Gay Patriot Header Image

YAY ARAB SPRING!
12 Men Accused Of Being Gay Face Execution In Libya

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 12:37 pm - November 26, 2012.
Filed under: Islamic Intolerance,Islamic War on Gays

VIA BUZZFEED:

According to Gay Star News (GSN), the militia captured the men during a private party in Ain Zara, a suburb of Tripoli, on Thursday, November 22. Since then, the “special deterrence unit” has posted pictures to its Facebook page referring to the men as the “third sex,” an Arabic term to describe homosexuals, and they are threatening to harm (and kill) the men. The pictures have been filled with comments, such as “flog them hard!”

Human Rights Watch Libya posted a comment to the militia’s Facebook page asking that the group not harm the men and “to hand [them] to the civil authorities.”

The militia group, which claims to be a legal part of the Libyan Ministry of Interior, has not responded. The human rights group has since identified them as the Al-Nawasi militia — a group of extreme Salafists.

Aw, it’s okay… they will only murder the gays in Libya if they find out they watched that nasty anti-Islam video that Barack Obama and Susan Rice spoke about.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

158 Comments

  1. I didn’t say that gay activists should shut up about any perceived problems where they live. The point I am trying to make is that many gays will not seem to acknowledge that Muslims are worse, or even as bad, as Christians. That isn’t very difficult.

    Oh you’re so full of shit. If you rounded up a bunch of gays and ask them if they’d prefer to be taken into custody by anti-gay, American Christians or radical Muslims, every single one of them would pick the Christians. American gays understand radical Muslims are the bad guys. All of this is understood and should go without saying, but you need everybody to spell it out for you? That doesn’t make sense. If someone is making a point about why gay marriage should be legalized that involves criticizing the Christian religion, you really feel it’s necessary and worth your time to demand that they state that the Christians aren’t as bad as the Muslims? That’s stupid, and it’s used as an excuse to cut off the debate by the people with the weaker argument. Gays and liberals lived through 9-11, too, and just because you’re frightened of the terrorists and want to talk about how horrible and scary they are (which is exactly what they’d want you to be doing, I might add) doesn’t mean the rest of us should temper our arguments or worry about offending some Christian’s sense of entitlement.

    Not to mention, again, the absolutely ridiculous uses many gay activists use their efforts for (for example, glitter bombs, outrage over Chick-fil-A, writing op-eds over how traitorous gay conservatives are, general histrionics, et cetera), instead of doing something constructive (which other gay activists actually do with results).

    This has nothing to do with what we’re talking about, but why is this a problem? I think glitter bombs are more appropriate than screaming at teenagers going into abortion clinics. And who’s to say their activities haven’t been constructive? Gay marriage just won 4 out of 4 decisions this past election.

    As for Iraq, I didn’t say it was executed perfectly or that Bush was entirely competent.

    Understatement of the year!

    What I will say is that the West is better off not having Saddam Hussein threaten it with WMD’s or by creating instability. And Iraqis are better off not having a genocidal dictator in power. Was there a country that would have been better focused on? Perhaps, but that seems like a good candidate.

    It’s hard to argue we’re better off. Saddam was contained, had no weapons, and was not a primary financier of terrorist operations. He’s gone, and that’s about all that can be said. Invading that country is going to end up costing us a few trillion dollars, we ruined our credibility as a moral authority and as a source of reliable intelligence, and oh yeah there are whole generations of terrorists that are pissed off at us. That’s too high a cost to only be able to say, “At least Saddam’s not in charge anymore!”

    And my issue with Obama’s actions in Libya is philosophical to a large extent, and my disagreements with his philosophy of “leading from behind” are reinforced by how unstable Libya is right now. Regardless of Bush’s failures (or successes) in Iraq, the Libya campaign was a failure that could have likely been prevented if Obama had more aggressive.

    Oh my god, this is inane. You make it sound like Obama went into the White House on his first day, asked for the Foreign Policy Philosophy Menu, and asked, “How’s the Leading from Behind? I think I’ll have that!” I’d ask you what the the hell that even means, but you don’t know. Tell me, what part of killing Osama bin Laden involved ‘Leading from Behind’? You know what I think is nice about Libya? We went in with lots of allies, we went in a way that didn’t put anybody at risk, we only spent a few billion dollars on the entire thing, and now we’re pretty much done with it. And here you come complaining about Obama not being aggressive enough? What is that supposed to mean? What, do you want boots on the ground? Do you want an open-ended engagement that lasts for a decade? Would you have preferred if Obama spent 6 months lying to the American people about how Libya was just about ready to attack us with nuclear weapons? Is that what you mean by aggressive?

    And you wonder why I accuse of not understanding why Bush and Iraq were such unmitigated disasters….

    Anyway, every failure in Iraq was Bush’s fault, but I guess Obama gets a pass.

    Bush chose to invade. He wasn’t thrust into his circumstances, Obama was. And some of those circumstances involved the continued fallout of George Bush’s terrible policies in the Middle East. Bush reshaped the region, do you understand this? When the final history of the world is written, the decisions that George Bush made in the early 21st century will figure prominently in entries about the Middle East. This is what happens when you start wars based on lies that you’re too stupid and lazy to coordinate effectively. Yes, Iraq is ALL George Bush’s fault, and so are many of the other conflicts in the Middle East.

    I’ll close by reminding you that Obama has repeatedly stated that he takes full responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. Never got that from Bush. Bush had excuses every step of the way, first it was the intelligence community giving him false information, then it was the liberals who didn’t support the mission and the troops, then it was the Iranians for sabotaging the reconstruction efforts. Obama’s done a lot of horrible stuff with drone strikes and kill lists, and for this he should be harshly criticized. But his intervention in Libya (along with NATO) was a model for how we’re supposed to use our military. Bush didn’t do a single thing correctly and has still never owned up to it. It’s disgusting, and a permanent stain on your credibility, that conservatives let him get away with it.

    Comment by Levi — November 28, 2012 @ 8:31 pm - November 28, 2012

  2. If you rounded up a bunch of gays and ask them if they’d prefer to be taken into custody by anti-gay, American Christians or radical Muslims, every single one of them would pick the Christians.

    I’m sure they would. But they don’t have the integrity to actually say that. Or if they do, it doesn’t look like it.

    If someone is making a point about why gay marriage should be legalized that involves criticizing the Christian religion, you really feel it’s necessary and worth your time to demand that they state that the Christians aren’t as bad as the Muslims?

    No. That is not what I said.

    doesn’t mean the rest of us should temper our arguments or worry about offending some Christian’s sense of entitlement.

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    This has nothing to do with what we’re talking about, but why is this a problem?

    It isn’t a problem. It is just stupid. And please show me where it was justified for people to scream at teenagers.

    I’d ask you what the the hell that even means, but you don’t know.

    Sure I do. It means that he waits for other people to make decisions (NATO, the UN, etc), that he favours a “weak” foreign policy that isn’t as concerned with getting things done as much as it is with appeasement of enemies and worrying about the US’s “image,” etc.

    Tell me, what part of killing Osama bin Laden involved ‘Leading from Behind’?

    This is stupid. Just about any person would have done exactly the same thing, and sooner if it is true that he waited.

    What is that supposed to mean? What, do you want boots on the ground? Do you want an open-ended engagement that lasts for a decade? Would you have preferred if Obama spent 6 months lying to the American people about how Libya was just about ready to attack us with nuclear weapons? Is that what you mean by aggressive?

    An aggressive foreign policy would make it clear to Islamists that the United States (or whatever country) will not tolerate them, and would use force to prevent them from getting into power.

    He wasn’t thrust into his circumstances, Obama was.

    Yes, because he is a servant to the UN and NATO.

    Bush reshaped the region, do you understand this?

    The region has been unstable for a long time, long before Bush invaded Iraq. There were terrorists in the region before then, and there were radical Islamists before then. The Iraq War may have changed the dynamics of the region, but Iraq has a lot of strategic value (particularly with Iran’s threatening regime) and it makes sense to try to establish some stability there (even if I don’t necessarily agree with doing that).

    It’s disgusting, and a permanent stain on your credibility, that conservatives let him get away with it.

    No conservative is too concerned with your opinion of conservatism’s credibility anyway.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 29, 2012 @ 12:40 am - November 29, 2012

  3. Correction: Please show me where I said it was justified for people to scream at teenagers.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 29, 2012 @ 12:42 am - November 29, 2012

  4. One has to remember, Rattlesnake, that Levi is a supporter of statutory rape, so he’s obsessed with being able to cover his tracks.

    Meanwhile, Levi just lied himself into a corner, given his constant screaming and crying that Christians are just as bad as Muslims and want to murder all gays. It just shows that he’s a desperate and malicious little bigot who will say and do anything to avoid taking responsibility for his words.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2012 @ 1:53 am - November 29, 2012

  5. Again Levi ignores the obvious.

    Fact: Regime change was the policy of the US towards Iraq as of 1998 (But then Levi believes Karl Rove has a time machine)

    Fact: Iraq did fund terrorist groups

    But hey, Fascists like Levi keep shouting the big lie over and over.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 29, 2012 @ 8:07 am - November 29, 2012

  6. I’m sure they would. But they don’t have the integrity to actually say that. Or if they do, it doesn’t look like it.

    If someone is making a point about why gay marriage should be legalized that involves criticizing the Christian religion, you really feel it’s necessary and worth your time to demand that they state that the Christians aren’t as bad as the Muslims?

    No. That is not what I said.

    It is what you’re saying! You want to undermine gays and discredit their criticisms of Christians by implying that they prefer (or are at least indifferent to) radical Islam. This is a favorite tactic of conservatives and it was used to great effect in the 2004 election, when all the anti-war liberals’ arguments were diminished and ignored by conservatives accusing liberals of preferring (or at least being indifferent to) radical Islam.

    This is standard operating procedure for conservatives facing criticism; ignore the argument, deny the evidence, and accuse your adversary of a glaring personality defect. The conservatives gets to sidestep having to defend their archaic and hateful religious beliefs, and then the conversation becomes a test for how their opponent to prove they don’t hate America.

    It’s what you’re doing whether you admit to it or not.

    doesn’t mean the rest of us should temper our arguments or worry about offending some Christian’s sense of entitlement.

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Christians in particular hate challenges to their religious beliefs and think that they’re entitled to special circumstances when they’re debating. These special circumstances involve, but are not limited to, providing no evidence for anything they say and invoking god as a final authority. If this doesn’t work, Christians roll up into a ball and claim that they’re being picked on, persecuted, discriminated against, and at this stage are extremely prone to lashing out with ridiculous nonsense such as, “But you don’t care about radical Muslims killing gays in the Middle East!”

    I think religion has had it too easy for too long, and that these cowards’ tactics should be exposed and ridiculed.

    Sure I do. It means that he waits for other people to make decisions (NATO, the UN, etc), that he favours a “weak” foreign policy that isn’t as concerned with getting things done as much as it is with appeasement of enemies and worrying about the US’s “image,” etc.

    As I said, you don’t even know what that means. It’s great you can gargle up some talking points, but you’re not making any kind of case.

    Why is waiting for other people to make decisions a bad thing? It’s nice having allies and friends, you know? Are there, like, some examples, or whatever?

    Obama’s not concerned with getting things done…. what is that supposed to mean? What hasn’t he gotten done? We’re out of Iraq, continuing our timetable for withdrawal in Afghanistan, killed Osama bin Laden.

    What has Obama done to appease our enemies? When Obama killed Osama, was he appeasing our enemies then?

    Oh my god, somebody is worried about the US’s image! WHAT A MORON! Doesn’t Obama realize that image is nothing, that image has never helped American diplomacy?

    Yeah, you’re good at reciting these little platitudes that you’ve picked up in the conservative thinking swamps, but none of these things really mean anything without specifics and details.

    This is stupid. Just about any person would have done exactly the same thing, and sooner if it is true that he waited.

    Oh really? Well, when the conservatives had control of government, they didn’t do exactly the same thing. Bush said on camera a few months after 9-11 that he didn’t worry about Osama Bin Laden at all. Remember when we invaded Iraq? There’s widespread consensus among our intelligence community that that was our best opportunity to get Osama Bin Laden, but Bush decided to invade Iraq instead. So actually, it isn’t the case that any person would have done exactly the same thing.

    Do you know how history works? I mean, some of this shit you’re saying, it’s as if you came out of a coma during Obama’s inauguration with no memory of the George Bush years.

    Love the little dig about how it would have happened sooner if it’s true that he waited…. this is more of your ‘be aggressive’ cheerleading that you think counts as rational foreign policy advice. The bottom line is that Bush failed to get Osama bin Laden for 7 years, and Obama got him in 2.

    An aggressive foreign policy would make it clear to Islamists that the United States (or whatever country) will not tolerate them, and would use force to prevent them from getting into power.

    No, I was asking you for specifics. You’re just saying ‘aggressive’ like that is some universally agreed upon definition. What would you do? Invade the country? How many troops? With allies or without? Are we rebuilding or just bombing?

    You’re talking in platitudes that mean nothing. Oh, we’re supposed to make it clear to the Islamists that we won’t tolerate them….. WELL HOW? What do you mean we’re going to use force to prevent them from getting into power? Is that the role of our government? We’re supposed to ‘use force’ to prevent people from getting into power that we don’t like?

    About that – one of the major consequences of the Iraq War was that we traded an enemy we knew and understood for dozens of enemies that we didn’t understand or in many cases didn’t know about. That’s what happens when you drop a western military into a region that’s been culturally divergent from our own for thousands of years. Yeah, we got rid of Saddam, but ever since we’ve been playing whack-a-mole with the people trying to fill the power vacuum. You might think someone is a terrible dictator that needs to be removed from power, but the reality is you’re taking a huge gamble in removing them because you never know who or what is going to replace them. THESE ARE THE LESSONS OF IRAQ. The United States does not have the power to magically fix countries in the Middle East. And here you are, basically recommending we do the same thing. That’s not smart.

    Yes, because he is a servant to the UN and NATO.

    What’s wrong with having allies? Our allies were right about WMD in Iraq. Wouldn’t that have been a nice mistake to avoid? The cool thing about the UN and NATO is that it gives the west an opportunity to intervene in conflicts without putting all of the risk on one country. Iraq is going to cost us a few trillion dollars, Libya cost us a few billion – since we had our allies!

    The region has been unstable for a long time, long before Bush invaded Iraq. There were terrorists in the region before then, and there were radical Islamists before then. The Iraq War may have changed the dynamics of the region, but Iraq has a lot of strategic value (particularly with Iran’s threatening regime) and it makes sense to try to establish some stability there (even if I don’t necessarily agree with doing that).

    During the Bush administration, Iraq under American rule was far less stable than it was under Saddam. Got that? Bush couldn’t run Iraq better than Saddam could. I mean not even close. Hell, the training and recruitment opportunities alone will be spawning extremists and resentment against the West for decades to come. Nobody is saying the Middle East was a walk in the park before Bush took power, but there’s no doubt that he left it much worse off than he found it by the time he left.

    No conservative is too concerned with your opinion of conservatism’s credibility anyway.

    Oh yeah, I know. You guys can just squirrel all this George Bush/Iraq War stuff down into the memory hole. Must be nice to never have to answer for your humiliating failures, huh?

    Comment by Levi — November 29, 2012 @ 12:46 pm - November 29, 2012

  7. And again, presented with facts, Levi continues to yell his lies louder.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 29, 2012 @ 1:42 pm - November 29, 2012

  8. This is too precious.

    Christians in particular hate challenges to their religious beliefs and think that they’re entitled to special circumstances when they’re debating. These special circumstances involve, but are not limited to, providing no evidence for anything they say and invoking god as a final authority. If this doesn’t work, Christians roll up into a ball and claim that they’re being picked on, persecuted, discriminated against, and at this stage are extremely prone to lashing out with ridiculous nonsense such as, “But you don’t care about radical Muslims killing gays in the Middle East!”

    Comment by Levi — November 29, 2012 @ 12:46 pm – November 29, 2012

    And then Levi rants and screams about those who insult Islam and calls for those who blaspheme against it or burn Korans to be put in jail.

    That’s what makes Levi such a blatant and obvious bigot. Levi supports and endorses bans on blasphemy, imprisoning people who criticize Islam, and insists that Islamists should be allowed to do whatever they want. In addition, Levi endorses and supports violent Islamists both abroad and at home, providing taxpayer dollars to subsidize Islamist organizations.

    Why? Because Islamists punch back twice as hard. Levi and his fellow bigots crap their pants at the thought of what would happen if they held a “kiss-in” in Your Black Muslim Bakery or Farrakhan’s restaurant. They know full well what would happen if they walked into CAIR and yelled the same things at them that they do at Christians.

    In short, Levi is making the rules clear: if you advocate tolerance and non-violence, he will spit all over you, trample you, and openly use the power of government to persecute you. If you riot and commit acts of violence, Levi will not only endorse you, he will subsidize you and use the power of government to punish anyone who criticizes you.

    This is how deranged the idiot boy Levi and his Barack Obama Party are. And Christians need to respond accordingly.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2012 @ 5:16 pm - November 29, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.