Thursday, September 13, 2012

US Ambassador Raped Then Killed Muslim News Service Claims

Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org says Ambassador Christopher Stevens was "reportedly raped" before he was murdered by Salafist thugs at the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya Tuesday night. The story is being widely quoted by blogs and news outlets including the Washington Times. But, the circular evidence isn't at all clear Ambassador Stevens was sexually assaulted if  "reportedly raped"... "in a manner similar to what happened with Gaddafi" is all the evidence we've got from a Middle East press that is notoriously inaccurate and sensationalist.


The original first paragraph Arabic is:
ذكرت مصادر وكالة الصحافة الفرنسية ان “السفير الامريكي في ليبيا تم إغتصابة جنسياً قبل قتله من قبل المسلحين الذين إقتحموا مبنى السفارة ببنغازي ليل امس إحتجاجاً على فيلم مسيء للنبي محمد (ص)”، واوضحت المصادر بأن “السفير تم قتله والتمثيل بجثته بطريقة مشابهة لما حصل مع القذافي قبيل قتله”.وقد افادت الأنباء:قتل سفير الولايات المتحدة في ليبيا كريستوفر ستيفنز وثلاثة موظفين اميركيين في هجوم استهدف مساء الثلاثاء 11-9-2012 مقر القنصلية الاميركية ببنغازي، كما اعلن الاربعاء مسؤول كبير في وزارة الداخلية الليبية لوكالة فرانس برس.
The rough Google translation from the Arabic most every outlet is using reads:
Sources AFP that "the U.S. ambassador to Libya was raped sexually before killing by gunmen who stormed the embassy building in Benghazi last night to protest against the film is offensive to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)," The sources said that "Ambassador was killed and representation of his body in a manner similar to what happened with Gaddafi, such as murder.
The bolded sentence, however, doesn't make sense.

Bing Translate clarifies the bolded sentence with a different dictionary:
Sources at Agence France-Presse that “US Ambassador in Libya was the rape of sexually before being killed by gunmen who stormed the Embassy building in Benghazi last night to protest the offensive movie of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) most, the sources said that the Ambassador was killed and “ mutilated his body in a manner similar to what happened with kadhafi as killers.
Because the computer translations lack the human touch, my translation reads:
Sources at Agence France-Presse report that the "US Ambassador in Libya was sexually raped before being killed by gunmen who stormed the Embassy building in Benghazi last night to protest the offensive movie about the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Most sources said that the "Ambassador was killed and his body was mutilated in a manner similar to what the killers did to Gaddafi's body."
The article says the Ambassador was "reportedly" sexually raped, abused in a manner similar to what happened to Gaddafi. It's been claimed the Libyan rebels sodomized Gaddafi before he was killed. The video and photographic evidence offered shows a rebel poking a stick into Gaddafi's anal area while the former strongman was fully clothed, but no anal penetration occurred as would be expected in an actual case of sodomy.

Rape and sodomy, however, are supposition and interpretation and dependent on our belief in the trustworthiness of a Middle East news source. What we do see in the camera-phone videos of Gaddafi's last minutes is that he was savagely beaten, kicked, slapped, stomped, spat upon, threatened, and  verbally abused. The Ambassador's body certainly shows definite signs of cruel physical beatings, but he is nearly fully clothed in all the photos. This is puzzling - why would the thugs remove the clothing, rape, and then redress? Modesty? I don't know. Muslims are contrarian about such things. Just as, why would Libyans attack the people who helped rid them of a tyrant?

"Reportedly" is also a loaded word that does not convey absolute certainty. Rather, it conveys doubt as these synonyms illustrate: allegedly, apparently, supposedly, by all accounts, reputedly, purportedly. The claim is rendered believable because raping and sodomizing a condemned person, according to Muslim beliefs, prevents that person from entering Paradise which is a place of endless sexual and sensual delights, the cruelest of punishments. That certainly seems like something a good Muslim would do because we know that it has, in fact, happened in other places to other people.

Was Ambassador Stevens sexually raped and sodomized as the Islamic sources claim, or is this another case of Muslims boasting they inflicted the worst possible punishment in their religion upon an enemy about to die?  I don't know. By only listening to Muslim witnesses, we'll never know because, as we should have learned by now, we can only believe 50% of what Muhammadans say half the time. Only an autopsy will prove sexual abuse, but that information will never be released by government or family.

It sure does sound like something Muslims would do, though.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

The Muhammad Film That Killed US Ambassador

The religion of peace is on the warpath again just as they were in 2006 over the Muhammad cartoons. This time, Salafist Muslims - ultra-uber-non icream eating-return to 7th century Muslims - attacked the US Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, breaching the walls, tearing down and burning the flag while in Libya the same Salafist Muslim organ stormed the Benghazi Consulate, killed the US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, a staff member, and two US Marines sent to repel the attack.

Ostensibly, the attackers say they are pissed-off because of a film made in the US by an American Jew that depicts the Prophet Muhammad in a bad light. LiveLeak says, "It appears to compare Mohammed to a goat and Muslims, according to, to "child-lovers." ... The man in the scene of his goat[sic - it's a donkey], "This is the first Muslim animal." He asks the goat if it likes girls; when it doesn't answer, he bursts into laughter and says, "He doesn't like girls," according to Stack. Other scenes in the above clip seem to portray Muslim Egyptian characters, who for some reason all have strong New York accents, as immoral and violent, particularly toward the Christians whom they pursue with near-genocidal fervor. A number of Islam's founding figures, including the prophet, are accused of homosexuality and child molestation."

The film is a little more than 13 minutes, poorly made, and uses translation in the crudest manner. The film goes by various titles - "Life of Muhammad," "Innocence of Muslims," "Muhammad's Trial" - possibly to thwart the efforts of video sites to remove it. The first video upload to You Tube was 2 months ago and have got 139,791 hits in that time til now - 5,017 likes, 14,984 dislikes. The same video host posted the Arabic dubbed version 1 week ago, receiving so far 142,980 hits, 328 likes, 9,393 dislikes.

Judge for yourself:



No matter our opinions and feelings concerning Islam(ptui), this film could have done nothing other that inflame Muslims. It does not help in any way, shape, or form. It only serves to stir the passions of the ignorant and manipulative on both sides of the battle lines. And now an American embassy people are dead with all the other personnel in a vastly more dangerous situation.

Obama & DNC Don't Know U.S. Navy from Russian

As retired Adm. John Nathman, former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored American veterans on the last night of the Democratic National Convention in Tampa, FL, the giant screen behind him displayed four massive warships reinforcing his patriotic message. The message was lost on no one. 

The ship's nationality, however, was lost on all but former electronics warfare technician, Rob Barker, who left the Navy in 2006. He learned to identify foreign naval vessels by their radar arrays. The four warships are Russian. He also believes the seven aircraft are US Navy F-5 trainers.

“The ships are definitely Russian. There’s no question of that in my mind,” said noted naval author Norman Polmar.


The background — featured in the carefully choreographed hour leading up to the president’s Sept. 6 speech accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination — showed four ships with radar designs not used in the U.S. fleet.

For example, the ship in the foreground, on the far right, has a square radar antenna at the top of its masthead. That is the MR-700 Podberezovik 3-D early warning radar, commonly identified as “Flat Screen” for its appearance, a three-dimensional early warning radar mounted on the Kerch, said Eric Wertheim, editor of “Combat Fleets of the World.”

Similarly, the third ship has a MR-310 “Head Net” air search radar, shaped like two off-set bananas, at its masthead and is mostly likely the guided missile destroyer Smetlivyy. The first two ships seem to be Krivak-class frigates, but it’s hard to discern from the silhouette, experts said.

But the fact they are Russian ships is not in doubt. In addition to the ship’s radar arrays and hulls, which are dissimilar from U.S. warships, the photo features one more give-away: a large white flag with a blue ‘X’ at the ships’ sterns.

Polmar, who authored “The Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy,” recognized the blue ‘X’-mark: “The X is the Cross of St. Andrew’s, which is a Russian Navy symbol,” Polmar said. (An anchored U.S. warship, by contrast, flies the American flag on its stern.)

Based on this specific group of these ship types, one naval expert concluded that this was most likely a photo of the Black Sea Fleet.
Obama and the Democrats truly dislike the US military when they have so little respect as to pronounce jobs correctly (corpse man), don't know an Admiral from a General, and can't recognize their own Naval Fleet from any other. This sad and pathetic group of morons must go.