Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to it

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby freemason9 » Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:40 pm

solace wrote:
compared2what? wrote:
solace wrote:
freemason9 wrote:mossad, duh



Larry, Curley and MOssad.


No matter what your politics are, it's not in your own best interests to remain blind to the existence and probable involvement of other interested parties. Who get more numerous after the fact, from a U.S. perspective.

And that's not any less true for neo-Nazis and evangelicals than it is for anyone. Because as long as anyone stops thinking and asking questions whenever someone points at Israel, EVERYONE who has any power will occasionally choose to avail themselves of the hornswoggling opportunities it provides. And the more anti-semitic they are, the more it provides.
___________________

Israeli operatives probably had something to do with the thing in Egypt. Mossad or extra-Mossad. The rest of it probably isn't their work and might not be anybody's. I guess the fall-out from it could make that clearer, though. Whatever it turns out to be.


I guess I just don't buy the super Jew Mossad myth as easily as some do.
The real issue is that there is extremely low likelihood that the speculations of the untrained, on a topic almost pathologically riddled by dynamic considerations and feedback effects, will offer anything new.
User avatar
freemason9
 
Posts: 1701
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby freemason9 » Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:42 pm

Sorry about that. I tried to respond, but Mossad prevented me from doing so.
The real issue is that there is extremely low likelihood that the speculations of the untrained, on a topic almost pathologically riddled by dynamic considerations and feedback effects, will offer anything new.
User avatar
freemason9
 
Posts: 1701
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby 8bitagent » Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:02 pm

Didnt Egyptian Coptics celebrate the new millennium on Sept 11th 2001?
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby justdrew » Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:19 am

8bitagent wrote:Didnt Egyptian Coptics celebrate the new millennium on Sept 11th 2001?


well, as everyone knows... :roll: but I'll repeat... To avoid calendar creep, a reform of the ancient Egyptian calendar was introduced at the time of Ptolemy III with the Decree of Canopus (surely we're all familiar with the Decree of Canopus?), in 238 BC, which consisted of the intercalation of a sixth epagomenal day every fourth year (Rather obvious really). However, this reform was opposed by the Egyptian priests, and the idea was not adopted until 25 BC, when the Roman Emperor Augustus formally reformed the calendar of Egypt, keeping it forever synchronized with the newly introduced Julian calendar.

To distinguish it from the Ancient Egyptian calendar, which remained in use by some astronomers until medieval times, this reformed calendar is known as the Coptic calendar. Its years and months coincide with those of the Ethiopian calendar but have different numbers and names. Which if you ask me, really stretches the meaning of "coincide"

In the Coptic Orthodox Church, September 11 is the feast of Nayrouz or Neyrouz (or new yearz), when martyrs and confessors are commemorated. This day is also the start of the Coptic new year and its first month (Thout).

The Feast of Neyrouz marks the first day of the Coptic year. Ignorant of the Egyptian language for the most part, the Arabs confused the Egyptian new year's celebrations, which the Egyptians called the feast of Ni-Yarouou (the feast the rivers), with the Persian feast of Nowruz. The misnomer remains today, and the celebrations of the Egyptian new year on the first day of the month of Thout are known as the Neyrouz. Its celebration falls on the 1st day of the month of Thout, the first month of the Egyptian year, which for AD 1901 to 2098 usually coincides with 11 September, except before a Gregorian leap year when it begins September 12.

So yes, they would have most likely considered it the new millennium.

So it was the 1st of Thout, but I didn't see what year they would have called it, I guess they typically go along with the modern numbering since the coptics took over care and feeding of the calendar
Last edited by justdrew on Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby TheDuke » Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:33 am

http://www.examiner.com/article/lebanes ... e-murdered

Some sordid allegations:

The Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org is reporting that the murdered American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was raped prior to his killing September 11, 2012.

The Lebanese news report cited the Agence France-Presse (AFP) broke the story when given the information by an unnamed senior member of the Libyan Interior Ministry.
TheDuke
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:11 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby 8bitagent » Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:45 am

Two of the four killed in the Embassy attack were former Navy Seals and worked for defense company linked security
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... seals?lite

and more behind the man behind the film
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... x-con?lite

Though the media is also playing the angle that the attack was preplanned before the movie fallout, tied to al Qaeda militants.
Merely a blip I'm sure compared to the scary world movements we'll probably end up seeing later on.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby stefano » Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:38 am

8bitagent wrote:Didnt Egyptian Coptics celebrate the new millennium on Sept 11th 2001?
No. To obtain the Coptic year number, subtract from the Julian year number either 283 (before the Julian new year) or 284 (after it).
User avatar
stefano
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:31 am

.

This thread is disappointing me. There's been some nice research into Bacile, Klein and co. but utter cluelessness about Libya (and even pride in being clueless). Some of you are showing a totally knee-jerk response to just say "Mossad" and pretend case closed. (They say deception, so they must be the only ones!)

I haven't seen one of you cite a report in depth from inside Libya, whatever the source. (See below.)

Yes, "some movie" would motivate this kind of violent reaction, as it has in the past. That was obvious to those who created the movie, and it's obvious they wanted to set off riots so that they could sell an image to the West of violent irrational Muslims (that they think benefits Israel).

Muslims of course are the ones with the grievances against the West, for the wars that have killed and maimed and displaced so many and destroyed nations. But that doesn't mean there isn't a segment of Muslims (like others) who can be stirred up by insults targeting their honor to commit stupid irrational violence in a Pavlovian fashion. That doesn't justify everything Islamist extremists do. And of course there are clerics out there who want to lead them!

Bacile & co. knew the precedents - the riots caused in recent years by Terry Jones's threat to burn the Koran, by the news that pages of a Koran had been flushed down the toilet by US prison guards in Afghanistan, and by the Danish cartoons. They understood that certain forms of blasphemy -- like it or not, and I don't, blasphemy is a real category of behavior -- were guaranteed to be picked up by Islamist preachers. The "film" used literal animals in the roles of "Muslims," which guarantees such a response. I doubt anything's been made other than the 13-minute "trailer" - what need? (The irony of this is that the Sunni reaction might feed into justifying a bombing of Iran, which the filmmakers no doubt hope.)

Think of this like the Pavlovian interactions between the hardliners on both sides of the Cold War. The hardliners on each side were indispensable to each other. They both saw benefit in stoking conflict, so they cooperated with each other by turning everything international into a hardliner vs. hardliner conflict, strengthening their respective domestic positions.

Libya has its counterpart to the Egyptian Salafists. While they may hate America for being secular, they were all for the overthrow of Gaddafi, so this is not necessarily a reaction to the recent US actions.

Like other countries, Libya also has a broader reaction to attacks on Islam, physical, virtual or perceived. On February 17, 2006, after the Danish cartoon provocation, thousands protested at the Italian embassy (an Italian minister had just worn the "Mohammed Bomb" cartoon as a t-shirt). Government forces opened fire and killed 11.

The memory of this is fresh. A movement formed in the aftermath. They played a role in the overthrow of Gaddafi and they are always planning protests. In fact, it was protests on February 17, 2011 to commemorate the 5-year anniversary of the Danish cartoon massacre that opened up into the Benghazi uprising, leading to Gaddafi's reaction and thus the pretext for Western intervention. I'm disappointed to be the first one to mention this, eight pages into this thread.

News came of the Bacile video, which had until then gone unnoticed. It was apparently pushed very heavily on Salafist media, including from abroad. It was discovered as red meat for mobilization. It wouldn't surprise me if Bacile's group had e-mailed the link to every Salafist preacher they could find.

Remember, there is a sort-of Libyan "rapid Islamist reaction force" for such cases, already organizing for protests all the time, and, remember, they are seeing other protests in Egypt, from where they are getting the media push to go out and do something. So they march on the embassy, surely intending to riot. As to exactly what happened then, I cannot say, but mayhem through chaos wouldn't surprise at all. An opportunistic use of predictable chaos by some other element to pull off an assassination and thus intensify the crisis would also not surprise me. But of course the latter is far, far, far rarer than one would think from the usual RI response to everything!


http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/12/u ... _killed_as

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We begin today’s show in Libya, where the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff have been killed after protesters attacked the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi. Ambassador Christopher Stevens is reportedly the first American envoy to be killed abroad in more than two decades. The consulate was attacked by protesters denouncing a short American film insulting the Prophet Muhammad. There are conflicting accounts of how Stevens died. Some reports say he died inside the consulate from smoke inhalation. Others say he was killed in a car being driven from the consulate building. There was no immediate comment from the State Department in Washington.

AMY GOODMAN: The protests against the film began Tuesday in both Libya and Egypt. In Cairo, demonstrators stormed over the fortified walls of the U.S. embassy.

Joining us now on the phone from Benghazi is the Libyan activist and journalist Nizar Sarieldin. We’re also joined by Vijay Prashad, a professor at Trinity College. His latest book is called Arab Spring, Libyan Winter.

Nizar, let’s turn to you first. Tell us what’s happening in Benghazi and what you understood happened yesterday.

NIZAR SARIELDIN: Well, the security void is unclear, and no one can really accuse who did this or moved these groups to make this protest. Yesterday, we heard about this attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. We went over there and found this building burned. And like, beard people were outside, looks like radical groups with weapons, and they were like planning to attack the consulate. We didn’t know for what reason, until we found out that a channel, an Egyptian channel, religious Egyptian channel, were accusing Americans that we need to move to protect our Prophet Muhammad and stop this video that had been posted two months ago. And you just—we don’t know why this thing’s been provoked right now. And nobody knows about this movie. I don’t know why and who and for whose interest is to attack the embassy in Benghazi.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Nizar Sarieldin, do you know if there were any links between the attacks on the embassy in Cairo, whether it was a coordinated attack, the attack in Cairo and then the one in Benghazi on the U.S. consulate?

NIZAR SARIELDIN: Well, these groups are moved by clerics outside the country. They have no control of them. They take their orders from outside the country, so they are Salafis with the radical Salafist group, and they are moved by certain clerics. And they are on channels, on satellite, so everybody watched them. When they got this—get this order, they go out and do what they asked for. So, what they moved them, actually, a channel, a program and a channel called Al Nas, People, and it’s a religious Sunni TV.

AMY GOODMAN: And Nizar, did you know U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens? He had been there for years. In fact, he had been there when the U.S. was having a rapprochement with Muammar Gaddafi, and then he was named the ambassador.

NIZAR SARIELDIN: Well, yes, I did meet him once in a demonstration in Tahrir Square, and he was alone talking to the people without guards. He trusted the people. He loved the people, and the people loved him so much. And I think that he respected. And he was going around with no high security in the beginning. And then he disappeared, of course, after the frequent incident happened in Benghazi. They start to have higher security. And after the attack on the embassy by the RPG like months ago, he disappeared. We didn’t know if he’s in Benghazi or in Tripoli.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Were people aware, Nizar, that he was in Benghazi at the time of the attack, though? Was his visit announced?

NIZAR SARIELDIN: No, I found—well, I was there after the attack, and I was there, and I found—like, when I saw the people’s faces in the group, they were even themselves confused and shocked that the ambassador was inside. So there was like a big confusion. And they tried to hide the story. Yeah, and they couldn’t talk about it to the public. So, they were—I definitely know that they didn’t know, because they were outside the embassy by that time.

AMY GOODMAN: And Nizar—

NIZAR SARIELDIN: And they discovered that someone is inside—

AMY GOODMAN: You were there in Benghazi. What has been the reaction since the killing of the U.S. ambassador and his aides?

NIZAR SARIELDIN: Confusion is looming, and everybody is actually worried, especially from these groups, because they are starting took to a little bit control and take actions, especially with this security void and political void. There has been call and demos and—against these groups, but 'til now the state is doing nothing to control them or to arrest them. And this is what worries everybody here in Benghazi. They're not comfortable with them. And today there is a demonstration for Chris, and not only for Chris, and for the security here and against those groups, so we are hoping that it will be big. Everyone is depressed about this news. I talked to a lot of people. There were not really comfortable. They couldn’t sleep all night, because they’re really worried about their families, their security and everything.

AMY GOODMAN: And when you say "Chris," you’re referring to the U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, who was killed last night. We’re talking to Nizar Sarieldin. He is in Benghazi right now. We are also joined by Vijay Prashad, professor at Trinity College. His latest book, Arab Spring, Libyan Winter. As you learn this news, your reaction to what’s taken place in Libya, Professor Prashad?

VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, obviously, the first thing is, this is not a very, you know, surprising event to me. It’s a very sad event. It’s very sad when there’s violence of this kind. Chris Stevens was a career Foreign Service officer. He had been in the Peace Corps. He also was in Benghazi in 2011 at the start of the February revolution. He had been deputed there by the U.S. State Department. So he has had a long relationship with Libya. But it’s not surprising, Amy, because there are social forces inside Libya that have been suppressed and are seeking to have some kind of outlet.

You know, in Benghazi itself, this is not the first incident of this kind. In 2006, during the high point of the Danish cartoon controversy, there was a demonstration of more than a thousand people in front of the Italian consulate, because an Italian minister, Roberto Calderoli, had worn a T-shirt, very insulting, which had that Danish cartoon on it. At that demonstration, the Gaddafi regime opened fire on the crowd, killed 11 people. And that was on February 17th, 2006. Because of that firing on the crowd, several human rights activists—Fathi Terbil, Idris al-Mesmari, people like that—had become politicized. And it was for the fifth anniversary of that police firing by the Gaddafi regime, on February 17, 2011, that people like Terbil had planned demonstrations in Benghazi, the fifth anniversary, to commemorate the Gaddafi shooting against this crowd. And the spur, as it were, of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion last year was essentially around the commemoration of the shooting in Benghazi in 2006.

So, there are social forces in Libya that have had a sense of being humiliated and suppressed. Many of them, you know, have, in a sense, the framework of Islamism. But I don’t think we should fully, you know, make this a situation where we say, "Well, these are, you know, far-right, radical, dangerous, al-Qaeda," things like that. You know, sure, there were black flags, but I think there’s an exaggeration of the black flag used in these demonstrations both in Cairo and in Benghazi. You know, the black flag, for instance, is not only a symbol of al-Qaeda, as people have been saying in the American media, but it has become a routine flag of Islamists. You know, at the storming of the Cairo embassy, it was not just Islamists, it was also the Ultras, the football group that had played a significant role in the Tahrir Square rebellion in Egypt. But there is a section of the population that is feeling, in a sense, you know, marginalized. They have no political voice. There’s a section that feels that the election, where, you know, the rules of the election may not have fully allowed them to put forward their own position. So, there is a complicated social section that I think we need to consider its history, its role, and I think it’s continuing an enduring sense that it has no voice. I don’t think arresting a lot of people or shooting people in these demonstrations is going to quell that social section. It needs to have a political voice.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Vijay Prashad, you mentioned the Danish cartoon controversy in 2005. Can you elaborate a little on what the response in Benghazi was at the time to those cartoons?

VIJAY PRASHAD: Yes, certainly. You know, when the cartoon controversy begins in November, December 2005, it spreads rapidly around the world. You know, just as Nizar is saying now, the satellite television channels played a major role there. Clerics played a major role. And there were demonstrations in—across the world, really, against the cartoon controversy. In February, there was a major demonstration in Benghazi. And again this—we should keep putting this in context. The 2006 demonstration in February wasn’t the first major demonstration in Benghazi on this idea of being a people humiliated. You know, why is it that the West wants to humiliate us with things like these cartoons or this ridiculous film made by Sam Bacile and promoted by Terry Jones, the pastor in Florida? So, in Benghazi in 2006, there was a major demonstration—I mean, in 2006, there was a major demonstration, and the police fired at it. But again, you know, when I say let’s put this in con—in 1996, the Libyan Islamic fighting group had started its rebellion. And at that point, it was, you know, virulently put down by the Gaddafi regime. So, whether it’s 1996, 2006, 2011, 2012, you cannot suppress the social section simply by force of arms.

AMY GOODMAN: I just wanted to read a bit from the AP piece on what the film that people were protesting is, who it was made by. AP says, "An Israeli filmmaker based in California went into hiding [Tuesday] after his movie attacking Islam’s prophet Muhammad sparked angry assaults by ultra-conservative Muslims on U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya... Speaking by phone ... from an undisclosed location, writer and director Sam Bacile" — if that’s how it’s pronounced, B-A-C-I-L-E — "remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that the 56-year-old intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion."

It goes on to say, "The two-hour movie, 'Innocence of Muslims,' cost $5 million to make... The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. An English-language 13-minute trailer on YouTube shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons.

"It depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage."

Now, this was made in 2011. It is unclear why this is gaining attention right now. "It was made in three months in the summer of 2011, with 59 actors and about 45 people behind cameras." "Bacile’s film was dubbed into Egyptian Arabic by someone he doesn’t know, but he speaks enough Arabic to confirm that the translation is accurate."

I’d like to get response from Vijay Prashad, and then, Nizar, I’d like you also to respond, if people are watching this film. Nizar Sarieldin is still with us in Benghazi.

VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, Amy, as far—

NIZAR SARIELDIN: Yes.

VIJAY PRASHAD: I watched the 13-minute trailer. It is a very, very disturbing film. It’s not the presence of the film or the making of the film itself that’s the problem. It’s that it’s been heavily promoted. You know, as I mentioned, Terry Jones, the pastor in Florida who threatened to burn the Koran in public, you know, to commemorate 9/11 a few years ago, has been promoting films like this. He has become a touchstone. And at the other end of the spectrum, there are radical clerics, just like this radical preacher, who are mirroring him. And, you know, they are creating a very tense kind of so-called clash of civilizations atmosphere, in which there is a combustion going to happen. So I think that’s the context in the larger sense.

In the more specific sense, there is certainly political jockeying going on in Egypt, where this really began, you know, with an Egyptian social section, with an Egyptian political section that is jockeying for authority in contemporary Egypt. It just happened to be a coincidence that in Libya, the prime minister was going to be announced yesterday. So it was just coincidental in Libya, as well, that there is a kind of political jockeying. But in Egypt, there is a very real political battle between a section of the Islamists and those who want to have a different kind of constitution, when that is indeed written. So, this is a kind of context that is there, and this combustive battle between two kinds of radicalism came in the middle of it.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Nizar Sarieldin, could you comment, as well, on this film and whether the trailer has been circulating in Libya?

NIZAR SARIELDIN: Well, if you—if you check the rate of number of viewers, two months ago you would find just only 5,000 people have been watching this video. And since the channel talked about it, it gave it like a boost, and they started like 25,000 in one day, and it’s only in Libya. So, I guess who did the publicity for this movie is actually clerics, and like this channel made the publicity and made everybody watched it and moved the street for that. So, I think the only—there is a reason. I think there is—they want to score something. They want to hide us on certain facts, because we are going towards democracy. And democracy—of course, those radicals are against democracy, and they are not really happy with this elections and everything. They want it to be like in old-time Islamic ruling, which is that everybody disagreed with. So—

AMY GOODMAN: Nizar Sarieldin, I want to thank you very much for being with us. He’s speaking to us from Benghazi, Libyan activist and journalist, Benghazi, where the U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was killed last night with three embassy aides. Vijay Prashad, joining us from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. Professor Prashad’s latest book is called Arab Spring, Libyan Winter.

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:14 am

Right-Wing Media Dubiously Accuse Hillary Clinton Of Ignoring Warnings Of Embassy Violence
50 MINUTES AGO ››› KEVIN ZIEBER

Right-wing media outlets are pushing dubious allegations to attack Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the violence that claimed the life of the U.S. ambassador to Libya. But the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has poured cold water on the attack.

Breitbart.com attacked Clinton by citing a report from the U.K. Independent that cites anonymous "senior diplomatic sources" saying:

[T]he US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted."

Breitbart.com editor Ben Shapiro even used the report to call for Clinton's resignation, saying: "The details are so explosive that they will result in a Congressional investigation. In fact, they're so explosive that they should result in the resignation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."

The Drudge Report linked to the same Independent article under a picture of Clinton with the headline "Paper: U.S. warned of embassy attack, but did nothing."

Fox News also hyped the charge that Clinton had advanced warning of the attacks. Fox & Friends guest co-host Eric Bolling said: "You have to wonder. Hillary Clinton came on September 12 and she came on September 13 and she said, you know -- denouncing the attacks and whatnot. But why was she on twice saying the exact same thing? Maybe, maybe we did have advanced knowledge of these protests and attacks coming."

But later on Fox, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) showed why right-wing media should not have jumped on this one thinly-sourced report so quickly. Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade asked Rogers about the Independent report. Rogers responded: "As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have seen nothing yet that indicates that they had information that could have prevented the event." He added:

ROGERS: That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I just haven't seen it yet, and we should be cautious about that. There's a difference between having lots of information flowing in, which we've had over months about the trouble that was brewing, especially Al Qaeda in the Maghreb looking for Western targets to strike -- the Maghreb being the northern part of Africa. So we knew that there was at least an interest in violence. This is the same site in Benghazi that had been attacked by an IED a couple months prior to that event. So we knew that there should have been a heightened level of security just for those reasons.



Blowback in Benghazi?
Or was it something worse?

by Justin Raimondo, September 14, 2012

The murder of US ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other US diplomats at the hands of rioters probably wasn’t just another case of Islamists-gone-wild. The circumstances surrounding this horrific incident — the riot was in reaction to a “film” supposedly made by a mysterious Israeli-American director under what is probably a pseudonym — point to a carefully staged and well-thought out event. The question is: staged by whom?

Let’s take a look at the film itself, entitled Innocence of Muslims. Media accounts of the movie’s content universally describe it as “crude,” “insulting,” “amateurish” — in short, not exactly a candidate for the Academy Awards. Yet this fails to really capture the spirit of the film, which can only be described as leering: there is an exhibitionistic quality to the “script,” which dwells on matters sexual. The movie, which claims to portray the life and times of the prophet Mohammed, consists of a series of sexualized vignettes interspersed with scenes of violence. News accounts refer to the “wooden” acting, and I think this is literally true: the actors come off like puppets in a Punch & Judy show. There is the same slapstick quality to their actions and particularly the bantering that passes for dialogue. It’s all centered on sex — Mohammed’s alleged pedophilia, how he and his followers raped the villages they conquered, and naturally accusations of homosexuality loom large.

My favorite scene is when two of Mohammed’s followers are having a conversation about “did you know Mohammed is gay?” “Well, I knew about” Mohammed’s alleged sex partner, “but Mohammed? Is he submissive or the dominant one?” Mohammed, who has been sitting there listening to the conversation, leans over and says: “Both!”

Innocence of Muslims is the Grand Guignol of the Islamophobes: viewing it is like reading the comments section of Pam Geller’s blog, or Robert Spencer’s JihadWatch. On a somewhat higher level, the excerpts we have seen resemble nothing so much as a dramatization of the “theories” of one Raphael Patai, a cultural anthropologist who averred in his 1973 book, The Arab Mind, that Arabs are peculiarly susceptible to sexual humiliation. As Seymour Hersh put it in his 2004 investigation into the horrors of Abu Ghraib:

“The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March, 2003, invasion of Iraq. One book that was frequently cited was The Arab Mind, a study of Arab culture and psychology, first published in 1973, by Raphael Patai, a cultural anthropologist who taught at, among other universities, Columbia and Princeton, and who died in 1996. The book includes a twenty-five-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as a taboo vested with shame and repression. ‘The segregation of the sexes, the veiling of the women . . . and all the other minute rules that govern and restrict contact between men and women, have the effect of making sex a prime mental preoccupation in the Arab world,’ Patai wrote. Homosexual activity, ‘or any indication of homosexual leanings, as with all other expressions of sexuality, is never given any publicity. These are private affairs and remain in private.’ The Patai book, an academic told me, was ‘the bible of the neocons on Arab behavior.’ In their discussions, he said, two themes emerged —‘one, that Arabs only understand force and, two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation.’”

Shame and humiliation — followed by murderous rage. Precisely the reaction that greeted the posting of Innocence of Muslims online and led to the deaths of four Americans, and the first such incident involving an American ambassador in quite some time. If someone was deliberately setting a fire in the Middle East, this was the fuel that would burn hottest.

In her response to the attacks, Hillary Clinton was clear that this had nothing to do with the Libyan government “or the Libyan people.” How did she know that so soon after the event — before even a preliminary investigation had been launched? Which is to say she didn’t know, but was merely hoping.

Yet there is evidence of official complicity, at least at some level. When the consulate initially came under attack, the Ambassador and key personnel were moved to another building: when the rioters broke in, they found the place empty. However, the Libyan “security” team assigned to guard the compound helpfully pointed out where the Americans were located: presumably they did this in the process of fleeing. Whether they did it to save their own lives, or out of sympathy for the rioters, is an open question.

The timing is significant. The United States is currently in the midst of a perilous maneuver: in an attempt to forestall an anticipated wave of radical Islamist upsurges on traditionally pro-American turf, Washington has launched a pro-Sunni pro-“democracy” turn in the Middle East. The idea is to co-opt the “Arab Spring,” and use its energy to install moderate and pro-Western regimes on the Turkish model. After the fall of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, the new strategy went into high gear with the Libyan intervention.

Initially hailed as a great triumph of Obamaite diplomacy and resolve, the Libyan “revolution” — managed in part by the departed Ambassador Stevens — subsumed radical elements under its broad tent. As critics of the US role pointed out at the time, these elements dominated the military wing of the “transitional” governing council, which was populated with Western-educated liberals who had no guns to back them up.

The NATO-backed rebels took power and soon became the launching pad for Washington’s next regime-change project: the overthrow of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and his Ba’ath Party. Libyan fighters were soon shooting up the streets of Damascus, and enjoying the hospitality of their Turkish allies just over the border. So far, so good — until the Benghazi collision with reality.

That the alliance with Islamists has come back to bite the Americans in the tail is hardly surprising. The warlords of Washington have been playing with fire in their Middle Eastern intrigues, and they have been badly burned. But who, if I may ask, set the fire?

Which brings us back to Innocence of Muslims and its mysterious creators — because one person didn’t finance, film, and organize this little operation. It took a lot of forethought, first of all, to effectively mask the true creators of this enterprise: apparently the alleged “director,” one “Sam Bacile,” has been operating under a pseudonym from the beginning of his film project.

A preview attended by less than a dozen people took place in Southern California, and sources at the down-and-out dive where the event took place describe a man named Sam who delivered the film to the theater. A man purporting to be Bacile spoke to the Associated Press, and in the interview described himself as a 56 year old “Israeli-American” who worked as a real estate developer in California. No record of Bacile exists in California’s real estate database, and the Israelis say they have no record of his citizenship — presumably dual citizenship.

Upon the release of this interview, an immediate effort to debunk the alleged Israeli connection was launched, with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic citing the loony leader of the group that promoted the film as saying Bacile isn’t Israeli and is “probably” evangelical. Laura Rozen found suspicious Bacile’s claim he’d raised the money for his directorial debut from “100 Jews.” What Jew, she wonders, would say that — and why precisely one-hundred? Yet the claim was “over 100,” and people say a lot of things, which may or may not be true.

Bacile’s cell phone number was given to AP by one Morris Sadek, a Coptic Christian activist, and was subsequently traced to an address on the outskirts of Los Angeles: the residence of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year-old Coptic Christian convicted of bank fraud and identity theft in 2010. Although Nakoula stoutly denies being “Sam Bacile,” the similarity to some of his many aliases is more than a little suspicious. Yet he told the Telegraph:

“I didn’t know this movie, I didn’t work on it, I know nothing about it. They need to blame someone. I’m a gas station worker, how can I have made a five million dollar movie? I didn’t know anything about the movie. Now the FBI are having to come to protect me.”

Nakoula’s contention that he doesn’t “know this movie” should surely be taken with a very large grain of salt. As the Telegraph reports:

“His protestations were undermined by the fact that his front door, and a chandelier visible just inside, looked very similar to those featured in a scene from ‘Innocence of Muslims.’ One of the actors in the film also bore a strong resemblance to a young man seen at the house.”

Yet none of this proves Nakoula is the creator and prime mover behind this cinematic provocation. The cell phone “Sam” used is associated with Nakoula’s address, but this is hardly definitive, especially given the lengths to which “Sam” went to remain anonymous. Nakoula undoubtedly had something to do with Innocence of Muslims, but whether he was the central player, a mere collaborator, or a cut out — a false flag planted to divert attention away from the real authors — remains to be seen. He had collaborators. Who are they?

A gas station worker is a far cry from a real estate developer, and Nakoula asks a good question: how could someone who just got out of jail and is presumably paying restitution afford to finance a movie? Although the $5 million claim is dubious, given the quality of the product, a substantial sum was required to put the film together. The original title was “Desert Warrior,” according to the casting call — issued by a company headed up by another variation of the “Bacile” pseudonym — and the script had nothing to do with Mohammed. Instead, the actors were told it was to be a movie about life in the region 2,000 years ago. The offensive lines were dubbed in. All in all, a fairly complex operation involving deception, extreme discretion, and readily available cash — the actors were paid in $20 bills out of “Sam’s” pocket. It took money, organization, and timing: the trailer was released on YouTube the day before 9/11, an anniversary fraught with the potential for violence. Shortly after its release, it was given Arabic titles and a translated version posted on YouTube — although “Bacile” claims he doesn’t know who did that.

The key question to ask about this incident, and the motives of the film’s makers, is this: what did it accomplish? The answer is that it drove a wedge between Washington and its newfound Islamist allies, specifically the governments of Libya and Egypt. That’s why Hillary was so quick to absolve Tripoli of any responsibility: but her mere assertion cannot hide the reality of the split, which is sure to widen.

Who would want to undermine Washington’s tilt toward the Islamists, however “moderate”? In what country — aside from the Land of the Neocons — are the Patai-like views dramatized in Innocence commonly held? Which of our vaunted allies is all but openly rooting for Romney, and would have cause to rejoice in what has got to be the low point of Obama’s presidency, at least in foreign policy terms?

The ingredients were all there: a volatile country, Libya, with well-armed radical Islamists running loose, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and a history of provocations aimed at Muslims specifically defaming and ridiculing the prophet Mohammed. All that was needed to produce outbreaks of violent rage was the right provocation.

“Shame and humiliation” — it works every time.

There are several competing theories about who or what’s behind the Innocence imbroglio. Rachel Maddow floated what looks to be the Obama administration’s take: the whole thing was an al-Qaeda plot, timed specifically to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, the Libyan al-Qaeda leader who was second in command of the group since Osama bin Laden’s death and Zawahiri’s rise to the top leadership position. She pointed to a number of factors that make this credible: a video released on the eve of 9/11, valorizing al-Libi’s memory and calling for retribution for his death in a US drone strike. The video showed explosions in the area of the consulate specifically. Yet this proves nothing but that al Qaeda has an active fan club in the area. The big problem with Maddow’s theory is that if al Qaeda was behind the whole thing they surely would’ve taken credit for it by now: they aren’t shy about such things.

The Obamaites have every reason to treat this as another al Qaeda plot, if only because the alternatives — including the utter failure and complete collapse of our pro-Sunni “turn” — are unmentionable. With two warships headed for the Libyan coast, a contingent of Marines to beef up embassy security, and a fleet of drones flying overhead supposedly seeking out the culprits, we have to invent a complicated terrorist plot to justify our actions. The funny thing is, it could all boil down to nothing more than the antics of a bunch of Southern California right-wing lunatics having their idea of fun with YouTube — a lark that ended in tragedy.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby barracuda » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:47 am

Two snippets found at Informed Comment:

The bad, dubbed ‘film’ only had one theater showing in some dowdy place in LA. Then in July the group had the trailer for it dubbed into Arabic with subtitles as well, and put it on Youtube, where it was found by strident Egyptian Muslim fundamentalist Sheikh Khaled Abdallah, who had it shown on al-Nas television and caused the sensation that led to Tuesday’s demonstrations in Cairo and Benghazi. As I argued yesterday, the vigilante extremists or ‘jihadis’ have been left on the garbage pile of history by the democratic elections in Egypt and Libya, and are whipping up the issue of this film in a desperate attempt to remain relevant.


http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/romney- ... ffect.html

As for why people in the region should be so touchy, Abdel Bari Atwan of al-Quds al-Arabi wrote, according to the translation of the USG Open Source Center:

    “The best ally of the Islamic jihadist organizations is the deep hostility of certain right-wing Christian groups toward Islam and Muslims as well as the control of pro-Israel Jewish groups of US foreign policy…

    US interferences in Arab and Muslim affairs in favor of Israel, its occupation, and Judaization of the holy places, and the US’s embrace of groups hostile to Islam and Muslims are the main reason for the current scourge and instability, and even wars in our countries. This provocation must immediately cease if the United States wants to secure its interests and the security of its embassies and citizens.”


http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/obama-p ... folds.html
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:56 am

.

There seems to be, on the face of it, an Israeli element in the making of the film, with the intent to produce the reaction we've seen. Whether freelance or not. Plenty of committed crusaders there. And their real target, I'd say, has to be Obama. They are looking to stir up shit and give the right wing new impetus for attacking Obama as soft on the crazy Muslims. Their audience is in the West.

The reaction itself is very much driven by clerics funded out of Saudi Arabia. Now it's true that in countries where people have been denied any kind of non-official political expression for so long, such explosions come naturally. And you're going to have a lot of people join in for different reasons. But there we are: Israel and Saudi Arabia, each for their own reasons acting complementarily in producing reaction and pushing the Arab world back.

There is a great overview of the Arab Spring to date that I just posted in the Egypt thread, an interview with scholar Tariq Ramadan. It also deals with these latest developments, but I'd say read that if you're only going to read one thing.
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 87#p477387

Here's a report yesterday from Yemen and Egypt:


http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/13/m ... _embassies

Thursday, September 13, 2012
Middle East Protests at U.S. Embassies Spread in Uproar over Anti-Muslim U.S. Film


Protests are spreading in the Middle East over a movie made by a U.S. filmmaker considered blasphemous to Islam. Earlier today, hundreds of Yemeni demonstrators stormed the U.S. embassy in Sana’a, smashing windows and burning cars before breaking through the compound’s main gate. Protests have also occurred in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia and Bangladesh, as well as the occupied Gaza Strip. We get updates from journalists Iona Craig in Sana’a and Sharif Abdel Kouddous in Cairo. [includes rush transcript]
Filed under Middle East, Iona Craig, Sharif Abdel Kouddous
Guests:

Iona Craig, English journalist based in Sana’a and editor at the Yemen Times.

Sharif Abdel Kouddous, independent journalist and Democracy Now! correspondent in Cairo.
Transcript

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Violent protests continue in the Middle East over an American-made film considered blasphemous to Islam. Earlier today, hundreds of Yemeni protesters stormed the U.S. embassy in Sana’a. The protesters smashed windows of the security offices outside the embassy and burned cars before breaking through the main gate of the heavily fortified compound. Some demonstrators scaled the walls of the embassy, while others set fires just outside the compound. Meanwhile, at least 16 demonstrators were injured earlier today outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo. Police reportedly used tear gas to disperse the protesters after they threw stones and petrol bombs near the embassy.

The protests in Yemen and Egypt follow Tuesday night’s storming of the United States consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other staff members were killed in the attack. Stevens is the first U.S. ambassador to be killed on duty since 1979. On Wednesday, President Obama vowed to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths in Libya.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The Obama administration has dispatched an elite group of marines to the Libyan capital of Tripoli. In addition, two U.S. warships are reportedly heading toward the Libyan coast, and the U.S. has redeployed surveillance drones over Libya. Protests against the film have also occurred in other countries, including Iraq, Iran, Tunisia and Bangladesh.

AMY GOODMAN: At the center of the controversy is an online trailer for a low-budget film called The Innocence of Muslims. Initial reports said the film was directed by an Israeli real-estate developer living in California named Sam Bacile, but questions have arisen over whether such a person even exists. One person known to be directly involved in the film is a Coptic Christian living in California named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

We’re going to begin today’s show in Yemen with Iona Craig, a journalist with The Times of London based in the capital of Yemen, Sana’a.

Can you tell us, Iona, what is happening outside the U.S. embassy in Sana’a right now?

IONA CRAIG: The situation now is relatively calm compared to what it was a few hours ago. Earlier this morning, protesters marched on the U.S. embassy from three different directions and breached—the approach was to the U.S. embassy building itself. They then managed to breach the cordon that had been set up on the street and managed to get inside the U.S.—to the compound itself, burning two SUV vehicles and burning the U.S. flag. When I was there, there were then shots being fired by the Yemeni security forces in attempt to push the crowd back and disperse them, but they were gathering again and burning tires and still chanting outside the U.S. embassy building.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, the press reports here, though, say that the demonstrators were eventually rebuffed or expelled from the embassy grounds?

IONA CRAIG: Yes, that’s correct. As I said, there’s kind of three approach roads up to the—up to the embassy building, and they were being pushed back beyond these concrete blocks they’re using as roadblocks in order to secure the area around the embassy building itself. But I have to say, when I was there, I witnessed protesters again trying to breach that cordon. And at one point, the soldiers, the Yemeni soldiers, just let them through. And as they marched closer to the U.S. embassy building itself, the soldiers were actually just walking alongside them and letting them go. Before then, eventually turning around and opening fire over the heads of the demonstrators.

AMY GOODMAN: Iona Craig, can you tell us what is the complaint of these protesters? Is this film that was supposedly made in California—is this the root of these protests?

IONA CRAIG: This is what they all tell me. All the people I spoke to today and certainly the chanting that was going on is all related to this film. They saw it as an insult against Prophet Muhammad. It’s blasphemy. They were calling for the death of the filmmaker. And they said they would not leave until the Americans left, is what they were chanting, and that they wanted to see the U.S. embassy closed as a result of this. I have to say, amongst the people I spoke to, I didn’t actually find anybody that has seen the picture, this film, that has been posted on YouTube. But they had all certainly heard about it. And this is almost [inaudible] what we’ve seen in Libya and in Egypt, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: There was a drone attack that supposedly killed the number two man in al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula. The Yemeni government took credit for this attack. We have seen in WikiLeaks documents over time that the Yemeni government does take credit for U.S. drone strikes, so it’s not clear exactly what happened. Was the issue of the drone attack raised, as well?

IONA CRAIG: Of all the people that I asked, there was no—there was no relationship between that. Nobody mentioned the issue of drones. Nobody mentioned even that there was a killing of AQAP’s number two—and, by the way, it isn’t confirmed yet; it’s not 100 percent—or even an attack two weeks ago that killed 13 civilians 90 miles south of Sana’a. All the people I spoke to, it is all related to this film. Nobody mentioned the issue of drones, even those that have increased the anti-American rhetoric here over the last year amongst the wider population. This [inaudible] just a few hundred, really, that approached the American embassy have said they’re were specifically there for—the people that I spoke to, anyway—in retaliation to this film that they saw as an insult on Prophet Muhammad.

AMY GOODMAN: Iona Craig, we want to thank you for joining us from Yemen. Iona Craig is an English journalist based in Sana’a, editor at the Yemen Times and The Times of London, as we turn now to Cairo. Democracy Now!’s correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous is in the Egyptian capital.

Sharif, can you talk about what’s happening outside of the U.S. embassy in Cairo?

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Hi, Amy.

I just came back from the protests there. There’s continuing clashes with police that have spilled over into Tahrir Square. The U.S. embassy lies just a couple of hundred yards from Tahrir, which was the epicenter of the revolution here in Egypt. And there are continuing tear gas being fired, rocks thrown by the protesters against police. There’s police trucks. The clashes aren’t exceptionally fierce, but there seems to be no sign of letting up, either. So, the police seem to have moved the protesters last night and the—or the early hours of this morning away from the U.S. embassy, maybe a hundred yards away, and are now kind of on the outskirts of Tahrir. Many of these protesters today and last night are really a different crowd than were there on Tuesday night when this first began, when protesters were in front of the embassy and took down the American flag. Many of these are kind of young protesters who you typically see kind of in a lot of these clashes with police. Like—as Iona mentioned in Yemen, I could not find one protester who had actually seen this—you know, the trailer for this movie, which has incited such anger. They—but everyone cited the movie as saying their reasons for being there, for being against any kind of insults for the prophet. But really these—I think it was used as a trigger by conservative Muslim groups here in Egypt. For example, Nader Bakkar, who’s a spokesperson for the Nour Party, which is the largest Salafi party here in Egypt, and it’s allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, he said on Al Jazeera Mubasher, a channel here, that the film had been broadcast on U.S. channels, which is a blatant lie. So, that’s what’s happening right now on the ground.

On the political scene, we had President Mohamed Morsi—he waited 24 hours after the initial protest on Tuesday night before releasing any kind of statement. He’s in Brussels today on his first visit as Egyptian president to Europe, and he spoke at a press conference about what’s happening. He said he condemned any attacks or any non-peaceful protest and any attacks on embassies, but he also condemned any insults to the prophet. He had a phone call with President Obama this morning, and he said he offered his condolences for the deaths of the four Americans who died in Benghazi, including Ambassador Stevens, and also said he—and said he hoped that President Obama would affirm the need for any determined legal measures against those who want to damage relations between Egypt and the United States, I think hinting at—you know, for the United States to take some kind of legal action against the producers of this movie. There’s also been at the same time Morsi’s movement. He, of course, came from the Muslim Brotherhood and is still a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood has called for protests tomorrow, peaceful protests in front of mosques. But nevertheless, it has called for protests against this movie, against insults to Islam and to the prophet. And this is the same group that last week spent last week wooing American investors to try and invest in Egypt. So, that’s really what’s happening on the ground here right now.

AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, I want to thank you for being with us. Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! correspondent in Cairo, Egypt. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. When we come back, we’ll be joined by the—one of the leading Islamic thinkers. His new book is called Islam and the Arab Awakening. Tariq Ramadan will join us. Stay with us.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 87#p477387

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby Nordic » Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:35 am

FWIW. There seems to be no U.S. embassy in Benghazi:

http://embassy.goabroad.com/embassies-in/libya
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby justdrew » Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:11 am

Nordic wrote:FWIW. There seems to be no U.S. embassy in Benghazi:

http://embassy.goabroad.com/embassies-in/libya


I guess technically it was a consulate office, not a true "embassy" which is I guess why the ambassador wasn't there until he decided to go there.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby 82_28 » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:56 pm

This really has all the hallmarks of an expanded war -- if not world war, at that drawing in all the superpowers in one public confluence. The global economic situation as well as political situations seem to really point to this I think. I only think this, because the lies of whoever is lying are certainly coming to a head.

Just maybe, with this film, they are lying to tell the truth. In the sense, that, we're going to war assholes and are taking what is ours. Which is of course, Planet Earth, which they are under the assumption they own through their twisted religions and technocracy.

Again, war is a racket.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ambassador killed -- something tells me there is more to

Postby justdrew » Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:43 am

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Man Linked To Anti-Islam Film, Taken In For Questioning
Reuters | Posted: 09/15/2012 5:14 am Updated: 09/15/2012 9:49 am

* Left home voluntarily to speak with probation officials

* Nakoula not under arrest and not handcuffed

* Use of aliases, Internet may violate prison release terms

By Alex Dobuzinskis

LOS ANGELES, Sept 15 (Reuters) - A California man convicted of bank fraud was taken in for questioning on Saturday by officers investigating possible probation violations stemming from the making of an anti-Islam film that triggered violent protests in the Muslim world.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, voluntarily left his home in the early hours of Saturday morning for the meeting in a sheriff's station in the Los Angeles suburb of Cerritos, Los Angeles County Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said.

"He will be interviewed by federal probation officers," Whitmore said. He said Nakoula had not been placed under arrest but would not be returning home immediately. "He was never put in handcuffs... It was all voluntary."

Nakoula, who has denied involvement in the film in a phone call to his Coptic Christian bishop, was ushered out of his home and into a waiting car by several sheriff's deputies, his face shielded by a scarf, hat and sunglasses.

The crudely made 13-minute English-language film, filmed in California and circulated on the Internet under several titles including "Innocence of Muslims", mocks the Prophet Mohammad.

The film sparked a violent protest at the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi during which the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed on Tuesday. Protests have spread to other countries across the Muslim world.

For many Muslims, any depiction of the prophet is blasphemous. Caricatures deemed insulting in the past have provoked protests and drawn condemnations from officials, preachers, ordinary Muslims and many Christians.

U.S. officials have said authorities were not investigating the film project itself, and that even if it was inflammatory or led to violence, simply producing it cannot be considered a crime in the United States, which has strong free speech laws.

Two attorneys visited Nakoula's home hours before he was taken in for questioning. They said they were there to consult with him.


BANK FRAUD CONVICTION

Nakoula, whose name has been widely linked to the film in media reports, pleaded guilty to bank fraud in 2010 and was sentenced to 21 months in prison, to be followed by five years on supervised probation, court documents showed.

He was accused of fraudulently opening bank and credit card accounts using Social Security numbers that did not match the names on the applications, a criminal complaint showed. He was released in June 2011, and at least some production on the video was done later that summer.

But the terms of Nakoula's prison release contain behavior stipulations that bar him from accessing the Internet or assuming aliases without the approval of his probation officer.

A senior law enforcement official in Washington has indicated the probation investigation relates to whether he broke one or both of these conditions. Violations could result in him being sent back to prison, court records show.

Clips of the film posted on the Internet since July have been attributed to a man by the name of Sam Bacile, which two people linked to the film have said was likely an alias.

A telephone number said to belong to Bacile, given to Reuters by U.S.-based Coptic Christian activist Morris Sadek who said he had promoted the film, was later traced back to a person who shares the Nakoula residence.

Stan Goldman, a Loyola Law School professor, said whether Nakoula is sent back to jail over potential probation violations linked to the film, such as accessing the Internet, was a subjective decision up to an individual judge.

"Federal judges are gods in their own courtrooms, it varies so much in who they are," he said, noting such a move would be based on his conduct not on the content of the film.

As well as the fraud conviction, Nakoula also pleaded guilty in 1997 to possession with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and was sentenced to a year in jail, said Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 165 guests