REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Libyan protests might have been cover for military assault

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 16:56
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4728
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


What happened and is happening in Libya and Cairo may well have been a move specificallky planned to incite protests against Americans as a cover for a PLANNED ATTACK.
Quote:

"Innocence of Muslims", the supposed movie that sparked protests in Egypt and Libya, the latter of which ended in the deaths of four Americans, may not even be a real movie at all—BuzzFeed suggests it may be cut together from other footage. If it is, and the trailer is any indication, then it is is a very bad one, abysmally written and acted, with laughable production values, and rotten ideas. Seung-Hui Cho and James Holmes seem to have ruminated over the former in private, though whatever those films meant to them will probably never be really comprehensible to us.

"Innocence of Muslims" appears to be something even more complicated, a fiction that began with its creators and has spawned further fictions that have, at last, resulted in an international crisis. Sam Bacile, the pseudonym of the man who was initially credited with making the movie, has been up front about his opinions about Islam, telling the Wall Street Journal that Islam is a cancer,” and that “The movie is a political movie. It’s not a religious movie.” Bacile is a familiar type, a person who conflated individual extremists who happen to be Muslims with the entirety of Islam. But it’s unclear who he actually is as a distinct individual—he appears to be neither Israeli, nor a real estate developer, as he’d previously claimed.

It isn’t merely the production of the movie, if it even exists as a full feature, or who actually made it, that’s in question. Now, it seems that the protests may have provided cover for a planned attack, though whether the attackers instigated the protests or took advantage of them remains unclear.

The ideas behind the clip are shameful and ignorant, and the execution of them is a travesty of filmmaking. Bacile, whoever he is, and whoever else may have been involved in the movie’s production, of course have the right to make it, just as those of us who find it unattractive and shoddy have every right to harshly criticize it. But there’s something truly tragic about the fact that the clip, an irrelevant little piece of trash, was presented as a U.S.-government-sponsored provocation, used to spur precisely the kind of division between Americans and Muslims that the film’s producers hoped it would create—Steve Klein, who consulted on the film, told the Associated Press he told Bacile “you’re going to be the next Theo van Gogh.” It’s a sign of intellectually insecurity to need to violently suppress ideas that offend you, particularly when the expression of those ideas comes in a form that will convince no one, that presents no real threat. And the narrative of how the clip came to be viewed as a major provocation is a story it will be as important to untangle as who made it, and how they managed to present it as a legitimate enterprise. http://thinkprogress.org/]
Quote:

The anti-Muslim "movie" that served as the spark or pretext for a wave of violent unrest in Egypt and Libya may not be a movie at all.



As the video above — cut from the YouTube video tied to a global controversy — shows, nearly all of the names in the movie's "trailer" are overdubbed. The video is a compilation of the most clumsily overdubbed moments from what is in reality an incoherent, haphazardly-edited set of scenes. Among the overdubbed words is "Mohammed," suggesting that the footage was taken from a film about something else entirely. The footage also suggests multiple video sources — there are obvious and jarring discrepancies among actors and locations.

However, CNN has reported that the cast and crew disavowed the movie, and the overdubbing could also have been to conceal the content from the cast itself. Gawker interviewed a woman who played a part in the movie, who said that she had had no idea what it was about when she was hired.

As The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg reported today, the supposed filmmaker, "Sam Bacile," appears not to be a real person — or at least not the director of the movie. A consultant to the movie, Steve Klein, told Goldberg that he didn't know Bacile's real name and that he wasn't Israeli as reported.

The person using Bacile's name told the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal that the film had been made using $5 million from those donors, as well as a sizable crew of 45 people behind the camera and nearly 60 actors. The film's low production values make those numbers risible. Five million dollars is more than the budget of some reputable independent films, and could certainly buy a better production than what went into the Mohammad film. http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/inflammatory-anti-muslim-movie-may-n
ot-be-a-real
]
Quote:

A statement released on the behalf of the 80 cast and crew members of "Innocence of Muslims," a film that reportedly prompted Tuesday protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, indicates that they are not happy with the film and were misled by the producer.

"The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer. We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose," the statement says. "We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred."

U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity say they believe the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi was planned before the protests and was not prompted by the film, and that the attackers perhaps used the protest as a diversion.

U.S. sources say they do not believe the attacks that killed Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, were in reaction to the online release of a film mocking Islam, CNN's Elise Labott reports.

"It was not an innocent mob," one senior official said. "The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."

This meshes with information recorded earlier in this post, including that U.S. sources told CNN that the Benghazi attack was planned, and that perhaps a protest against the film was used as a diversion. Also, a London think tank with strong ties to Libya speculated Wednesday that Stevens was the victim of a targeted al Qaeda attack "to avenge the death of Abu Yaya al-Libi, al Qaeda's second in command killed a few months ago."

[Updated at 2:48 p.m. ET] U.S. sources say they do not believe the attacks that killed Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, were in reaction to the online release of a film mocking Islam, CNN's Elise Labott reports.

"It was not an innocent mob," one senior official said. "The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."

This meshes with information recorded earlier in this post, including that U.S. sources told CNN that the Benghazi attack was planned, and that perhaps a protest against the film was used as a diversion. Also, a London think tank with strong ties to Libya speculated Wednesday that Stevens was the victim of a targeted al Qaeda attack "to avenge the death of Abu Yaya al-Libi, al Qaeda's second in command killed a few months ago."

[Updated at 12:51 p.m. ET] A London think tank with strong ties to Libya speculated Wednesday that Stevens was actually the victim of a targeted al Qaeda revenge attack.

The assault "came to avenge the death of Abu Yaya al-Libi, al Qaeda's second in command killed a few months ago," the think tank Quilliam said Wednesday. It was "the work of roughly 20 militants, prepared for a military assault," the think tank said, noting that rocket-propelled grenade launchers do not normally appear at peaceful protests, and that there were no other protests against the film elsewhere in Libya.

The planned attack came in two waves, one which prompted U.S. officials to leave the consulate for a secure location. The second wave was directed at the place of retreat, Quilliam said, citing unnamed sources on the ground in Benghazi and abroad.

[Updated at 12:11 p.m. ET] Tuesday's attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was planned in advance, and the attackers used the protest outside the consulate as a diversion, U.S. sources told CNN Wednesday.

The sources could not say whether the attackers instigated the protest or merely took advantage of it.

[Updated at 8:53 a.m. ET] Libya's government apologized to the United States and to the family of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-3-others-
killed-in-rocket-attack-witness-says/
]
Quote:

‘It Makes Me Sick’: Actress in Muhammed Movie Says She Was Deceived, Had No Idea It Was About Islam

The story of the Muhammed movie which sparked deadly protests in Libya and Egypt gets weirder. The actors who appeared in it had no idea they were starring in anti-Islam propaganda which depicts Muhammed as a child molester and thug. They were deceived by the film's director, believing they were appearing in a film about the life of a generic Egyptian 2,000 years ago.

Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress from Bakersfield, Calif., has a small role in the Muhammed movie as a woman whose young daughter is given to Muhammed to marry. But in a phone interview this afternoon, Garcia told us she had no idea she was participating in an offensive spoof on the life of Muhammed when she answered a casting call through an agency last summer and got the part.

The script she was given was titled simply Desert Warriors.

"It was going to be a film based on how things were 2,000 years ago," Garcia said. "It wasn't based on anything to do with religion, it was just on how things were run in Egypt. There wasn't anything about Muhammed or Muslims or anything."

In the script and during the shooting, nothing indicated the controversial nature of the final product, now called Muslim Innocence. Muhammed wasn't even called Muhammed; he was "Master George," Garcia said. The word "Muhammed" was dubbed over in post-production, as were essentially all other offensive references to Islam and Muhammed.

For example, at 9:03 in the trailer, Garcia berates her husband, who wants to send their daughter to Muhammed: "Is your Muhammed a child molester?" she says in the final product. But the words are dubbed over what she actually said. The line in the script—and the line Garcia gave during filming—was, "is your God a child molester," Garcia told us today.

Garcia was horrified when she saw the end product, and when protesters in Libya killed four U.S. Embassy employees.

"I had nothing to do really with anything," she said today. "Now we have people dead because of a movie I was in. It makes me sick."

According to Garcia, her three days on set last July were unremarkable. The film's mysterious pseudonymous writer and director, "Sam Bacile," has claimed to be an Israeli real estate mogul. But Garcia said Bacile told her he was Egyptian on set. Bacile had white hair and spoke Arabic to a number of "dark-skinned" men who hung around the set, she said. (A Bacile associate also told The Atlantic he wasn't Israeli or Jewish.)

"He was just really mellow. He was just sitting there and he wanted certain points to be made."

Once, Garcia said, Bacile wanted a girl that "Master George" (aka Muhammed) was to sleep with to look seven years old, instead of 10, to heighten the outrage. But his Assistant Directors protested, saying that was too young.

After the protests erupted and Bacile appeared in the media, Garcia called him up today to express her outrage at his deception.

"I called Sam and said, 'Why did you do this?' and he said, 'I'm tired of radical Islamists killing each other. Let other actors know it's not their fault.'"

Garcia isn't satisfied simply knowing it wasn't her fault.

"I'm going to sue his butt off."

Update: The entire 80-member cast and crew of the film have released a statement saying they were misled. Via CNN:


The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer. We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose. We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred.

Update II: Here's what appears to be the original casting call, posted in July 2011on craigslist:
Quote:

NOW CASTING SAG and NON SAG ACTORS for "DESERT WARRIOR." Director Alan Roberts.

Historical desert drama set in Middle East. Indie Feature film shoots 18 days in L.A. in August. Studio and backlot locations.

Male Roles: DR. MATTHEW (Lead): Middle Eastern Pharmacist, 40-50, intelligent, family man; GEORGE (Lead); 40-50, Middle Eastern warrior leader, romantic, charismatic; YOUNG GEORGE (featured) 18-22; PRIEST (featured): 60-70, bearded; ABDO (featured), 60-70, Elder tribe leader; ISRAELI MEN 30-50 (featured); WARRIORS (featured) 18-50, Various Middle Eastern types, bearded.

Female Roles: CONDALISA (featured) 40, attractive, successful, strong willed; HILLARY (featured) 18 but must look younger, petite; innocent; YOUSTINA (featured) 16-18, Daughter of doctor; MIDDLE EASTERN WOMEN (Various Featured Roles) 18-40, attractive, exotic; OLDER WOMAN (featured) 60-70, feisty.

Please place Role desired in SUBJECT: line of email.

Indicate SAG or NON-SAG

Require phone contact for immediate interview in Beverly/LaCienega area.

http://gawker.com/5942748/it-makes-me-sick-actress-in-muhammed-movie-s
ays-she-was-deceived-had-no-idea-it-was-about-islam
]
Quote:

As part of my search for more information about Sam Bacile, the alleged producer of the now-infamous anti-Muhammad film trailer "The Innocence of Muslims," I just called a man named Steve Klein -- a self-described militant Christian activist in Riverside, California (whose actual business, he said, is in selling "hard-to-place home insurance"), who has been described in multiple media accounts as a consultant to the film.

Klein told me that Bacile, the producer of the film, is not Israeli, and most likely not Jewish, as has been reported, and that the name is, in fact, a pseudonym. He said he did not know "Bacile"'s real name. He said Bacile contacted him because he leads anti-Islam protests outside of mosques and schools, and because, he said, he is a Vietnam veteran and an expert on uncovering al Qaeda cells in California. "After 9/11 I went out to look for terror cells in California and found them, piece of cake. Sam found out about me. The Middle East Christian and Jewish communities trust me."

He said the man who identified himself as Bacile asked him to help make the anti-Muhammad film. When I asked him to describe Bacile, he said: "I don't know that much about him. I met him, I spoke to him for an hour. He's not Israeli, no. I can tell you this for sure, the State of Israel is not involved, Terry Jones (the radical Christian Quran-burning pastor) is not involved. His name is a pseudonym. All these Middle Eastern folks I work with have pseudonyms. I doubt he's Jewish. I would suspect this is a disinformation campaign."

I asked him who he thought Sam Bacile was. He said that there are about 15 people associated with the making of the film, "Nobody is anything but an active American citizen. They're from Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, they're some that are from Egypt. Some are Copts but the vast majority are Evangelical."

What are we to make of Steve Klein's assertions? I'm taking everything about this strange and horrible episod with a grain of salt, though I will say that I haven't seen any proof yet that Sam Bacile is an actual Israeli Jew, or that the name is anything other than a pseudonym. More to come, undoubtedly. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/muhammad-film
-consultant-sam-bacile-is-not-israeli-and-not-a-real-name/262290/
]
Wouldn't it be interesting to eventually discover who made this film and why, that it might turn out to be a fake INTENDED to incite protests, and Romney and others HELPED in this effort?

And if this was a planned attack which used the movie for cover, they played right into their hands:
Quote:

Libyan attacks said to be 2-part militant assault

The attack that killed four Americans in Libya, including the U.S. ambassador, was an organized two-part operation by heavily armed militants that included a precisely timed raid on a supposedly secret safe house just as Libyan and U.S. security forces were arriving to rescue evacuated consulate staff, a senior Libyan security official said on Thursday.

Wanis el-Sharef, eastern Libya's deputy interior minister, said the attacks Tuesday night were suspected to have been timed to mark the 9/11 anniversary and that the militants used civilians protesting an anti-Islam film as cover for their action. Infiltrators within the security forces may have tipped off militants to the safe house location, he said.

He said an unspecified number of militants suspected of taking part in the attack have been arrested and that others were being closely monitored by police to see whether they are linked to a group. He refused to elaborate.

That the attackers knew the safe house's location suggests a "spy" inside the security forces tipped off the militants, he said. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-09-13/libyan-attacks-said-to-be-2-
part-militant-assault
]
Quote:

The protest was planned by Salafists well before news circulated of an objectionable video ridiculing Islam's prophet, Mohammed, said Eric Trager, an expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced Aug. 30 by Jamaa Islamiya, a State Department-designated terrorist group, to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman. He is serving a life sentence in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

When the video started circulating, Nader Bakkar, the spokesman for the Egyptian Salafist Noor party, which holds about 25% of the seats in parliament, called on people to go to the embassy. He also called on non-Islamist soccer hooligans, known as Ultras, to join the protest.

On Monday, the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri, Mohamed al Zawahiri, tweeted that people should go to the embassy and "defend the prophet," Trager said.

A senior administrations official -- who briefed reporters on the details but requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly -- describe the assault as an intense hours-long firefight between heavily armed gunmen and U.S. and Libyan security personnel attempting to defend the diplomatic mission.

The Muslim Brotherhood on Wednesday condemned the violence. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012/09/12/obama-tightens-sec
urity-after-diplomats-killed-in-libya/57752828/1
this whole thing may have been a put-up job to cover a military attack. Perhaps we'll find out more as time goes on.
Quote:

The protest was planned by Salafists well before news circulated of an objectionable video ridiculing Islam's prophet, Mohammed, said Eric Trager, an expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced Aug. 30 by Jamaa Islamiya, a State Department-designated terrorist group, to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman. He is serving a life sentence in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

When the video started circulating, Nader Bakkar, the spokesman for the Egyptian Salafist Noor party, which holds about 25% of the seats in parliament, called on people to go to the embassy. He also called on non-Islamist soccer hooligans, known as Ultras, to join the protest.

On Monday, the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri, Mohamed al Zawahiri, tweeted that people should go to the embassy and "defend the prophet," Trager said.

A U.S. official, speaking to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the situation publicly, said the Obama administration is investigating whether the assault on the U.S. consulate in Libya was planned to mark the anniversary of 9/11.

A senior administrations official -- who briefed reporters on the details but requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly -- describe the assault as an intense hours-long firefight between heavily armed gunmen and U.S. and Libyan security personnel attempting to defend the diplomatic mission.


"It's no problem for them to protest and have their demands ... but it doesn't mean you need to (inflict) any harm on the embassy here," said Dina Zakaria, a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood.


"Just because you are against something doesn't mean you have to kill," she said. "I think it's really a disaster."

Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif described the attack as "cowardly" and offered his condolences on the death of Stevens and the three other Americans. Speaking to reporters, he vowed to bring the culprits to justice and maintain his country's close relations with the United States. He said the three Americans were security guards. "We extend our apology to America, the American people and the whole world," el-Megarif said.

Sam Bacile, a 56-year-old California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew and who said he produced, directed and wrote the two-hour film, Innocence of Muslims, said he had not anticipated such a furious reaction.

Video excerpts posted on YouTube depict the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer and a madman in an overtly ridiculing way, showing him having sex and calling for massacres.

Speaking by phone from an undisclosed location, Bacile, who went into hiding Tuesday, remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that he intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion.

"Islam is a cancer, period," he repeatedly said. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012/09/12/obama-tightens-sec
urity-after-diplomats-killed-in-libya/57752828/1


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:14 AM

BYTEMITE


This is a good thread. I'm bumping it.

Also possibly represents a good alternative to election talk and discussion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:25 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thanx Byte. I was watching it and wondering why nobody picked up on it. I think it's something that should come into the discussion of the Lybian thing; personally I think it's more important than anything else having to do with the attack/protests, as well as the fact that the video that started all of this wasn't real, which pretty much everyone is recognizing now.

That our country got twisted into a pretzel over this, sending military, sending ships, is PRECISELY what was intended is important, to me at least. We played right into their hands, and are and have been manipulated time and time again by our own stupidity. They really know how to play us!

We'll see if anyone picks up on this or if it disappears down the list. I think people here would rather bash each other over the heads on politics than discuss REAL issues...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:36 AM

BYTEMITE


Unlikely to be Mitt or his team. Not smart enough.

Something definitely shady here though. Again, good work. Thinking it over.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:40 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Thanx Byte. I was watching it and wondering why nobody picked up on it. I think it's something that should come into the discussion of the Lybian thing; personally I think it's more important than anything else having to do with the attack/protests, as well as the fact that the video that started all of this wasn't real, which pretty much everyone is recognizing now.

That our country got twisted into a pretzel over this, sending military, sending ships, is PRECISELY what was intended is important, to me at least. We played right into their hands, and are and have been manipulated time and time again by our own stupidity. They really know how to play us!

We'll see if anyone picks up on this or if it disappears down the list. I think people here would rather bash each other over the heads on politics than discuss REAL issues...




The question remains, who are they? The original revolution was likely prompted by Ghaddafi refusing to be part of an IMF free trade scheme for the middle east. But what is all this now and who is behind it? It doesn't quite fit into the IMF scheme in any way I can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:45 AM

STORYMARK


The story behind the "movie" that sparked the protests is weird, as well. Made by a dude under a false name, who denied his involvement when questioned. The actors involved all say they thought they were doing a different film all together, and they their dialog was re-dubbed later by someone else. Just strange, and likely to get stranger.

More info:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/inflammatory-anti-muslim-movie-may-n
ot-be-a-real#HTWF2



Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:49 AM

BYTEMITE


Looking more into this, found it interesting to note that the guy elected by the interim government to be head of their council, and the guy now elected to be head of the general national congress was a former Ghaddafi employee.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:50 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Oh, gawd, not Romney, or probably anyone in American politics. Doesn't fit and wouldn't occur to me. Does sound like there's American involvement in the film, tho', which I find abhorrent.

Hey Mark, no fair! I posted that article with the FULL video (in the article, it only shows excerpts) above, with the same site! Fink. (But you're still adorable)... ;o)

The clip IS great, tho', condensing the worst dubbed parts. I just couldn't figure out how to upload it, so I got the whole thing from YouTube. I urge everyone to go to the link Mark put up and watch the video. The dubbing is so bad it's hysterical--if it weren't for what it incited.

Looking back, I see the YouTube version is entitled "trailer"--I've never seen a thirteen-minute trailer (!), and it makes me wonder if there IS anything else to it (like maybe there's no movie at all...).


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 11:08 AM

BYTEMITE


I think the IMF thing has played itself out in Libya, on thinking about this, they'd have had control over Libya so long as no new instability was introduced. They don't really have any reason to undermine that. Instability only helps along the agenda of some extreme fringe groups.

I'm putting this effort down as a ploy by a group of these nutcases who believe they have to engineer the end of the world. Which scarily does represent some groups in TPTB. In any case, I think this effort my have been intended to drive a wedge between Libya and Egypt versus the West and Israel. That's the most obvious agenda that comes up, and as we've seen, there's already indications of this outcome.

........,.-.~.~.~.-.,
....,.'...............'.,
..,..,-,-........,--,-....,
.,../..`-'|...../...`-'|...,
,...'-----'.....'------'....,
,...........................,
,..--------------------,....,
,...'..................,....,
.,..`......._._.......,....,
..,..`....,.....`...,'....,
....,..`.'_._._._.'....,.'
......'.-.,._._._.,.-.'

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 11:16 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Just watched the whole "trailer". It's pathetic, worthy of a good laugh for how ridiculously bad it is--and the dubbing is SO clear and obvious, it's amazing to think anyone believes the dubbed parts are for real! It actually doesn't even make sense; I don't believe there IS a movie of any kind, just this ridiculous "trailer" put together haphazardly to incite anger. This whole thing is amazing to me, that people took it seriously and were willing to put their lives in danger for something SO badly done with SUCH obvious dubbing!

I guess there aren't just stupid people in America...obviously.

I agree somewhat, Byte, but I think from what we've learned so far, it was an effort to incite protests, which could then be used as cover for a military attack. Given the attackers and the weapons they had, it's just impossible to believe it was merely protesters. Given the ridiculousness of the video and the horrible dubbing, I can't see it inciting more than a few stupid people--but all it takes is a few stupid people to create cover for a real attack. Seems obvious it was intended to drive a wedge between Muslims and the West, but beyond that I think the military action was planned in conjunction with it.

I can't believe they're still protesting over this piece of go se which is such an obviously-dubbed piece of shit. Seems to me there's enough anti-American feeling that some will buy ANYTHING!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 11:34 AM

BYTEMITE


Hmm. You think that the ambassador was a deliberate target. Interesting. Let me look into this possibility as well.

People are arguing an Al Qaeda connection due to the September 11th date. Looking at the Ambassador's personal history, he worked as both "Director of the Office of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs" and as an "Iran desk officer."

...Could someone eventually try to tie Iran to Al Qaeda through this? I mean, it's a ridiculous idea, they openly hate each other. But various groups have been suggesting a connection for a while, and some Americans might buy into it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 12:45 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


I'm more worried that the "movie" itself ties right back to a certain country in the area, in an effort to inflame people in the area and suck us into more military entanglements in the region, especially in Egypt and Iran.






"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:05 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Ya know, somehow, 'I told ya so', just doesn't quite say it.





" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:10 PM

WHOZIT


Wow...I love how you libs agree with each other on looney threads like this, just like MSNBC. Barry has now officially failed at foreign policy, but no one will ignore how he's failing here in the USA....and he use to eat dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:12 PM

BYTEMITE


We only have the word of someone who was involved with the project that the mystery filmmaker wasn't Zionist (if they weren't Israeli or Jewish). At the same time... Israel's motivations overlap with the IMF schemes I've mentioned. Iran has not accepted IMF demands, so that's the source of hostility at Iran. But Libya and Egypt (and Iraq and Afghanistan) have already been steamrolled for this, so it seems like there might be something else at work here. If this fake movie was meant solely for Iran and to increase citizen unrest in Iran, it was targeted poorly.

I think this event was more just to convince western powers about something. Either about Iran or about some "Muslim threat" in general. And that doesn't necessarily just mean Israel was the source of all this.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:17 PM

BYTEMITE


Whozits: I'm only posting on this thread because it's the only non-political thread on the RWED right now that isn't about puppies or owls (and I started one of those). I'm sick to death of Obama versus Romney and never cared one way or the other in the first place.

If anyone hijacks this thread for another Romney versus Obama Dems versus Repubs left versus right debate, my head will explode. I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT TWO DOUBLE TALKING SUITED DOUCHEBAGS or any of their tailcoat riding hanger-ons. This is actually a Real World EVENT, and I want to talk about it. Anyone who wants to talk WITH me about something that actually MATTERS, I will accommodate them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:49 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

It looks like the Associated Press has solved the mystery of who was behind the anti-Islam film believed to have sparked this week's violent protests at U.S. missions in Egypt, Libya, and throughout the Middle East.
That man is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year-old Coptic Christian with a criminal past who lives in California, according to the news wire's digging, which has been backed up by a federal law enforcement official.

In an interview with the AP, Nakoula admitted to providing logistical support for the production of Innocence of Muslims but denied being "Sam Bacile," the name given as the film's maker. But the evidence cobbled together by AP reporters Gillian Flaccus and Stephen Braun suggests otherwise.
The AP was one of a handful of media outlets to publish an interview early Wednesday with a man who claimed to be Bacile. Reporters traced the cellphone number used during that interview to Nakoula's address and, once there, noticed that Nakoula covered up his middle name of "Basseley" with his thumb when displaying his driver's license.

A little more digging on the part of Flaccus and Braun led to the discovery that Nakoula pleaded no contest in 2010 to bank fraud charges, had used numerous aliases in the past, and had a number of connections to the Bacile persona. An unnamed U.S. law enforcement official later confirmed to the AP that they had the right man.
Religion Dispatch's Sarah Posner appears to have been the first reporter to raise doubts about Bacile on Wednesday, noting that the man who spoke with the media gave conflicting details about himself.
Over the course of the day, those doubts grew, with reporters noting that despite a claim that the film cost $5 million—which "Bacile" claimed to have raised from 100 Israeli donors—it had comically poor production value.

A 13-minute trailer for the film portrays Mohammed as a pedophile-appeasing, bumbling spreader of false doctrine. Notably, as On the Media spotted, all of the more controversial lines in the trailer were dubbed in later, apparently to keep the film's actors and crew from knowing what they were working on.
Nakoula apparently went to Terry Jones, the Florida-based, Quran-burning pastor, a few weeks ago for help promoting the film. In an interview with the Daily Beast, Jones admitted that the film's negative portrayal of the Mohammed could cause violence, but he said he does not regret exercising free speech.



http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/13/nakoula_basseley_nak
oula_sam_bacile_innocence_of_muslims_filmmaker_ided_by_the_associated_press_.html






"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:54 PM

BYTEMITE


Sounds like he was trying to FRAME Israel.

Or... Could've been approached by them but took the money and did a half-ass job. But I'm still actually not seeing where Israel benefits by destabilizing Egypt and Libya further. Normally I'd be all like it's the typical middle east politics but this one has some complicated layers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 2:58 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


The U.S. has no interest in any further mid-east entanglements. Israel clearly DOES want any excuse to launch an attack on Iran, but they want to be sure we're going to do the heavy lifting. As well, Egypt and Libya are none to friendly to Israel at the moment. Sucking us into more military conflict in the area plays perfectly into Israel's hands, and their main aim is to get us involved in a conflict with Iran, by any means necessary.

They know it's not going to be easy to do, because Obama as much as told them "No" already.

And of course, neo-con dominionists love this shit, because it clears the way for The Second Coming and all their end-of-days bullshit.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:21 PM

BYTEMITE


Hmn. Maaaybe. I guess I just figured they didn't want more Egypt and Libya instability on their doorstep, and also thought they benefitted from any stability Egypt and Libya might get.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:26 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


A *rational* Israel would think that way. A hard-right Israel is looking to destabilize Egypt in order to make another land grab, and keeping Libya from stabilizing helps them if it hurts Obama. And *ANY* instability in the area gives Netanyahu a perfect excuse to launch "pre-emptive" strikes against Iran, because if the U.S. can do it (as we did with Iraq), so can everybody else.






"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 14, 2012 5:03 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Yah, this whole thing fails the sniff test, Justin Raimondo and others have dug into it and so far all the questions just lead to more questions...

But there's also this, as I have repeatedly pointed out, there is not, and was not even at the time, a unified Libya - there wasn't just pro and anti Ghadafi forces, it's way more complicated than that, as there's at least FIVE factions on the "anti" side, most of whom hate each other, some of whom are shooting at each other, and there are at least TWO and maybe more on the "pro" side who have some mutual antipathy as well, plus a lot of uninvolved neutrals trying to protect themselves and what they have from those factions, so it's a total bloody mess and our involvement really didn't help matters any, all it amounted to was settling a personal grudge we had no real right to hold in the first place cause any claim to moral high ground fell flat after we murdered some of his family members on false information fed to us by one of our so-called allies...

Beyond that, there's this.
Imagine if say, one of the embassies in Washington DC was used as a C3 operations center by that country to coordinate airstrikes by them on the city, while supporting and supplying internal rightwingnut militias and riots which culminated in the assassination of our president ?
What, folks, do you think would HAPPEN to that goddamn embassy and its staff, rule of law or not ?
In light of that, and our own conduct - other countries have been remarkably patient with us, almost too much so.

Sooner or later this bullshit of propping up dictators is gonna bite us on the ass, that eventually someone would smash our embassy flat in retaliation was INEVITABLE - and there's THIS, we keep fucking around over there with Pakistan and India, we keep murdering whomeever we please from behind a shield of diplomacy and outright lies, sooner or later fissionable material is GOING to fly, a nuclear exchange of some kind ALSO becomes INEVITABLE.

Remember what I said about the warmongering path we're on leading to the dead end of a mushroom cloud ?
That wasn't hyperbole.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 14, 2012 6:36 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Dunno what's new today as I haven't watched the news. As of then, it had spread to nine countries, so I hope it hasn't gotten worse rather than better. But from what was pieced together as of last night, let's see.
Quote:

Sources tracking militant Islamist groups in eastern Libya say that a pro-al Qaeda group responsible for a previous armed assault on the consulate – called the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades - is a chief suspect in the attack.

The sources also note that the attack immediately followed a call from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for revenge for the June death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior Libyan member of the terror group.

Noman Benotman, president of the counter-extremist group Quilliam Foundation in London, told CNN, "An attack like this would likely have required preparation. This would not seem to be merely a protest which escalated."

"According to our sources, the attack was the work of roughly 20 militants, prepared for a military assault; it is rare that an RPG7 is present at a peaceful protest," Benotman said.

The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee said Thursday that the strike "has all the hallmarks of an al Qaeda operation or an al Qaeda affiliate. One of the things that we've noticed over the last six or seven months is that al Qaeda in the Maghreb, northern Africa, have said they're really eager to strike northeastern targets. We've seen cells in Libya and Egypt starting to develop," U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, told CNN's "Starting Point."

Libyan Deputy Interior Minister Wanis al-Sharif said Wednesday that a group of heavily armed militants "infiltrated the march to start chaos.” Libya’s government blamed remnants of the Gadhafi regime, which was overthrown last year.

There was some speculation Wednesday about whether the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had anything to do with the Benghazi assault. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/13/libya-consulate-attack-the-big-un
answered-questions/?hpt=hp_bn2

Further on that:
Quote:

A pro-al Qaeda group responsible for a previous armed assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is the chief suspect in Tuesday's attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, sources tracking militant Islamist groups in eastern Libya say.

They also note that the attack immediately followed a call from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for revenge for the death in June of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior Libyan member of the terror group.

The group suspected to be behind the assault -- the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades -- first surfaced in May when it claimed responsibility for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi. The following month the group claimed responsibility for detonating an explosive device outside the U.S. Consulate and later released a video of that attack.

Noman Benotman, once a leading member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and now based at the Quilliam Foundation in London, who had earlier warned of the likelihood of renewed attacks against U.S. interest in Libya, said the Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades is a prime suspect in the Benghazi attack Tuesday. He believes it is likely the deadly attack was also linked to a video statement released by al-Zawahiri on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. In the video, al-Zawahiri confirmed the death of al-Libi -- a prominent member of the al Qaeda-linked group -- adding: "His blood is calling, urging and inciting you to fight and kill the crusaders."

Notably, the Brigades said the June 5 attack was also timed to coincide with preparations for the arrival of a senior U.S. State Department official. "The time frame of attacks shows that the group has been following and actively involved in gathering information about the activities of diplomatic missions in the country," Benotman wrote in a June briefing paper on the group.

He adds that it appears the Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades was also responsible for a rocket attack against the convoy of the British ambassador in Benghazi on June 11 and an attack against the Red Cross in Misrata on June 12.

Libyan and Western security officials tell CNN that al Qaeda has taken advantage of a security vacuum to build up a presence in eastern Libya.

Another Libyan official told CNN at the same time that five radical Islamist militant commanders were operating in the Derna area, with 200 to 300 men under their command in camps in the area. Ironically, Christopher Stevens -- the U.S. ambassador killed in Tuesday's attack -- had written extensively about the rise of Salafist factions in and around Derna in a 2008 diplomatic cable.

As CNN has previously reported, one of militant commanders, according to several sources, is Abdulbasit Azuz, a long-time associate of al-Zawahiri. Azuz was dispatched by al-Zawahiri to Libya from Pakistan's tribal areas in the spring of 2011 to create a foothold for al Qaeda in Libya, the sources say.

According to one source, Azuz has dispatched men as far west as Ajdabiya and Brega in his attempt to build up al Qaeda operations in eastern Libya.

According to Libyan security sources, within the militant ranks in Derna there are 20 to 30 hardcore jihadist fighters who are cause for most concern. One source said a number of Egyptian jihadists are also present in the Derna area, as well as fighters belonging to al Qaeda's North African affiliate, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Another militant whose activities have caused concern in eastern Libya is Sufian bin Qumu, a released Guantanamo detainee who is believed to be operating a camp in a remote area outside Derna. His detainee assessment at the prison camp described him as having a "long-term association with Islamist extremist Jihad and members of Al-Qaida and other extremist groups." Libyan officials confirmed his presence in the area to CNN in June.More at http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/inde
x.html


If this is the case, it would seem to me that 9/11 would be the perfect time to do another "action". That I can easily believe.

HOW it got connected to this awful video I can't imagine. Doesn't seem to me like a Coptic would work WITH Islamic fanatics to diss Mohamed to rile up crowds for cover of a military action. This guy was supposedly Coptic:
Quote:

There are about 18 million Coptic Orthodox Christians in the world. Between 10 and 14 million of them are found in Egypt under the jurisdiction of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. There are also significant numbers in the diaspora in countries such as the United States of America, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, and Sudan. The number of Coptic Orthodox Christians in the diaspora is roughly 4 million. In addition, there are between 350,000 and 400,000 native African adherents in East, Central and South Africa.Wiki

Hunting around trying to find out some background on Copts and their situation in Egypt, as well as their relationship with Muslims and/or any connection to this guy. Found this as of the beginning of June (before the election) from Al-Ahram:
Quote:

It did not take long for Copts to understand that they are facing a political dilemma. The less motivated the Christian voter, the less committed to cast his or her vote for one of the candidates. Christians in Egypt have a natural aversion to vote for what they perceive as a facist-Islamist trend as personified by the Muslim Brotherhood's Mursi. The irony is that the less certain the Christian voter is the more cartoonish the politics.

"Coptic Christian youth have voted overwhelmingly for Nasserist presidential candidate Hamdeen Sabahi. The older generation of Copts have opted instead for military strongman Ahmed Shafik. There is an obvious generation gap that splits the Coptic vote. The very notion that the Coptic vote is a monolith is not true." Consigning Coptic Christians in Egypt to the counter-revolutionary dustbin is unfair and untrue.

The Muslim Brotherhood's bid for Mohamed Musri as president lays bare their hunger for political office, according to many Coptic Christians, and leaves questions over their convictions and motives concerning giving Christians full citizenship rights in Egypt.

Unfortunately, as many Muslims in Egypt perceive the situation, the gloves came off this month when Mursi garnered the most votes. The impact was instant. Christians decided en-masse to opt for Shafik. There are more than enough policy differences between Shafik and Mursi to fill a campaign without impugning on the character of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yet it is a virtuoso display of Shafik's political instincts and tactical skills to cultivate the Christian and the secularist Muslim vote.

It is a delicate task. Shafik has long been used to vicious whispering campaigns about his association with Mubarak. But, frankly speaking, most Christians could care less. Mursi's pitch for the presidency is based on cultivating the trust of the conservative constituency, invariably the Islamist one.

Christians in Egypt have to skirt round a tangled political scene. They are obliged to vote for Shafik for the sake of their own survival.

What counts as far as the Christians are concerned is constancy and consistency. Mursi has not assuaged their fears, instead he seems to advocate the notion that Muslims and Christians must go their own separate ways.More at http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2012/1100/eg8.htm course, Mursi won the election. So where does this leave the Copts? If this guy was an orthodox Copt, how did he feel about it? Could he have been used by the factions that thus far are being blamed for the military attack?

Apparently this guy contacted our beloved "Koran burner" recently:
Quote:

The AP located the man calling himself Bacile after obtaining his cellphone number from Morris Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the U.S. who has promoted the anti-Muslim film in recent days on his website. Egypt’s Christian Coptic populace has long decried what they describe as a history of discrimination and occasional violence from the country’s Muslim majority.

Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Fla., who sparked outrage in the Arab world when he burned Qurans on the ninth anniversary of 9/11, said he spoke with the movie’s director on the phone Wednesday and prayed for him. Jones said he has not met the filmmaker in person but added that the man contacted him a few weeks ago about promoting the movie. Jones and others who have dealt with the filmmaker said Wednesday that Bacile was hiding his real identity.

Nakoula, who talked guardedly with AP about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and was ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.

One of the actresses, Cindy Lee Garcia, told KERO-TV in Bakersfield that the film was originally titled “Desert Warriors” and the script did not contain offensive references to Islam.
“When I found out this movie had caused all this havoc, I called Sam and asked him why, what happened, why did he do this? I said, ‘Why did you do this to us, to me and to us?’ And he said, ‘Tell the world that it wasn’t you that did it, it was me, the one who wrote the script, because I’m tired of the radical Muslims running around killing everyone,’” she said.

Garcia said the director, who called himself Sam Bacile, told her then that he was Egyptian.

The man identifying himself as Bacile told the AP he was an Israeli-born, 56-year-old Jewish writer and director. But a Christian activist involved in the film project, Steve Klein, told the AP on Wednesday that Bacile was a pseudonym and that the man was Christian. Klein had told the AP on Tuesday that the filmmaker was an Israeli Jew who was concerned for family members who live in Egypt.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, said Klein is a former Marine and longtime religious-right activist who has helped train paramilitary militias at a California church. It described Klein as founder of Courageous Christians United, which conducts protests outside abortion clinics, Mormon temples and mosques. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/us-law-enforcement-n
akoula-is-filmmaker-of-anti-muslim-movie-blamed-for-violence/2012/09/13/5f58265c-fe02-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story_2.html


Looking around to see if there is any connection between the Salafists and Copts, I found this from back in May:
Quote:

The official announcement of the first round of Presidential elections in Egypt require a June run off between Mohamed Morsy, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, and Air Marshal Ahmad Shafik, Mubarak's last PM. That has raised immediate accusations against Copts by Salafists and fundamentalist backers of Morsy that the Copts swung the election to Shafik.

It's all very confusing, looking for motivations and connections. Why the "movie" was made, apparently an anti-Muslim effort (rant?) by a Copt, only makes sense if it's viewed AS that, a stupid action by an extremist Christian just 'cuz. That might be borne out by the obviously pathetic quality of the film, the effort to hide from the actors that it was anti-Muslim and the dubbing. Given it's patently obvious that the actors are virtually all American (from their looks and no accent), was that just because they were available actors, or an intent to connect the film to America? I just don't see this guy as having worked WITH any militant faction to use his movie as cover for an assault.

On that matter,
Quote:

Clips of the English-language film, some of which have been online since July, attracted attention in Egypt only over the past few days when someone posted a clip that had been dubbed into Arabic, according to the New York Times. Some Egyptian TV hosts began airing the clips over and over, portraying it as a Coptic Christian and American plot to denigrate the prophet. Morris Sadek, a Coptic Christian from Egypt and critic of Islam who now lives in the United States, told AP he recently began promoting the film clips, which might also explain their rise out of obscurity.
So it's been around since July...plenty of time for some militant group to plan to use it as cover, and it would be easy to encourage those "Egyptian TV hosts" to air it over and over to incite anger, then perhaps set up a "protest" for 9/11.

Or was the effort to get more attention for the "film" because it wasn't getting ENOUGH attention, and had nothing to do with al Qaeda? In which case, I suppose someone could still have easily promulgated a protest for 9/11 without there being any connection whatsoever.

Maybe we'll never know the truth. I, for one, don't always look to my own government for some shady, complicated scheme--CERTAINLY they have been involved in plenty, but it's not the first place I look. Additionally, what would be OUR motivation? It destabilizes the region, I don't see the current administration wanting to get involved in another military action, or any other particularly good reason for them to be behind this. As for the Israelis, it seems to me their previous methods have been quite adept and bear no resemblance to the sloppiness of this film or how they could instigate some al Qaeda faction into being involved. On the other hand, recent events by this splinter group of Al Qaeda seem to show them as quite reasonably the culprit.

And so we go on wondering...

As an aside, Frem, I think our propping up of dictators has already bitten us in the ass, numerous times. That hasn't stopped us, nor do I expect it to. We Yanks tend to bumble into situations without the slightest understanding of the place or the consequences. Maybe that will change someday, but in all my lifetime and previous to that it hasn't changed, so I'm not holding my breath!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 14, 2012 6:46 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

And he said, ‘Tell the world that it wasn’t you that did it, it was me, the one who wrote the script, because I’m tired of the radical Muslims running around killing everyone,’” she said.


Fucking brilliant. He's tired of the killing, so he makes a film to rile up more killing.

Either he's flat stupid, the worst troll this world has ever known, or there's more to this story yet.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 14, 2012 8:02 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Ya know, somehow, 'I told ya so', just doesn't quite say it.




Especially when you didn't "told ya so" in the first place. Careful you don't dislocate that shoulder patting yourself on the back for things you didn't do, son.







"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 15, 2012 3:13 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Byte, I vote for flat stupid. If you've seen the "trailer", or even the excerpt shown in the article, flat stupid would be the way to go!

I'm coming down on the side of the "movie" not being connected, until and unless more is known. From what I've read, it had been around since July, but only got noticed just before 9/11, when it got promoted. Sounds like an easy way to stir people up, suggest they protest on the significant 9/11, then use it for a military assault. Makes the most sense--I think if al Qaeda or anyone ELSE were involved, even they would have done a better job!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 15, 2012 6:48 AM

BYTEMITE


I agree there.

It's still kinda fuzzy to me who could have been behind the attack, there's a lot of interests in the region who might claim al Qaeda to stir up shit. And not just Israel.

Orrrr... it could just be al Qaeda, but sometimes I wonder if we just use al Qaeda as a boogeyman.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 15, 2012 1:01 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Emmanuel Goldstein did it.


-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 15, 2012 1:16 PM

BYTEMITE


There's also pretty much no reason why this COULDN'T be a false flag attack too. And now the president of libya is suggesting the attackers were actually foreigners... Shit man. If you guys are right about it being Israel, there goes the neighborhood. You know it's bad when the best case scenario may be you attacked yourself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 15, 2012 7:22 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You know it's bad when the best case scenario may be you attacked yourself.
"We" are not Israel, therefore "we" did not attack "ourselves". It's a mistake that Lieberman and the neocons commonly make, but Israel is nothing but a hyper-religious fascistic parasite lodged in the underbelly of our so-called "defense" department.

Also, I'm going to have to ask you all to step back and remind yourselves that this would not have happened in Libya if "we" had not deposed Qaddafi... who was, after all, better than our friends the Saudi Royal family and the Likud Party members.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 3:38 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Ya know, somehow, 'I told ya so', just doesn't quite say it.




Especially when you didn't "told ya so" in the first place. Careful you don't dislocate that shoulder patting yourself on the back for things you didn't do, son.
/B]



Actually, I did. In another thread, before this info came out.

Must suck for you to see me proven right. Again.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 3:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Actually, I did. In another thread, before this info came out.
Link please.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 4:12 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Actually, I did. In another thread, before this info came out.
Link please.



Oh dear god in heaven ! I posted this w/ our getting the link FIRST !

Quote:

It's being claimed that this anti-Mohammed video was what caused the riots in the first place, which I find to be a dubious claim.


http://blu.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=52989


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 4:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


When I click on the link it brings me right back to this thread. Can you please provide the correct link? I would like to read what you wrote, in its original context.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 5:15 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
When I click on the link it brings me right back to this thread. Can you please provide the correct link? I would like to read what you wrote, in its original context.



That's odd. When I click the link, it takes me to the ' 2 US embassies sacked ' thread.

Here's what I posted,in it's entirety.

Quote:



AURAPTOR
Three-point, four-hour, should do it.
Thursday, September 13, 2012 - 06:19



Cat - you're right about this thread being hijacked, to attack me personally and to vilify Christianity , for some weird reason, which has nothing to do w/ the events of the last couple of days.

And there's a shell game going on here as well. Even by the MSM , which has those TRYING to be objective confused and misinformed. I think this is purely by intent, too.

Regarding the time line of remarks released by this administration, ( which includes the various embassies, the State Dept, AND the White House ) and Mitt Romney. When an embassy releases a communique, or press release, it's understood to have been cleared by the State Dept, which works under the umbrella of the Obama White House.

First, the embassy in Cairo released a statement -

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," 6:18 a.m. EDT, shortly after noon Cairo time.

even BEFORE the attack took place. That seems odd. Not in a conspiratorial manner, but because it is in fact apologizing for OUR right to free speech, on 9-11, and when this 'video' was so obscure that virtually no one had even heard of it before. *( It's being claimed that this anti-Mohammed video was what caused the riots in the first place, which I find to be a dubious claim. )

Now, the news media are going out of their way to claim that this ISN'T an apology, and the same for a tweet which came from the Cairo embassy, which was later taken down.

The confusion only grows, as we're trying to piece together the events from across the ocean, 6 hours ahead of EST, at two different locations , where one attack took place, then another, and NO one knew of the death of the US ambassador and others until after initial statements had been made.

Clearly there is favoritism and partisanship going on in the reporting of all this, and finger pointing as to who said what, when, and to what they were referring, but at the end of the day, 2 US embassies were attacked ( now it's 3, but the Yemen was pushed back ) Americans were killed, and instead of being pissed off about any of that, we have posts against Christianity, ME, Romney.. almost anything EXCEPT the muslim extremists who did this barbaric act.

Man, talk about priorities being 180 degrees out of whack.



* Highlighted relevant comment, for clarification.


Also, the link I posted WAS the correct link. The address is different from this thread's. Not sure what the issue is.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 5:18 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Back to the subject at hand. I'm afraid it fits all too well for me that this faction of al Qade (or whatever it is) was behind the military action. The fact that they've been putting up video of bombing next to the Embassy, went after a dignitary's car, clearly threatened retribution, etc., etc., makes sense to me. Sure, it could be any number of people/countries/whatever, if we want to get conspiratorial, but I tend to come down on the side of Occham, that "one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power." No question that greater explanatory powers may come along in time, but unless and until they do, I kinda think it's a waste of time to try and find some other explanation.

The Ambassador being targeted contributes to that theory, too, in that they figured there was some kind of "mole" who leaked where the supposed "safe house" was--such a mole would also have easily told them the Ambassador was going to be there.

Given how easy it is to incite anti-American feelings in that entire area, they threatened actions and had been active in the area recently, given it was 9/11, added to the fact that the "movie" had been around over two months before it suddenly got attention (and those who helped get it attention), it just makes simple sense that it is what it is. I could of course be wrong, but I find that all too often governments or CIAs or somesuch are far more inept at pulling something like this off, and achieving their aim, than smaller organizations are.

By the way, as far as I can tell, yes, the "moviemaker" is a Copt and pretty virulent about Muslims. Such a poorly-done attempt makes sense to me, done by a pretty inept check kiter who'd been caught before and doesn't sound all that bright to me. JMHO.

Wouldn't it be nice if Raptor could grasp the difference between the words "condemnation" and "apology"? Nah, I know, too much to expect...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 5:24 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Wouldn't it be nice if Raptor could grasp the difference between the words "condemnation" and "apology"? Nah, I know, too much to expect...



When our first reaction is to apologize for our freedoms , instead of standing up to threats of violence against us and our interests, that's a sign of weakness, and only validates, in the minds of our enemies, their cause against us.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 6:00 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Help me out here. I've been away on business so I missed a critical week of information,

But the scenario is that some guy ... who tried to hide his true identity, with ambiguous funding... made a film a couple of years ago, duping the actors and overdubbing their lines into being disrespectful of Mohammed. Then the trailer (or the movie?) shows up on Youtube just now, and not only incites spontaneous violent protests but also serves as a cover for military operations?

It's hard to whip up a military operation on the fly, we have three choices: (1) Either the appearance on youtube was a coordinated event or (2) there was no "military operation" or (3) the people behind this military attack are a lot more nimble than seems possible.

Also, the money collected for this movie... reportedly $5 million... sure didn't wind up in production values! Maybe the money went to the "other" part of the movie-maker's plan.

Also, it seems like all of the sudden the news media is no longer interested in reporting or analyzing the topic.

That about right?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 6:08 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Add to the fact that this guy who made the " film " has been charged ( and is on probation ? ) for some sort of bank fraud, and seemingly isn't suppose to access the internet w/ out it first being passed by his probation officer ?

I hear he was taken , voluntarily, in for questioning on Saturday. Not real sure what to make of any of this yet.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/anti-muslim-film-nakoula
-basseley-innocence-muslims.html



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 6:34 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Sig, I think it's (1), personally. The "movie" (I don't know how to refer to it except in quotes, as it's no kind of real movie) was released over two months ago, and got little attention. From what I've read and posted, numerous individuals made an effort recently to bring it to peoples' attention--and that may well be part of the plan. A faction of al Qaeda had one of their people killed and another imprisoned (I believe) by us, and retaliation has been repeatedly threatened, including bombing the car of a government official, videos showing bombs being set off just outside our embassy, and more. So to me the conclusion that this faction saw the release of this movie as an opportunity to get it wider attention, convince people to have a demonstration, on 9/11 which would seem particularly appropos to them, then use the demonstration to cover a military action.

Oh, as an aside, it didn't just diss Mohammed, it portrayed him as the worst kind of human possible in every way it could conceive. Given just his name isn't supposed to be spoken/written, portraying him in the ways they did is about as bad as you can get. Have you seen the supposed "trailer" I posted? It's pretty amazingly awful in every way (production-wise), and I have yet to hear of an actual "movie" being released, merely that the trailer is all over the internet.

Interesting if the media hasn't been following up on it--I've missed the news for about two days now so I'll have to catch up and see for myself; most of the information I get is from the internet, numerous sources including the MSM, and I know what's on their websites is often a lot more than we hear on TV, so I've thought it was being covered and delved into. If it's not being followed on their TV news, I'll be very curious too.

Again I see Raptor is incapable of understanding the difference between "apology" and "condemnation". I'm not sure why his grasp of the English language is so weak; if he WERE capable of understanding the difference, I'd ask how he has equated condemnation into apology. As far as I know, there has never been any apology from the US for the movie or anything else involved in this issue. To view "we condemn this movie" as "we're sorry (for whatever?)" escapes me. Trying to put it in focus by remembering what that "ex-Republican" wrote makes some sense of it, but interpreting the word condemnation as something else still just doesn't make sense.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 6:57 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

As far as I know, there has never been any apology from the US for the movie or anything else involved in this issue. To view "we condemn this movie" as "we're sorry (for whatever?)" escapes me. Trying to put it in focus by remembering what that "ex-Republican" wrote makes some sense of it, but interpreting the word condemnation as something else still just doesn't make sense.




It makes sense if you see the bigger picture. The US has nothing TO be sorry for, in the first place. The govt did not endorse, fund, support, in any way, this pos 'film'.

Never apologize for that which isn't your fault. It IS a show of weakness. Especially in that part of the world. How YOU don't get this , really is beyond me.

First and foremost, we should be addressing the threat of force, the use of force by others. It should not be tolerated, at all, by any nation who wishes to be treated in a civil manner. Attack our embassy, kill our ambassador ? No more funding. Period.

THAT is the message we should have sent, not this candy ass " we deplore meanies who make Muslims feel bad " shit.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 7:16 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Follow. The. Money.

Like most Agents Provacateurs, this punk was a smalltime criminal with delusions of grandeur and heavy debts who at some time ran afoul of either legal authorities or someones intelligence people, who then fueled and financed some of his stupidity for reasons of their own.

Always, always, with these things, the money had to come from SOMEWHERE, the same way our own intel groups prop up halfassed incompetents with not just promises, but simple shit like paying their rent and overdue bills - you can't really hide a paper trail too easily from that, since every set of hands the cash passes through is one more blabbering mouth, and electronic means or check is a goddamn neon sign.

Much as I harp on the absolute incompetence of our law enforcement and other so-called protectors in doing anything but the very things they're supposed to protect us from, even a blind, stoned chimpanzee would by now KNOW where that money came from, but as it stands we seem to be conveniently ignoring this (which tells me almost unerringly where that money came from) in favor of using it as an excuse to send troops into the region...

Which is exactly what they want, of course - as they have no navy worth a damn, no airforce, in most cases no way to reach us to hurt us, the only way to do real harm to us is if we happen to be STUPID enough to charge over there into a situation we know almost nothing about, and what we do supposedly "know" is as-usual, whole-cloth fiction cooked up by warhawks interested in feeding the Mil-Intel-Industrial combine or by zealots who have little contact with actual reality - thus shoving our troops out there as little more than convenient pop-up targets in a land rightfully hostile to them, and worth remembering that even the factions we kinda-sorta-maybe "helped" are not our friends either, cause they not only have agendas of their own, they know exactly how awful the eventual price of that "help" is gonna be.

The ONLY reason to have troops there at all, is to cover a FULL withdrawl of american assets and personnel, but frankly, I couldn't care less what happens to most of them anyway cause outside of a few relief workers most of em are either exploitive corporatists or intel associated goons, and no doubt some few of those relief workers are just plants anyways - we shoulda stayed out of it to begin with, and should be stayin out of it now, but some people in our own military WANTED this furball of chaos to justify their stupid agendas by trying to force our involvement under the notion of you-break-it-you-bought-it, and in their damnfool zealous ignorance wound up baited, trolled and used by some of the very factions they THOUGHT they were going to wreck, because the dumb fuckers are so wrapped up in their own created realities, so insulated from any actual CONSEQUENCES, that they think their stupid little pipedreams are how the world works, and when it doesn't they just throw whiny little temper tantrums and blame someone else.

It's not THAT hard to figure out, you just have to realize the absolute corruption of EVERYONE involved, is all.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 7:18 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

You know it's bad when the best case scenario may be you attacked yourself.
"We" are not Israel, therefore "we" did not attack "ourselves". It's a mistake that Lieberman and the neocons commonly make, but Israel is nothing but a hyper-religious fascistic parasite lodged in the underbelly of our so-called "defense" department.

Also, I'm going to have to ask you all to step back and remind yourselves that this would not have happened in Libya if "we" had not deposed Qaddafi... who was, after all, better than our friends the Saudi Royal family and the Likud Party members.



I don't know what this means. Are you calling me a neoCon?

There's five different tribes in Libya and almost a dozen different factions - some of them with violent dislike for western powers. There are foreign factions in the regions that also might have attempted to sneak in under Ghaddafi and stir up trouble. I don't think Ghaddafi would have prevented any attacks - Libya has always been a hotbed of anti-westernism.

Quote:

Then the trailer (or the movie?) shows up on Youtube just now, and not only incites spontaneous violent protests but also serves as a cover for military operations?


It didn't show up on youtube just now, it's been up for a while. It only got publicized in the middle east just now. If the attackers were coordinating with Arabic news broadcasts, then yes, they could easily have used this as a distraction. Some broadcast stations are closely associated with various groups and networks. What you're asking is the equivalent of asking if, say, Glen Beck could dig up some obscure video taken out of context months or years old and organize a protest rally against it. Of course. Anyone can pull off a tactic like this provided they have an audience.

Anyway, I've fallen through rage hate to a state where I basically have a perpetual rage hangover migraine, so, getting called a neoCon is about all I can handle at this time I think.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 7:21 AM

BYTEMITE


EDIT: never mind, once again we have only the word of the filmmaker who has been identified as a fraud and a liar, so the source of funding remains inconclusive for me. Also, at the moment, somewhat too complicated.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 10:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Are you calling me a neoCon?
No.

So, on reflection and discussion with hubby, this is what I got....

Obviously there are agent(s) provocateur afoot seriously interested in creating chaos between "the West" and "Muslims". I cannot see any benefit to either group from heightened tensions, greater militarization and so forth. The USA can't possibly manage a military response to ALL of those nations, it's stretched thin already. And the last thing the Middle East needs is more destruction. But "the West" is not a monolith and neither are "Muslims".

The current Arab Spring governments (Libya, Egypt and Tunisia) who are beholden to the West have already fallen on the side of protecting US interests (the embassies). What I think this will do a draw a much clearer line between those governments and the hyper-religious elements of the population, and the leaders of those movements including Al Qaida.

It could also benefit Special Forces and the various unconstitutional security agencies on "our side" of the line by mobilizing more funding and providing a freer hand... another 9-11/Gulf of Tonkin/Pearl Harbor.

It COULD also benefit China and Russia, since both would stand to gain if the USA and the various radical Muslim groups would bloody each other into fiscal and physical exhaustion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 10:33 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


"you just have to realize the absolute corruption of EVERYONE involved, is all"--in my opinion, it is more "you just have to ASSUME the absolute corruption of EVERYONE involved", which is kind of your staple in trade, Frem. I agree with some of what you said, but not all. I also agree with pretty much all of what Sig said.

Follow the money is good advice. I wish someone WOULD, because it would pretty much clear the whole thing up. Not necessarily completely--what if it turned out the money was gotten by donations from other Copts and anti-Islamists? Where do the conspiracy theories go then? IMHO, if someone wanted to do this for their own purposes, I think they'd have done a better job. Wouldn't have been hard at all, I believe, to get people who looked American but who were anti-Islamist to do the acting--tho' they probably got regular actors in order to remain anonymous. Certainly little could have been worse than the actors they got! It's possible someone else funded his efforts, I just find it difficult to imagine it being funded by anyone who wanted to create a REAL movie saying all the horrible things this one did, and do it much better. It seems to me far more reasonable to see this--already proven incompetent dimwit--make a pathetic movie, dub it pathetically, and turn it loose...TO LITTLE NOTICE, until some faction or other (maybe us, but it just doesn't make sense to me) finds ways to get it publicity, and off you go.

As to seruious military involvement, I predict there will be NONE. The US is tired of wars, Obama's shown no desire to jump into any of this Arab Spring stuff overtly, and I don't see what would be gained. One more war? It would have to be MANY more wars, given last I heard there were over 12 countries involved. It just doesn't make sense. On the other hand, instigating anti-American violence HAS been done, is being done and will be done by al Qaeda over and over again. That "movie" is the perfect tool.

And since there's been no response from Raptor as to the difference between "condemn" and "apologize", I'll ask it outright: Please show, with cites and quotes if possible, WHERE the word "sorry" or "apologize" has EVER been used in this instance from America to anyone. Other wise, admit (hahahahaha) that no "apology" was ever offered. I dare you.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 11:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


No outright war, but what WILL happen?

More drone attacks. More CIA embedded in the embassies. More arrests. More tortures? More backlash from radical religious. More loss of liberties here. Who benefits, other than (1) the extremists (ours and theirs) and (2) the totally uninvolved?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 2:37 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


A lot is left unexplained by reports. For example, if the consulate had fortified walls and was considered safe from attack, how did it get stormed? And there's a lot that's contradictory. Also, what is the purpose of a military strike against a consulate? It has no value as a target, and very little use as a propaganda piece, unless there was rumored to be some particular high-value information, person, or goods there.

I can't find a rational explanation for motive, or a sensible narrative of events.



From the Army Times

The crowd built at the consulate — a one-story villa surrounded by a large garden in an upscale Benghazi neighborhood — in several stages, El-Sharef said. First, a small group of gunmen arrived, then civilians angry over the film. Later, heavily armed men with armored vehicles, some with rocket-propelled grenades, joined and the numbers swelled to more than 200.

The gunmen fired into the air outside the consulate. Libyan security guarding the site pulled out because they were so outmanned. “We thought there was no way for the protesters to storm the compound, which had fortified walls,” he said.

Libyan security advised the Americans to evacuate at that point, but the advice was ignored, he said. There was shooting in the air from inside the consulate compound, he said.

At this point, el-Sharef continued, the crowd stormed the compound. The consulate was looted and burned, while plainclothes security men were sent to evacuate the personnel.

... the consulate was stormed just as the evacuation was under way, with staff members smuggled out a side door that opens to a street other than the one where the militants and protesters gathered.

U.S. officials have said attackers broke into the main consulate building around 10:15 p.m. and set the compound on fire. ... After an hour, according to U.S. officials, U.S. and Libyan officials drove the attackers from the consulate.

The next attack came hours later. Around 30 American staffers along with Libyans had been evacuated to the safe house while a plane arrived from Tripoli with a joint U.S.-Libyan security group that was to fly them back to the capital, el-Sharef said.

El-Sharef said the original plan was for a separate Libyan security unit to escort the evacuees to the airport. Instead, the joint unit went from the airport to the safe house, possibly because they were under the impression they were dealing with a hostage situation, he said. The militant attack coincided with the joint team’s arrival at the safe house, he said.

That the attackers knew the safe house’s location suggests a “spy” inside the security forces tipped off the militants, el Sharef said.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 7:32 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh, there's something hinky about the whole story.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 17, 2012 3:47 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yup, I tend to agree. Quite hinky. Thanx for the further information, Kiki, that added a lot. That it was two SEPARATE attacks is interesting especially...

As for
Quote:

if the consulate had fortified walls and was considered safe from attack, how did it get stormed?
Nothing is really "safe" from attack if you're talking out-and-out military assault, it would see mot me. Even a fortified army base is vulnerable, as we've already found out--and it wasn't even the embassy, just a consulate, so I imagine not the absolute highest priority. Add in incompetence, which we've seen more than our share of in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc....
Quote:

Also, what is the purpose of a military strike against a consulate It has no value as a target, and very little use as a propaganda piece, unless there was rumored to be some particular high-value information, person, or goods there.
The purpose, I would assume, is the same as any of the things they did previously: terrorism.
Quote:

A pro-al Qaeda group responsible for a previous armed assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is the chief suspect in Tuesday's attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, sources tracking militant Islamist groups in eastern Libya say.

They also note that the attack immediately followed a call from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for revenge for the death in June of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior Libyan member of the terror group.

The group suspected to be behind the assault -- the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades -- first surfaced in May when it claimed responsibility for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi. The following month the group claimed responsibility for detonating an explosive device outside the U.S. Consulate and later released a video of that attack.

There's no more "purpose" to those actions than to the attack on the consulate.

I'm not ruling out that they WENT for Stevens...from all reports, he was working with the Libyans quite effectively to "build a better Libya". That may be propaganda, as the same sentence is splashed everywhere, but who knows? If they did go for him specifically (and it's hard to believe they didn't, given they went after the supposed 'safe house'), I would imagine there might have been more reason than just terrorism. Or not, who can figure these things out?

I don't see anything "hinky" about an attack carried out under cover of a protest, but a lot of the other stuff, plus the supposed connection to the "movie", gives me pause. Maybe it's just that these sorts of things don't fit into a neat little story, but I'd like to understand more...and wonder if we ever will, since all we'll get is what TPTB want us to get...




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Tue, November 5, 2024 21:53 - 4536 posts
With apologies to JSF: Favorite songs (3)
Tue, November 5, 2024 18:25 - 68 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:35 - 4677 posts
Election fraud.
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:19 - 39 posts
Multiculturalism
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:16 - 53 posts
Funny Cartoon sparks Islamic Jihad !
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:12 - 248 posts
Elon Musk
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:57 - 32 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:55 - 40 posts
What kind of superpower could China be?
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:02 - 54 posts
End of the Democratic Party (not kidding)
Tue, November 5, 2024 14:18 - 56 posts
Disgruntled Tepublicans vow to move to Australia
Tue, November 5, 2024 13:53 - 76 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Tue, November 5, 2024 13:47 - 639 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL