how badly he screwed this up. He was an idiot who has harmed us all and helped rob us of billions. And maybe if enough of his like-minded dolts in Washington meet the same fate, we can finally get people into these positions who are less narcissistic and have some semblance of an intellect.

And I don't know what you could mean by comparing him to the victims of 9/11. And what does international finance have to do with it? Unless maybe you can prove that any of the World Trade Center victims should have known that Sharia finance was a component of the global jihad, yet actively advanced it anyway, there's no case for a comparison there, if then.

Thank you for your comment of decency.

In the midst of so much spite and hatred.

gotta love those cow bells
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcjolqpKR4g

As to your first paragraph, I would agree with the basic facts. Given that the ambassador reportedly died doing his duty to secure the safety of others, I disagree with your tone.

As to your second paragraph you wrote "Unless maybe you can prove that any of the World Trade Center victims should have known that Sharia finance was a component of the global jihad, yet actively advanced it anyway, there's no case for a comparison there, if then." which you wrote in response to my comment "By that logic a large number of the 9/11/2001 victims, especially those involved in international finance, COULD be said to have 'deserved' what happened to them".

All right, since you want to go down that road, let's do it. Pretend that proof exists that some 9/11/2001 victims advanced Sharia financing, or handled money transfers from Muslim oil states to build mosques in the U.S. or to finance chairs at U.S. universities, or to purchase stock in U.S. media corporations, all of which advance the stealth jihad. BTW, it is a reasonable supposition that such things did happen sometimes in the World Trade Center. Pretend that we have proof of such activities. Would you then say that these victims 'deserved' what happened to them? Please answer. If your answer is no then I'd like to know substantially why you would see them differently - different job title isn't enough.

I'm sorry, but the farthest I would go in criticizing Ambassador Stevens would be along the lines of Robert Spencer's article and gravenimage's posts. Any further would be mean, distasteful, and counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve here.

Get lost troll.

Meryl Petkoff wrote:

Andrew Brown, from... yep, The Guardian:

'Some Movies Should Be Banned, there is good reason to ban the hateful anti-Muhammad YouTube clips'
...............................

Thanks for the link, Meryl.

The moronic Andrew Brown writes:

"The beliefs criticised are entirely imaginary".

But they *aren't*.

Of the clip I've seen and the ones described by Brown, the film cites the "Prophet" speaking to Yaf'oor the female-hating donkey; his voiding his adoption of Zeyd so that he can marry his adopted son's wife, Zainab; his rape of little Aisha; the drawing and quartering of his critic, the elderly woman Umm Qirfa, by camels; and the Muslim hordes giving their victims the choice of Jizya or death.

I agree-this film is not particularly well made. Whether this is bad low-budget film making or a satiric comment on its subject matter, I have no idea.

But the stories that I have seen *are straight from Muslim texts*—**not** from critics of Islam.

The only difference is that these stories are not presented in a positive light, as Muslims would present them. Well, that, and the fact that—gasp!-they have the temerity to depict the "Prophet" Muhammed. (He looks like an American hippy in the movie—actually, a rather too-pleasant portrayal, to my mind).

So—it's the usual. The appalling stories of Islam are just fine—so long as one considers them a "model of conduct" If one does not, then there must be blood.

I've also heard that the film maker—like cartoonist Molly Norris before him—has been forced into hiding over threats of Muslim violence.

Islam and its Western dhimmi enablers-a match made in Jahannam...

We're the "mirror image" of the savage, violent muslim supremacists except we're not storming the Libyan and Egyptian embassies in our countries and murdering their ambassadors.

We're "mirror images" of the typical savage, violent muslim supremacists except we're not howling for the deaths of "those who insulted/disrespected us."

Seriously, you muslim supremacists and leftist dhimmi whores are egregiously dishonest cretins.

If we were "mirror images" of muslim supremacists who have absolutely no self-control there would be murdered muslim supremacists who had nothing to do with this act of muslim supremacy in the United States at this moment.

"Any further would be mean, distasteful, and counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve here."

I'll tell you what's mean, distasteful and counterproductive to all human rights and decency: the way that Ambassador Stevens chose to live his life. He used his intelligence, influence and position to endanger our lives. That doesn't mean I advocate killing him, nor "gloat" at his massacre at the hands of Muslims. But nothing anyone can say can change the fact that Ambassador Stevens lived an abjectly shameful life, energetically pursuing pathetically reckless goals in the name of the very worst of PC MC.

He doesn't get to acquire the halo of "heroism" just because he was stupid enough to try to befriend his, and our, enemy. No sir.

This just in too! Movie was made by a muslim! pretext is a hoax!

NPR found that Mr. Bacile doesn't exist. An associate of his on the movie said he wasn't Jewish or Israeli like the man who told BUT WAS MIDDLE EASTERN!!!!

This movie was made by a muslim.

Reichstag fire anyone?

No, Stevens gets to be called a hero for trying to save the lives of other Americans.

Your misattribution of my motive in calling Stevens a hero is simply wrong. BTW, I have noticed that others on today's threads have complained about similar misattributions you have made about them. Why do you do it? Many of your basic arguments are sound, so I see no reason for you to play the games that you do.

I'm glad you are not gloating about the death of Ambassador Stevens. Please note that I began these comments because one person DID gloat.

Finally, my original point on this thread stands: if all of the things that you say about Stevens are true - not just the facts, but the tone - then what you say definitely applies to the large majority of Westerners. If you really want to prevail in this civilizational conflict then you need to avoid insulting the potential converts to our side. We will not win with this kind of debate.

Hey, stink-ie ...

Hop on y'er high horse and ride on out of here, buck-o! ...your stinkin' up the place with your horseshit.

Tom Davis,

You're right -- the Ambassador's efforts to save (non-Muslim) lives is heroic. He also managed to be colossally reckless in every way I described otherwise, about which I cannot see any good reason to take back one word. I suppose if someone supported Hitler enthusiastically and devoted his life to helping a budding Nazi regime, but then saved some American lives at the moment the Nazis were butchering him and them, he'd be heroic. Life can be complicated like that. That shouldn't detract from our ability to keep our eye on the ball, rather than get distracted by pleasant colorful mobiles drifting down from the ceiling.

In short, you are equating perpetrators with victims. Stevens was a perpetrator. The killed of 9/11 were victims (despite your feeble attempts to turn them into perpetrators with absurd hypotheticals about what assets may or may not have crossed their desks). You are exercising the same kind of moral equivalence on an internal level that jihadis and Leftists foist on us on a global level.

This slimebag was a collaborator. And he was so dumb that they should rule his death a suicide. Treason is treason. There's nothing "distasteful" about calling it what it is.

You wrote, bizarrely: '...most people here, including Spencer, are happy and gloating over the Ambassador's death.'

The murder of this American ambassador by Islam, is no different compared to the 250 million murders by Islam over the last 1,400 years, or so.

Do you think we at JW would gloat over these 250 million murders? No! So, we have no reason to gloat over this one, or the murders in the name of Islam that will take place today, and tomorrow, and the next day, and so on, and on, and on.

You're a clown!

LemonLime, you wrote,

I suppose if someone supported Hitler enthusiastically and devoted his life to helping a budding Nazi regime, but then saved some American lives at the moment the Nazis were butchering him and them, he'd be heroic. Life can be complicated like that.

But don't you have to distinguish the well-meaning fool from the pathologically malignant person? The first would be the dupe who didn't see Hitler's totalitarianism, or thought it would pass, and "supported" the Germans of the 1930s in a belief they might thus reform and modernize. The second type would be not merely a dupe, but a malignant person who sees the totalitarianism and actually wants it to succeed in its plans to conquer the world. Falling asleep at the wheel is different from first degree murder. We all, in one way or another, fall asleep at the wheel.

traeh,

I agree that (using my terminology) PC MCs are for the most part not to be vilified, and even many Leftists I would include in that category -- reserving vilification for a rather small minority of ultra-Leftists (e.g., the gold standard, Noam Chomsky). I agree that Ambassador Stevens seems to have been a PC MC -- solidly so -- but certainly not a Chomskyite type ultra-Leftist. Unfortunately, in our time, one doesn't have to be a Chomskyite type ultra-Leftist to be enthusiastically enabling the West's worst enemy in all history -- because the worldview of PC MC is just that colossally stupid.

I also agree that if I saw Ambassador Stevens being lynched, I wouldn't hesitate to try to save him. His wrongheadedness, as outrageous and reckless as it was, should not be deemed a crime or treason, but a grievous error of judgement to be rectified by persuasion if possible -- and/or better yet, by firing his ass, not allowing him to be employed in any capacity where his PC MC can influence policy, mercilessly critiquing his worldview, and perhaps suing him if possible.

Nonetheless, perhaps you do not know enough of the facts about how thoroughly PC MC Stevens was, and how deep in camelshit he was in terms of helping our enemy. The JW commenter "buraq_is_dead" helpfully provided the following information about him:

For his second tour in Libya, Stevens was sent to rebel headquarters in Benghazi, Libya, to serve as special representative to the Libyan Transitional National Council. He arrived on a Greek cargo ship on April 5, 2011 and stayed until November. His mission was to forge stronger links with the Interim Transitional National Council, and gain a better understanding of the various factions fighting the Gadhafi regime. His reports back to Washington were said to have encouraged the U.S. to support the rebel council, which the Obama administration did formally in July 2011.

http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/ambassador-to-libya-who-is-chris-stevens?news=844191

And this is the video, with which the ambassador introduced himself to the mohammedans. Disgusting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_SIIxholL4

About that video, "buraq_is_dead" is absolutely correct. Stevens's beaming healthy idiocy is so positively saturated in the benighted idealism of PC MC, it turns the stomach, aggrieves the soul, and breaks the heart.

His murder should be kept separate from his life. The former was tragic and lamentable; the latter was tragicomic and ... lamentable.

Al Qaida's

Or boa constrictor or python, with even worse results.

"In short, you are equating perpetrators with victims. Stevens was a perpetrator. The killed of 9/11 were victims (despite your feeble attempts to turn them into perpetrators with absurd hypotheticals [sic] about what assets may or may not have crossed their desks)."

BS. I was not turning the 9/11/2001 victims into perpetrators. I was showing that they were NOT perpetrators, and thus by the same reasoning Stevens was not a perpetrator. Your logic is deficient due to you animus against the man.

"You are exercising the same kind of moral equivalence on an internal level that jihadis and Leftists foist on us on a global level."

BS. I am writing that a U.S. ambassador who is likely guilty of moral equivalence is not guilty of worse.

"This slimebag was a collaborator. And he was so dumb that they should rule his death a suicide. Treason is treason. There's nothing "distasteful" about calling it what it is."

Treason is not treason if the majority of people besides us don't see our enemies as our enemies. And I need to point out again that that majority will not listen to you with your current tone. You are not helping.

"But don't you have to distinguish the well-meaning fool from the pathologically malignant person? The first would be the dupe who didn't see Hitler's totalitarianism, or thought it would pass, and "supported" the Germans of the 1930s in a belief they might thus reform and modernize. The second type would be not merely a dupe, but a malignant person who sees the totalitarianism and actually wants it to succeed in its plans to conquer the world. Falling asleep at the wheel is different from first degree murder. We all, in one way or another, fall asleep at the wheel."

I agree completely. Thanks.

Interesting that you quote "His [Stevens] reports back to Washington were said to have encouraged the U.S. to support the rebel council, which the Obama administration did formally in July 2011."

It's not surprising. In fact I wrote above that "Stevens may have supported, implemented, and even advised favorably for a very misguided policy. " This was easy to anticipate. The flip side is, of course, that the Obama administration was so uncritically receptive to that message.

"Reports are coming in that the ambassador was raped before being tortured and murdered. Sexual humiliation and degradation of infidels is very important in Islam"

Certainly there are photos which show Ambassador Stevens being held in a bent-over position by the mob. These reports are creditable.

In the clearer photos you can see the effects of smoke inhalation on his upper lip, so the 'death by asphyxiation' report is creditable also.

So, we must conclude that these monsters either sodomized the ambassador as he was dying, or else they perpetrated necrophilia. Perhaps both.

"The flip side is, of course, that the Obama administration was so uncritically receptive to that message."

That's not a flip side -- it's the same side. If Obama agrees with some abysmal idiot, that hardly exculpates the idiot in question.

"That's not a flip side -- it's the same side."

You are too picky and too quick to judge. I did not mean my comment in the sense of a difference in opinion or policy, but in the sense of a difference of communication roles. Ambassadors are at one end of the communications pipeline, and the State Department is at the other. When the State Department tells ambassadors what to do that is one side, and then when ambassadors reply with so-called intelligence, observations, and assessments the pipeline flips to the opposite direction.

Just cut it out.

Hi!

I watched the whole clip which is about 44 minutes. A must this video.

Dr. Bill Warner explains the history of jihad. He explains the Crusades. Fascinating video for people who want to understand the devastation (murders, rapes, slavery, etc.) Islam has meant in the last 1400 years for the Christians, the Jews, the Hindus. Send this especially to people who are less familiar with the history of Islam. Dr. Warner use many visuals and it very easy to follow.

Thank you.

Isabella

'According to a Libyan politician'.

According to a Libyan Muslim politician.

Remember: Muslims lie.

Why should not this claim be false?

I will only believe it if Stephens' own non-Muslim family members and / or non-Muslim colleagues confirm it.