Thursday, September 13, 2012
An anti-Muslim film that has been blamed for the attacks on U.S. embassies in Egypt, Libya and Yemen is likely a contrived fraud designed to stir up unrest in the Middle East while shielding the true reasons behind the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens.
A trailer for the film, entitled The Innocence of Muslims, has been on You Tube for over two months. Despite the alleged film maker’s claim that the movie was funded by rich Jewish donors to the tune of $5 million dollars, it has all the quality of a low budget film school project. The trailer has now been banned in several middle eastern countries, including Egypt and Afghanistan.
Indeed, the full film itself may not even exist, a doubt that has also been shared about the existence of its shadowy director Sam Bacile, who told the Associated Press this week that he was a 56-year-old “Israeli Jew” who lives in California, despite telling actors on set that he is Egyptian, while others have claimed he is an American.
Bacile claims he made the film to illustrate how “Islam is a cancer, period.”
However, numerous authorities have failed in attempting to locate a ‘Sam Bacile’ residing in California. Bacile is likely a pseudonym for the only real person who has been positively connected with the movie – Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year-old Coptic Christian living in California who was convicted for federal bank fraud in 2010.
- The movie itself – or the 14 minutes of it which have been released – is also highly suspect. Actors involved in filming were told “they were appearing in a film about the life of a generic Egyptian 2,000 years ago.” Following the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, all 80 cast members put out a joint statement stating that they 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.”
The film has been purposely dubbed and edited to elicit maximum outrage from Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad is depicted as a pedophile, a homosexual, a religious phony, a philanderer, a womanizer and a bloodthirsty dictator.
During dialogue, the actors words have been crudely dubbed to include references to Muhammad that were not in the original script.
As Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress involved in the movie, told Gawker, “In the script and during the shooting, nothing indicated the controversial nature of the final product. Muhammed wasn’t even called Muhammed; he was “Master George.”
“The words Muhammed were dubbed over in post-production, as were essentially all other offensive references to Islam and Muhammed,” writes Adrian Chen.
For example, at 9:03 in the trailer, the words “Is your Muhammed a child molester?” are heard, yet the actress’ voice has been dubbed as her lips do not form the word “Muhammed”.
As the Christian Science Monitor summarizes, the film looks like, “it could have been ginned up by someone sitting a basement with cheap dubbing software.”
Everything about the movie suggests it was a contrived fraud to artificially manufacture unrest in the middle east at a time where speculation that the U.S. and Israel are about to launch military interventions in Iran and Syria is rife.
The amateurish nature of the film may be a ruse to deflect suspicion away from its true purpose and the real identities of its creators.
“Those sniffing the air properly smell some sort of intelligence/influence operation in the whole situation,”writes Daniel McAdams, comparing the film to Kony 2012. “A purposely bad cover for what happened in Benghazi yesterday? A badly done attempted cover for what happened yesterday? Arabs — even Muslim Brotherhood — looking to score points by blaming “wealthy Jews” for making the film? A power struggle between Islamist factions in Egypt? Israelis attempting to make it look like Arabs made a crudely anti-Semitic cover story for a crude film?”
What’s known for sure is the fact that the establishment media has seized upon the movie as an excuse to explain away the attacks on the embassies in Cairo and Benghazi as just another instance of extremist Muslims getting riled up over nothing in particular.
Subsequent reports confirmed that the attacks were coordinated well in advance of the release of the Arabic version of the trailer this week and had nothing to do with the film, but the media immediately ran with that narrative.
This conveniently disguises the true narrative behind the attacks, which is the fact that the United States and other NATO powers are seeing their chickens come home to roost having armed and empowered Al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic extremists in pursuit of regime change, most notably in Libya where the removal of Gaddafi was achieved via NATO’s support for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – which is listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department and was responsible for killing U.S. troops in Iraq.
Given that these same militants are now being used by Gulf states and NATO powers in a bid to topple President Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, their connection to the embassy attacks must be downplayed. This was evident when NATO stooge Ali Aujali, Libya’s Ambassador to Washington, ludicrously claimed that Gaddafi loyalists were responsible for killing Ambassador Stevens.
With embassies in Yemen, Tunisia and other countries now coming under siege, the mass media’s promotion of what would otherwise have been an obscure, ineffectual and downright laughable 14 minute You Tube trailer has now created a crisis that threatens the stability of the entire region.
The bizarre circumstances behind The Innocence of Muslims, its shadowy creators and the deliberate attempt to manipulate the film to offend Muslims clearly suggests that the whole farce was a contrived set-up to inflame tensions in order to justify an acceleration of U.S., Israeli and NATO aggression across the Middle East and North Africa.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
Become a Fan (28 fans) -- Page 1 of 1 page(s)
I'm as upset and angry as anyone when I heard about the bombing of the United States Consulate in Libya. I also mourn the deaths of the Americans who worked there. The Ambassador seemed like a man who genuinely cared about the area and knew the people there and Americans and Libyans should mourn his loss.
Still, I don't understand the rhetoric that came from Hillary Clinton's mouth about the event. She actually went on to say that the United States "freed" the city of Benghazi and that we helped rid the country of the "evil dictator" Muammar Gadhafi. Apparently Ms. Clinton was surprised at the bombing, and did not expect anything like that would happen, especially to the United States consulate, located in a quiet residential area.
The location of the consulate in a quiet residential are, lightly guarded was a huge mistake on America's part. It showed the arrogance of the United States. When you think of the damage this so-called "Democratic" revolution brought to the county and the destruction of the country by US and NATO forces that actively supplied the so-called "Revolutionaries" that ended with half the nation in chaos and the other half ruled by a revolutionary council it's relatively easy to understand the anger that some Libyans have toward the United States.
While Libya was a thorn in the side of the United States, it didn't deserve the level of destruction that was brought on it by the United States and NATO. Gadhafi, as bad as he supposedly was, didn't deserve to have a machete shoved into his rectum by the "Freedom fighters" that the United States was backing. The ultimate insult was the line that Clinton used when she arrived in Libya, "We came, we saw and he died" with the cackled laugh after she said it.
Undoubtedly, there were people in Libya that didn't appreciate that. There were people in Libya that didn't welcome the wholesale destruction that the warplanes of NATO wrought. There are also people in Libya that didn't welcome the regime that took Gadhafi's place and the lawlessness that is occurring in the western half of that former nation, now a war zone for warlords vying for power.
To this writer, the layout and the position of the Consulate in a lightly guarded residential area was a decision that was completely incomprehensible. I can't understand the mentality of the State Department in locating the Consulate there. Didn't they understand that NATO wasn't seen as a benevolent force in the "liberation" of Libya by all Libyans? That the United States and other European nations were part and parcel in the destruction of a State that was seen not as a dictatorial regime, but a nation that would not be intimidated by outside forces. Some believed that Gadhafi had brought Libya to a higher level of life than when he arrived.
To some, the destruction of Libya was seen as a show of power by the Europeans and Americans. NATO was an instrument of violent "regime change" and that they used Libya as an example to other nations that defied the Western powers. At this present time, the United States is heavily involved in the destruction of Syria, another nation that doesn't kowtow to the Western powers. Syria and Libya were secular governments that went their own way and this has seemed to be the reason that the Western powers have decided that they should not exist in their present state.
According to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, secular governments in Middle-Eastern countries unite the various factions that live together. Installing fundamentalist Sunni governments will lead to fracturing these nations and cause the various factions in these nations to fight with each other, leading to lawless impotent states. This removes obstacles to Western interests in the region. Fracturing the government in Libya was also seen as a way to cripple Chinese oil interests in Libya.
These are just some of the reasons that bring me to ask our State Department how they had the audacity to put our Consulate in a residential area of Benghazi. Didn't they realize that there are factions there that don't look upon NATO as "saviors" of their nation? Didn't they realize that putting Americans in harm's way by locating the American compound in an unguarded residence was foolish, let alone reckless?
The statement made by Clinton after the bombing of the Consulate seemed oblivious of the destruction that NATO wrought on Libya. It is inconceivable to believe that all Libyans would welcome Americans. She seemed outraged that some in Libya would attack an American installation after America helped "liberate" the city of Benghazi. This point of view in my estimation, lead to the deaths of four American citizens that should have been housed in an area that was defensible, and should have had a large contingent of Marines to guard them.
After what NATO did to Libya, any sane Secretary of State should have housed diplomats in Libya in a secure environment. The shock and disappointment that Clinton displayed after the bombing displayed her naivety. If she actually thought that all Libyans would welcome Americans with open arms after we bombed the nation back to the stone-age, she was mistaken. This is called blowback.
It's time that Congress stepped up to the plate and demanded that American military adventures in other nations be authorized by the representatives of the American people. This includes the carnage we are heaping on Syria. The sooner Congress steps in and takes its rightful place in authorizing military action against other nations, the sooner this kind of thing will stop. Stepping into other countries internal affairs will only bring more outrage against America. It's time we reeled this administration in and stopped American involvement in other nation's internal conflicts. If we really prize self-determination in other nations, we should stop interfering by backing different factions. When NATO or the United States (which really is the same thing) backs one side or another in conflicts in other nations, that isn't self-determination; its America determining which side wins. When we get involved in other nations struggles we are deciding, not the people of that nation.
In the Middle-East, this is why we are despised by many. It is not up to the United States to determine the path that other nations should take. The sooner we learn that lesson, the sooner we will have normal relations with nations there. If Clinton were living in the real world, she should have made that Consulate a fortress. The blood is on her hands.
A TIMELY COMMENT:
The maturity of a people lies in their ability to realize that when they offended by another and if they have full conviction in the virtue behind their beliefs, offense will never injure that state. However, if spontaneous anger drives people into a murderous frenzy, the perpetrator of the offense has achieved his objective which was always to create more hatred, fear, mistrust and justification for entering into a state of open, merciless hostility.
Russians Say Anti-U.S. Attack in Libya Vindicates Their Position
By ELLEN BARRY
Published: September 12, 2012MOSCOW — Upon learning of the violent death of the United States ambassador to Libya on Wednesday, many Russians responded with variations on “I told you so.”
Russia has long argued that the West should not support popular uprisings against dictatorships in the Middle East lest Islamic fundamentalism take hold. Vladimir V. Putin, then serving as prime minister, was especially enraged last fall after an angry crowd killed his ally, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, an event he later condemned as a “repulsive, disgusting” scene.
Since then, Russia has blocked Western initiatives to force Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, from power despite a bloody crackdown on the opposition. Russians’ responses to the storming of the American Consulate in Benghazi underlined the deep policy divide. A prime-time news report pointedly juxtaposed images of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s death with Colonel Qaddafi’s, pointing at their similarities, then cut to footage of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reacting to the Libyan leader’s death with a cursory “wow.”
Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Margelov said that passions had been stoked by the uprisings and that they “splash out in the form of terrorist acts or massacres of nonbelievers or an attack on embassies and consulates.”
“The frequency of these outbursts, unfortunately, has been growing since the ‘Arab Spring’ brought to power political groups of Islamic orientation, either open or indirect,” Mr. Margelov said, in comments to the Interfax news agency. A telegram from Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov to Mrs. Clinton condemned the attack as a crime, and said “it confirms once again the necessity of combining the forces of our countries and the whole international community to fight with the evil of terrorism.”
But many commentators were far less diplomatic, especially on social media. The first commentaries on Twitter were bitingly sarcastic — “The democratized residents of Libya thanked the staff of the American Embassy for its support,” one read. Another read, “This is what you call exporting democracy, it seems. America gives Libya a revolution, and Libyans, in return, kill the ambassador.” Aleksei K. Pushkov, the head of Russia’s parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote via Twitter: “Under Qaddafi they didn’t kill diplomats. Obama and Clinton are in shock? What did they expect – ‘Democracy?’ Even bigger surprises await them in Syria.”
Yevgeny Y. Satanovsky, president of the Institute of the Middle East in Moscow, said American leaders should not expect “one word of sympathy” from their Russian counterparts.
“It is a tragedy to the family of the poor ambassador, but his blood is on the hands of Hillary Clinton personally and Barack Obama personally,” Mr. Satanovsky said. He said Russian warnings against intervention in the Middle East came from the bitter experience of the Soviets in Afghanistan.
“You are the Soviet Union now, guys, and you pay the price,” he said. “You are trying to distribute democracy the way we tried to distribute socialism. You do it the Western way. They hate both.” He said dictators were preferable to the constellation of armed forces that emerges when they are unseated.
“They lynched Qaddafi — do you really think they will be thankful to you?” he said. “They use stupid white people from a big rich and stupid country which they really hate.”
Russia’s case against American involvement in the Middle East dates from the post-Sept. 11 campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it has been at the forefront of Russian discourse for at least a year, since Mr. Putin broke out of his role as prime minister and delivered a passionate criticism of the NATO bombing campaign in Libya, leaving the clear impression that he — unlike his predecessor — would have used Russia’s power in the United Nations to stop it.
Mr. Putin has dug his heels in on the issue of Syria, frustrating Western hopes that he could persuade Mr. Assad to leave his post voluntarily. Fyodor Lukyanov, a respected analyst and editor of Russia in Global Affairs, said violence like Tuesday’s had been at the heart of Russia’s warnings. He said Russia had formulated a “post-Communist position: If you try to impose anything on others, as the Soviet Union tried to do, the result will be the opposite, and disastrous.”
“This killing is just strengthening the views which are already quite widespread — that the Western approach to the Arab Spring is basically wrong,” Mr. Lukyanov said.
Libyan Interior Ministry
"“Who’s going to control these people?” said Tarik Yousef, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who is also the SON of GNC’s interim president, Mohammed Yousef Magarief. “Some of these Salafi groups claim to operate under the banner of the Interior Ministry.”" Tarek is right. I watched a press conference by Libya's deputy interior minister and he sounded rather sympathetic to the violent protests.
Regarding events in Libya today, there are so many parallels to be drawn with the words spoken here by Moussa Ibrahim
AGAIN, THIS ATTACK SANCTIONS THE FAILURE OF OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY OF ARMING FANATICS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE HIS IMPERIAL GOALS OF DOMINATION.
Libya Attack Brings Challenges for U.S.
CAIRO — Islamist militants armed with antiaircraft weapons and rocket-propelled grenades stormed a lightly defended United States diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, late Tuesday, killing the American ambassador and three members of his staff and raising questions about the radicalization of countries swept up in the Arab Spring.