Why is this relevant?
Dear Lord....are you kidding?
First, I heard he was sodomized before he was murdered. Now this is a rumor I heard somewhere but comme on, if so it will come out sooner or later.
Second, this administration sent a gay man to be ambassador to a Muslim country?
This is very relevant I think.
Because diplomatically speaking, sending a gay man to an area that murders them is stupid foreign policy. Say nothing of asking for an international incident by shoving it in their faces.
France or the UK? Fine. They don’t kill gays for their sex lives. Koranimals do.
It isn’t. Regardless of what we may think of homosexuality, what was done to this man was an evil, evil thing. These articles simply distract from the real issue, which is that muslim terrorists are continuing to wage war on our country.
Because a known homosexual should not have been sent as ambassador to a muslim country where muslims kill homosexuals!
As the blog post notes, “ “it was stupid to send him to Libya as the ambassador when he was a known homosexual”.
There is more at the link.
Hillbuzz is written by a gay guy in Chicago who was heavily involved in Dem politics pre-Obama. Not an 0 supporter now.
the relevance is that Obama put him at an increased risk level based on his sexual orientation. Not good judgement.
It is extremely relevant.
I’m tired of the double standard.
Those who reject God, insist homosexuality is good and moral.
If he was homosexual that might well explain the attack.
Those who insist homosexuality must be acceptable, sure seem to scurry into the shadows whenever events bear out that others who aren’t Christian kill homosexuals from a legalistic perspective judging unrighteousness and demanding a worldly judgment.
The homosexual community is anything but Christian. So why aren’t they adamantly defending one of their own?
One plausible explanation is that is simply a war upon those who are Christian, no matter what the cost.
When reality steps in and others who seek to judge by murdering those whom they perceive as unrighteous, homosexuality already knows it isn’t righteous, but is at risk for being judged by righteous and unrighteous alike.
It’s relevant, because maybe the liberals will actually care if he’s “one of them”.
Kind of like how all the Democrats suddenly got patriotic when Hitler attacked “Uncle Joe” Stalin.
Ambassador Stevens was repeatedly raped both before and after his death. The reason he was killed was because he was a homosexual.
The Obama Administration and the MSM are spreading the lie that Ambassador Stevens was killed because of some obscure film that no one had ever heard of. The real reason Stevens was killed is because he was a homosexual.
Ambassadors are sent to other countries to build relationships. They are sent to hostile regions to get the sides talking to each other. They do so by finding some common ground amongst the parties, and then building upon that common ground.
Imagine how a conversation might go:
"I'm Chris Stevens, ambassador from the United States. I'm pleased to meet you."
Over time, conversation would turn to family and what life is like in the West. It would be a way for the parties to understand: 1) what experience each is coming from, and 2) their ability to relate to the experiences of the others.
When Ambassador Stevens says he is not married and has no children, no gilfriends, no tales of dating to share with the others in a moment of "guy talk," what would you expect the presumptions to be?
Moving away from this topic to the larger issues, I believe he was likely assassinated because he was good at his job. Given that he was fluent in the language, and was willing to be secreted into the country on a cargo ship, likely working from safe-houses with cardboard boxes as office equipment, I'm sure he earned the trust of the parties he negotiated with. I'm guessing that he was too successful at getting the parties to at least be willing to talk to one another first. This, by itself, could be seen as a threat to al Qaeda, who would rather see the parties shooting at each other instead of talking to each other.
That made Steven a threat and a target. There likely wasn't a deep bench behind Stevens to fill the void if he were taken out. That made him a valuable target to disrupt progress. Taking out Stevens would set back gains in the region and force diplomacy to start over.
-PJ