The Gawd-Awful Video That Enraged The Gawd-Awful Islamists

[caroljane]

A new name has entered the video story. Media for Christ, a Duarte, CA NFP that has produced upwards of 5,000 videos according to their website, has been mentioned as the possible producer.

[Robert Campbell]

Jake Tapper has observed that the producer of the movie couldn't be Jewish because the production values were too poor.

Same point as Bob K's.

Whoever was behind this piece of crap, Muslims do not have the right to kill anyone who speaks against their religion, and no one else has such a right either.

But we aren't going to be hearing that out of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, et al.

Robert Campbell

[caroljane]

Jake Tapper has observed that the producer of the movie couldn't be Jewish because the production values were too poor.

Same point as Bob K's.

Whoever was behind this piece of crap, Muslims do not have the right to kill anyone who speaks against their religion, and no one else has such a right either.

Robert Campbell

Of course they don't. But whoever made and promoted the piece of crap and in Klein's words "knew this probably would happen" bear responsibility too.

[caroljane]

The frontliners on the soundstage have been roughly identified, now it is time to speculate on the ultimate string-pullers who have hung them out to dry.

A brief sample of Whose Conspiracy is it Anyway? from around the web:

1. The Islamists themselves, as per MSK's above suspicion, making the film as part of their press kit for the September attacks.

2. The CIA/Mossad

3. Russia (?)

4. Obama (of course)

At this point I will believe anything. Let the craziness continue.

Why does Nakoula evoke a Jack Ruby flashback?

[Selene]

You folks know that this "movie" had absolutely nothing to do with what happened over the last three days...correct?

[caroljane]

You folks know that this "movie" had absolutely nothing to do with what happened over the last three days...correct?

I don't know that at all. As I have said, it was a useful prop, a flame-fanner, part of the press kit. Somebody made it, promoted and circulated it. It is coming in handy for the Islamists. It has had its role in murders.

[caroljane]

You folks know that this "movie" had absolutely nothing to do with what happened over the last three days...correct?

I don't know that at all. As I have said, it was a useful prop, a flame-fanner, part of the press kit. Somebody made it, promoted and circulated it. It is coming in handy for the Islamists. It has had its role in murders.

But I'm sure that if the purveyors should ever be charged or sued for anything, they will say what you said.

[caroljane]

The plot thickens! Nakoula/Bacile only got out of prison in June 2011. Nasrulla Abdelmasih, head of Media for Christ, actually arranged the production. He has a lot of media experience, )unlike Nakoula who had none and was not even that good at check-kiting), as an associate of Robert Spencer in anti-Muslamist activities.

[Robert Campbell]

Or maybe the front man for this video is really named Abanob Basseley.

There's plenty of murk surrounding it.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

You folks know that this "movie" had absolutely nothing to do with what happened over the last three days...correct?

Adam,

If you mean that the attack in Benghazi would have taken place had the video never existed, I agree.

Probably the same applies to the attack in Cairo.

Robert Campbell

[caroljane]

Or maybe the front man for this video is really named Abanob Basseley.

There's plenty of murk surrounding it.

Robert Campbell

Abanob Basseley is credited as a costume designer for the movie. It is a woman's name, and this name is on facebook and Linkedin.

[Selene]

Carol:

Apparently, upon information and belief, the filmmaker is a Coptic Christian, who is on supervised release from a Federal facility. Apparently, he has two (2) felony convictions. One in the 1990's for manufacturing crystal meth and the second, recently, for bank fraud.

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

This item from BuzzFeed (a site not usually known for good articles) makes a convincing case that whenever we hear the word "Muhammad" in the piece-of-crap video, it's been clumsily dubbed over what the actors originally said.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/inflammatory-anti-muslim-movie-may-not-be-a-real

Robert Campbell

[anthony]

Jake Tapper has observed that the producer of the movie couldn't be Jewish because the production values were too poor.

Same point as Bob K's.

Whoever was behind this piece of crap, Muslims do not have the right to kill anyone who speaks against their religion, and no one else has such a right either.

Robert Campbell

Of course they don't. But whoever made and promoted the piece of crap and in Klein's words "knew this probably would happen" bear responsibility too.

Klein's assessment can and should be discarded as pure cynicism, and philosophical skepticism.

Evil will out in the garden of Eden; or the good emerge even amid horrific circumstances.

It reduces to the choices and doings of each individual.

(All this is a good example of the polarity between skepticism and Objectivism. The one looks for a 'prime cause', as though humans were simple-minded victims - the other holds every man or woman as the 'prime mover', one who says "the buck stops with me".)

Carol, to apportion the blame - even by an iota - or, to try to explain the motives of those who planned and executed atrocities, is the first step to appeasement of the vile men who will do what they will do, anyway - and explains where we are today. It isn't all about psychology..

[Robert Campbell]

Not that it much matters, in the tangle of pseudonyms that surrounds the actual makers of the piece of crap.

But according to Wikipedia, the Coptic St. Abanoub (as it's spelled there) was a 12-year-old boy who was executed by the Roman governor of Egypt.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Folks:

First, this "movie" has been around for at least six (6) months.

Second, these psychotic savages should not be placated for one single second.

Orders should be issued to shoot to kill anything that appears over the walls and close air support should be available to level anything within five hundred [500] yards of our embassies.

Then we can get serious.

Let's see Khartoum, Muslim attackers ...hmm where have I heard of this before in history...hmm it sounds so familiar... oh yeah...my how times have changed...

Troops loyal to the Mahdi Muhammad Ahmad began a siege of Khartoum on 13 March 1884 against the defenders led by British General Charles George Gordon. The siege ended in a massacre of the Anglo-Egyptian garrison. The heavily damaged city fell to the Mahdists on 26 January 1885, and all its inhabitants were put to death.^[2]

Omdurman was the scene of the bloody battle on 2 September 1898, during which British forces under Herbert Kitchener defeated the Mahdist forces defending the city.

Adam

Post Script:

If we chose not to defend our grounds, then close the embassies and bring everyone home.

[Jerry Biggers]

Nope. Sorry. The producers of this fragment of a proposed, but apparently never finished, "movie," being stupid, incompetant, inept, (not to mention, ridiculous) as they are, are not to blame for the violence in the Mideast.

To make that claim is to deny the violence perpetrators as responsible for their own actions, when they most definitely are.

How many examples do I have to show to illustrate this very basic fact: you are responsible for your actions. No one else. According to news reports, it is highly unlikely that the rioters ever saw any of this "film." If any did, it was only excerpts, and interpretated as being much more than it was. Apparently, Egyptian TV stations played some of the fragments and most likely extrapolated from it their own hate-filled dialog. Let's say that they did that. They invented a whole movie and told their viewers that the U.S. government was behind it and promoting it. Well, then are these people responsible for the mob actions and violence that ensued? No, they are not. Members of a mob were not forced at gunpoint to go and commit these acts. They chose to join of their own volition.

Suppose the film had been completed and was widely distributed and also available to anyone on the internet. Judging from the unbelievably bad acting and dialogue in the fragment available, it is hard to believe it could have instigated anything other than ridicule. But suppose it was professionally made, and made its case (apparently trying to show that Muhammad was a hypocrite toward his own teachings. By the way, this is news? To Muslims? Examples of the Prophet's deviations from his own message is illustrated in the Koran and in other Islamic writings.). Then, would the producers of the film be responsible for the reactions of Muslims who saw it? No, they would not. For the same reason as stated in the examples above.

There is, unfortunately, an example of terrorism, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, in which the terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, stated that he was motivated, in part, by a book (The Turner Diaries, by William L. Pierce, a well known neo-Nazi).that advocated and described, in fictional form, a terrorist bombing almost identical to what McVeigh later carried-out. Prosecutors tried to establish a case against Pierce that his book was the motivation and guide for the Oklahoma City attack, but could not. Pierce denied any responsibility saying his book was fiction and that he had no connection with McVeigh.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's the CNN report on the filmmaker.

After saying that he tried to hide his identity due to death threats, they cheerfully displayed it and gave all kinds of personal information on him.

It's like they were planting a big honking sign on his back saying, "Here he is, Islamists. Come kill him."

CNN Releases Photo, Personal Info Of Filmmaker

Breitbart TV

September 17, 2012

(NOTE FROM MSK: I originally embedded the video, but there is an annoying autostart every time you open this thread, so I removed the video and replaced it with the link above.)

I really, really, really don't want to have to defend a lowlife dude like this, but I will.

I refuse--absolutely refuse--to allow Islamist bullies to intimidate my corner of the world into giving up my right to free speech, and the right of those I love.

I am also not a fan of lynch mobs.

Screw them all.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

He of course should be defended. Anything less would be snobbery. That's he's a lowlife is irrevelevant. If it was someone like Stephen Fry on the chopping block, for making a clever, witty, and sophisticated movie that criticised aspects of Islam, I suspect you'd all be happy to defend him from the outset. We live in a world now where the likes of Rowan Atkinson, etc, censor themselves when it comes to mocking, or criticising Islam. Given that trend, it seems inevitable that exercising freedom of speech will be taken up more and more solely by the "lowlifes".

[caroljane]

Oh, Michael.

The other producers and promoters of this film have had well-known faces for years. In fact they have been characterized as publicity hounds. They have bragged about the death threats they get, and they are all fine, except for Morris Sadek who was belaboured with shoes by four Coptic ladies in D.C. They said that he was endangering the Copts in Egypt by his actions, and he was.

why would the Islamists target their fall guy now, when the prime movers have been in their sights for years?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

why would the Islamists target their fall guy now, when the prime movers have been in their sights for years?

Carol,

Er... because that's what bullies do?

They don't like to get smacked back, so they don't target the strong. But if they sense weakness, they go in for the kill.

That's what they always do, Islamist bullies or any other kind of bullies.

Why do you think they targeted Rushdie and not rabid fanatical Zionists who have actively defamed Islam for decades?

(btw - Almost all Zionists are neither rabid nor fanatical. I'm only talking about the nutcases.)

How about if Rusdie looked and acted like Rambo, was well connected with the military and was an expert with heavy firearms and explosives? Do you think there would have been a fatwa against him then?

Heh.

Bullies are cowards underneath.

btw - Since when is it OK to kill people over defaming Islam? Do you believe that's OK? You're saying the film-maker endangered the Coptics in Egypt. Actually, he didn't do that at all.

The Islamist fanatics endangered the Coptics in Egypt.

And they are the ONLY ones who have done so.

Groveling before bullies may be OK in your worldview, but it has no part of mine.

Michael

[caroljane]

why would the Islamists target their fall guy now, when the prime movers have been in their sights for years?

Carol,

Er... because that's what bullies do?

They don't like to get smacked back, so they don't target the strong. But if they sense weakness, they go in for the kill.

That's what they always do, Islamist bullies or any other kind of bullies.

Why do you think they targeted Rushdie and not rabid fanatical Zionists who have actively defamed Islam for decades?

(btw - Almost all Zionists are neither rabid nor fanatical. I'm only talking about the nutcases.)

How about if Rusdie looked and acted like Rambo, was well connected with the military and was an expert with heavy firearms and explosives? Do you think there would have been a fatwa against him then?

Heh.

Bullies are cowards underneath.

btw - Since when is it OK to kill people over defaming Islam? Do you believe that's OK? You're saying the film-maker endangered the Coptics in Egypt. Actually, he didn't do that at all.

The Islamist fanatics endangered the Coptics in Egypt.

And they are the ONLY ones who have done so.

Groveling before bullies may be OK in your worldview, but it has no part of mine.

Michael

You know good and well I do not say it is OK to kill people for defaming Islam, or for defaming anything.

Actions have consequences, intended and unintended. The consequences in this case were intended by those who deliberately provoked violence. The Islamists, the murderers, and the ones who help to provoke violence as best they can.

[Selene]

Carol:

There is testimony from a guard at the Libyan Benghazi compound, that before the attack, there was no demonstration. In fact, there was no one outside the walls.

Suddenly, up to one hundred [100] to one hundred and forty [140] insurgents appeared from several different directions and attacked.

Therefore, this administration is engaged in a continuous lie.

Adam

[caroljane]

Carol:

There is testimony from a guard at the Libyan Benghazi compound, that before the attack, there was no demonstration. In fact, there was no one outside the walls.

Suddenly, up to one hundred [100] to one hundred and forty [140] insurgents appeared from several different directions and attacked.

Therefore, this administration is engaged in a continuous lie.

Adam

Is the administration saying that the demo sparked the Libya attack? I did not know that.As we discussed previously, it just gave a lucky diversion to the attackers there and in Cairo, the attacks seemed to be planned, The vid has sparked more protests but as far as I have heard from the MSM, nobody else has been killed.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is the administration saying that the demo sparked the Libya attack? I did not know that.

Carol,

Where have you been? (Just teasing...)

It's all over the news.

I'm giving a link to The Daily Beast (with bolding by me), but it's on all the major media.

Susan Rice, Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf, Benjamin Netanyahu, and more Sunday Talk

Sep 16, 2012

The Daily Beast

U.N. ambassador Susan Rice appeared on every major Sunday talk show to relay the Obama administration’s official position on the attacks in Libya: the attacks, she said repeatedly, were “a direct result” of the hateful internet video The Innocence of Muslims, which defamed the Prophet Muhammad, and were not pre-orchestrated by terrorist groups. Rice’s buzziest bytes came on This Week, however, when she responded to guest host Jake Tapper’s assertion that America was “impotent” in the face of such violence. “We're not impotent,” she responded, “We're not even less popular, to challenge that assessment. What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region...was a result—a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting.”

This reminds me of an infamous Brazilian police report during the military dictatorship listing the death of a person from six gun shots to the head as a suicide.

Michael