Walid Shoebat @ FrontPageMag:
When it comes to the film Innocence of Muslims, our government and the media use a narrative mired in contradictions and false statements provided by the filmmaker, who himself is an untrustworthy source.
If we stick to what can be proven we might obtain the possibility that terror supporters produced the film. Muhammad Al Dura and Paliwood are two cases in point, showing the type of stunts used by Palestinian terrorists.
So lets examine facts instead of the filmmaker’s fiction:
Court documents reveal that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the producer of the movie Innocence of Muslims, partnered in a scheme with Eiad Salameh, my first cousin.
Eiad is a Muslim terror supporter and is not an Egyptian Copt.
He comes from Beit Sahour, Bethlehem and is well known by the FBI and the Arab community as a conduit for Middle Easterners who can obtain authentic, legitimate identifications, from passports to credit cards including many nationalities. He then places these identifications in the hands of dubious characters to use for fraudulent purposes.
In fact, I revealed Eiad Salameh way before this whole fiasco erupted—in 2008, and the first knowledge of Eiad and Nakoula was revealed on September 14, 2012 by the Smoking Gun, which provided court documents that prove these two connected in 2009 in a major financial scheme.
The narrative that circulates in the media fails to answer crucial questions behind the mystery of this film.
For example, to date, no one has stepped forward or can confirm for certain that whoever holds an identity by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is even that man. He, after all, held several identifications, including Muslim names. He could have easily presented a valid I.D. when he was arrested, yet he was likely not the man in that I.D.
Such a claim isn’t easily dismissed; if an Egyptian by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is blamed for angering over a billion Muslims, it would not be that difficult to find the entire family in Egypt, including brothers, cousins, aunts, siblings, wife, wives, ex-wives, mistresses, pet names and all. Especially since Egypt sparked all the riots that spanned over 30 some nations.
In the Middle East you are known by your clan, yet Egypt cannot produce this man’s family and background?
Besides this, why would Nakoula, who claims to be a religious Coptic activist, have extensive connections with Eiad, a man who I know hates Copts and is well-known to be the best schemer the Middle East has produced and has contacts with terror networks?
What have I been saying all this time, and taking all kinds of heat for daring to question this loser???
This, of course, would show that Terry Jones and Morris Sadek were opportunist dupes, offering to distribute terrorist produced propaganda. dumb…
You’ll notice I was not among those commenting on the creator of the video being questioned by authorities. Something just didn’t sit right about it. He makes a crappy anti-muslim, low budget movie and puts it on You Tube. It seemed like he wanted riots to happen. It could still be the case.
So by using the logic of Aristotle and the wits of a Chicago Street thug we can conclude the film is a manufactured crisis to make Hilary and Susan Rice look stupid and to cause murder and mayhem across the civilized Muslim world. Then why does Obama continue to cite the movie as the source of all the problems? Something is dreadfully wrong and I don’t think we have the whole truth.
Could it be in Obama’s best interest to continue on with this charade?
Is he plucking those chickens as they come home to roost?
Chicken plucking is a dirty business.
IF this was a manufactured crisis and not a spontaneous one, the Obama Admin must have erroneously thought its Coptic-ness would confine it to Egypt.
What an idiotic thought!
But that stupid theory explains why only the Cairo Embassy was warned about possible mob actions.
Even though it was 9-11.
What the heck does Obama have to do with this? Tho it won’t surprise me that many will try to circle this around to the WH. Even Rush was doing that last week. It was obvious that he had no idea how this conveniently translated Arabic version got into the hands of the Egyptian press.
This was pushed in the Egyptian press, just before Sept 11th, by Morris Sadek, an anti-Muslim extremist and a primary figure in the National American Coptic Assembly. Sadek is, to other Coptic Christians, what Terry Jones is to traditional Christians… a fringe outcast.
Sadek hates Obama because he, like so many here, think he’s tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. As a matter of fact, Sadek and his fringe Copts were huge supporters of Bachmann and her personal attack on Huma. So exactly why would a possible terrorist producer, handing propaganda to idiots and dupes like Jones and Sadek, want to help Obama when all of them hate him?
From the Egyptian press, it spread like wild fire… you don’t have to go from country to country as that region is more akin to going from State to State here in the US.
BTW.. where’s that large contingency of Bacile/Nakoula supporters we had around here? No one feels the burning need to defend possible terrorist propaganda as beyond question now? Interesting…
Mata, Obama is the one who continues to tout the film as the spark of the ME conflagration and refuses to give up on the idea after common sense dictates the film had precious little connection to the tragedy. Does the existence of the film fit his narrative or is there an ulterior motive. He has surely promoted the film beyond any hope it might have had, due to its quality. Without Obama, the film would have drifted into obscurity and been forgotten, but he is still beating this dead horse, why?
@Skookum, that’s two different stories.
The main story is that there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that the creation of this film, and it’s Arabic translation and distribution to Egypt, was a deliberate act of propaganda by the terrorists themselves to start sundry fires of protests in the Middle East right around the Sept 11th time. Needless to say, they succeeded.
The second story, to which you are referring, is Obama’s vacillation on the reasons for Libya’s specific attack. He first attributed it to the general unrest gone amok, and has since changed to admitting it was a planned terror attack. As usual, most seem to think it has to be one or the other, but the two cannot be related. I disagree.
Just because there weren’t protests in Benghazi at the sites of the attacks doesn’t mean that this was not part of a general chaos designed to keep the world’s attention focused elsewhere, aiding in being unprepared for a militant type response. I agree with that assessment. The more chaos that Islamists can create, the more cover they have for militant operations.
It’s also incorrect to say that Benghazi did not have film protests. They were just not located an the consulate and safe house, but at the Tibesty Hotel… conducted by Ansar al Shariah.
My point was the creation and marketing of this film has nothing to do with Obama. While you may resent him mentioning it as part of the larger attacks in Libya… which is only one location of attacks and unrest against US interest over there… I can certainly see it as part of a planned diversion overall for a larger attack.
So you might say I rate this Obama statement as perhaps 50% true because, if this was a terrorist/Islamist creation (as I believed from the start), it was just a part of the larger picture to put the US in jeopardy in lots of different areas in the region, and keep them busy stamping out protest fires while missing the larger operation under their noses.
Let me put this simply… can you say with any certainty that those who attacked the Libyan Consulate were unaware of the film, and did not use the activity it created elsewhere as cover?
I absolutely believe that Hillary carries the blame for Benghazi not being secured with MCESGs, when it was a facility that housed intelligence. Whether those Marines could have fought off the larger attack is doubtful, but perhaps the four would have survived, and intel would not have been compromised. And I also believe that Hillary makes the decisions for what facilities have security, and not Obama. I see him dictating the tone and policy, but I don’t see him micromanaging these details, and would leave these specifics up to Hillary and her State Department.
That is simply not true, Skook. The film’s release in Egypt was intentional, and the unrest and protests spread to the rest of the region far outside of Libya. The film would never have been obscure, with or without Obama, because the protests still would have occurred.
Shall I remind you that Obama’s condemnation of the content… and I also condemn it… did not predate the protests, but came after the firestorm? How can you place the blame on Obama for events that happened without him saying a word?
The Atlantic Wire has an interactive map of the protests and descriptions in 54-55 different locations. This goes far beyond Libya, Skook. And each individual location has it’s own story. Some were genuine protestors. Some were dissidents planning for violence during the protests. And in Libya, the “rocket in the pocket” indicates it was a planned event with much forethought…. either with the film’s knowledge or without. I doubt that the militants were not aware of the film.
People make two errors, IMHO… they only look at the Libyan event and discount the others, then assume that the creation of conditions for protest via the film have to be unrelated. Creating mass chaos is always a favored tactic of Islamists.
Obama has nothing to do with the film. It’s not a conspiracy creation by Obama and the feds. And the condemnation of the the content was after the protests and violence, not before.
mata, did you read where Walid points out there are NO Coptics in Egypt associated with this film maker at all?
No mom, no dad, no cousins, no spouse, no children, no aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews?
We only have his word he is Coptic at all.
And with so many AKAs who knows it his Coptic ID is any more real than his other IDs?
@MataHarley: Has anyone here seen the film??
@Nan G, yes I did. I’ve pointed out multiple times since this brouhaha came to light that Sadek and Jones did not know Bacile/Nakoula prior to his contacting them about his “film”. I’ve never believed his claims about being a Copt.
I don’t believe there are any Copts associated with the film’s creation, but you cannot deny that a major Egyptian Coptic Christian, Morris Sadek, was involved for both translation and Egyptian distribution. I think that both Jones and Sadek were duped. The only other alternative is that they knew it was terrorist created propaganda, and cooperated with terrorists knowingly. Considering how both are extremely anti-Muslim, I don’t see that happening.
@Budvarakbar, there is doubt as to whether there is a “film” length movie, but there is a 14 min approx movie… which you can view on YouTube. But short films are not unheard of and there is no requirement for a movie to be of “x” length in time to be called a movie.
I’ve read, but do not know, that many just cut out the deplorable scenes with subpar acting, and just put together the South Park style animated clips in a five minute viewing. You can also find those on YouTube.
@Hard Right: Has anyone here seen the film — is it really ‘crappy’ — I would like to know how anything anti-mooslime can be crappy? Is it too short and shallow — stopping short of the actual depth of truths?
And remember — whenever you hear the words “moderate muslim” — uh – not so fast — they are under extreme compulsion — as in “a pseudo religious, soul saving, obligation — to KILL or convert the non believer — OR to assist as needed — start thinking clearer folks
@Budvarakbar, just go to the YouTube link I provided above and watch for yourself. Be prepared to be bored to tears. It’s an embarrassment to call it anything but a joke. Also, you’re not seeing the Arabic version here, but the English version.
@MataHarley:
To be fair, most of us who “supported” the film-maker did so from the standpoint of first amendment rights in the face of some here (Greg, Rich, Lib1) who wanted those rights removed for the content of the film. This in an important distinction that you seem to have left out.
And yes, to be fair, some of us went overboard in our “defense” of that right. You noticed the absence of the film-maker’s “supporters” precisely because we, or at least I, didn’t want to be attached to the defense of someone who, as we are learning more about him, increasingly seemed to be a vile, degenerate person.
And as it now seems that the film-maker acted in concert with the terrorists, I’ve come to find my viewpoint more closely resembling your own.
No need to pile on, Mata. We got your point.
Another Constitutional issue may be at stake: should it be legal for an agent provocateur to make a movie meant to incite mayhem and murder. Do you have a constitutional right to write or produce incendiary messages from the standpoint of an antagonist. Does freedom of speech grant the right to publish under the identity of another for the sole purpose of defaming or inciting.
@Skookum, SCOTUS has ruled on the proverbial “shouting fire in a crowded theater” exercise of free speech. There’s no question that malicious and deliberate intent is illegal use of free speech. i.e. if this were investigated and found to be terrorist created propaganda for the purpose of creating riots and mayhem, Bacile/Nakoula could be prosecuted on a number of levels… not the least of which would be aiding and abetting terrorist actions against US interests.
However the burden is always on the prosecution to prove the malicious and deliberate intent when charges are brought up. The same criteria applies, despite what name is used… real or nom de plume.
@johngalt, you were not one of those I noticed were MIA on this subject. Your argument I remember well, as some others. However there were plenty of commenters who were incensed because the guy volunteered to be questioned for violation of his probation terms, and cast his choice to slither out in the middle of the night to avoid press, in disguise, as some sort of Reno/Elian Gonzales type operation.
My point was many went far beyond defending free speech, and cast this guy as not only a hero, but a victim at the hands of US law enforcement. It is those I don’t ever expect to see here. A review of those threads will remind you of their over enthusiastic passions to canonize this guy.
As far as Greg/LibZero. I also chastised them for their actions. But there were far more that went overboard in the other direction… an important distinction you left out as well.