HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What ABOUT that anti-Musl...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:47 AM

What ABOUT that anti-Muslim video that supposedly triggered the murders in Benghazi?

Is anybody investigating who funded creation of that hateful video that triggered riots around the world? As I recall there was some initial investigative journalism that showed it was funded by a shady group that seemed to trace back to the Koch brothers.

The Republicans are falling all over themselves blaming Susan Rice and President Obama for "lying" about what caused the murders of our ambassador and other diplomatic staff in Benghazi. Susan Rice's testimony - the source of all this hysteria on the part of the Republicans - was that the hateful video made in California triggered riots, and then much worse things happened.

Why are we going along with the Republicans in their dismissing of the bigoted video as one of the triggers of the violence? Every time the "preacher" down in Florida burns a Koran there are riots among fundamentalist Muslims around the word. There are riots when cartoons are published that mock Islam. It is not surprising that the bigoted video triggered riots in Libya and elsewhere.

Who financed that video? Was it done deliberately in order to stir up violence? If it was the Koch brothers, is it surprising that the Republicans are doing everything they can to deflect attention away from the video?

122 replies, 6150 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 122 replies Author Time Post
Reply What ABOUT that anti-Muslim video that supposedly triggered the murders in Benghazi? (Original post)
yardwork Nov 2012 OP
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #1
yardwork Nov 2012 #4
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #7
yardwork Nov 2012 #8
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #10
yardwork Nov 2012 #15
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #21
yardwork Nov 2012 #23
brush Nov 2012 #54
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #59
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #2
yardwork Nov 2012 #6
quinnox Nov 2012 #3
yardwork Nov 2012 #5
Rex Nov 2012 #9
slackmaster Nov 2012 #12
yardwork Nov 2012 #13
cali Nov 2012 #51
yardwork Nov 2012 #68
B2G Nov 2012 #16
yardwork Nov 2012 #28
cali Nov 2012 #53
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #61
yardwork Nov 2012 #67
quinnox Nov 2012 #18
yardwork Nov 2012 #24
quinnox Nov 2012 #32
magical thyme Nov 2012 #39
cali Nov 2012 #52
CJCRANE Nov 2012 #76
slackmaster Nov 2012 #11
yardwork Nov 2012 #14
slackmaster Nov 2012 #17
yardwork Nov 2012 #27
slackmaster Nov 2012 #33
brush Nov 2012 #56
slackmaster Nov 2012 #63
brush Nov 2012 #65
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #66
slackmaster Nov 2012 #74
yardwork Nov 2012 #77
slackmaster Nov 2012 #80
yardwork Nov 2012 #86
PufPuf23 Nov 2012 #119
Barack_America Nov 2012 #58
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #90
Barack_America Nov 2012 #121
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #19
yardwork Nov 2012 #31
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #49
brush Nov 2012 #91
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #105
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #112
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #115
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #116
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #20
yardwork Nov 2012 #26
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #22
yardwork Nov 2012 #25
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #50
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #113
Igel Nov 2012 #29
yardwork Nov 2012 #30
brush Nov 2012 #94
stevenleser Nov 2012 #34
blue_heron Nov 2012 #35
Mme. Defarge Nov 2012 #36
yardwork Nov 2012 #40
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #42
yardwork Nov 2012 #44
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #45
Mme. Defarge Nov 2012 #46
brush Nov 2012 #98
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #48
rosesaylavee Nov 2012 #57
hexola Nov 2012 #71
brush Nov 2012 #102
Junkdrawer Nov 2012 #82
brush Nov 2012 #103
Mme. Defarge Nov 2012 #117
Mme. Defarge Nov 2012 #120
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #37
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #43
hexola Nov 2012 #73
brush Nov 2012 #106
DevonRex Nov 2012 #38
yardwork Nov 2012 #41
DevonRex Nov 2012 #47
brush Nov 2012 #107
d_r Nov 2012 #55
yardwork Nov 2012 #72
bionnaki Nov 2012 #60
yardwork Nov 2012 #70
CJCRANE Nov 2012 #83
yardwork Nov 2012 #85
ileus Nov 2012 #62
slackmaster Nov 2012 #64
yardwork Nov 2012 #69
slackmaster Nov 2012 #75
yardwork Nov 2012 #78
slackmaster Nov 2012 #81
brush Nov 2012 #108
malaise Nov 2012 #79
yardwork Nov 2012 #84
brush Nov 2012 #109
malaise Nov 2012 #118
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #87
yardwork Nov 2012 #88
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #89
DURHAM D Nov 2012 #92
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #93
DURHAM D Nov 2012 #95
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #96
DURHAM D Nov 2012 #97
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #99
DURHAM D Nov 2012 #100
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #101
DURHAM D Nov 2012 #110
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #111
leveymg Nov 2012 #104
yardwork Nov 2012 #122
customerserviceguy Nov 2012 #114

Response to yardwork (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:05 AM

1. Yep. Who translated and disseminated it, timed for the anniversary of 9-11?

The false accusations by the repugs -- that say someone claimed the video caused the attacks, and somehow excused the attacks -- are designed to make people shy away from looking in depth at the video's origins. The video caused some outrage when it was translated and mass distributed, the outrage was used as a smokescreen for professional attacks to occur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:19 AM

4. I think that investigators should be following the money.

Who funded the video? Who made sure that it was disseminated in places in the world where it was certain cause riots?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:32 AM

7. They put that Coptic Basselly guy in jail on a probation violation.

But the U-stash-i pastor from Florida was involved, and there should be a computer trail showing how the clip (there's no actual full-length movie) -- once it got translated into Arabic language -- got posted and viewed in Egypt and Libya. The leaders of the angry demonstrations were probably involved in calling attention to the offensive post.

The whole thing stinks like a treasonous rove repug foreign policy op.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:34 AM

8. It stinks like Iran-Contra. It has that stench.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:46 AM

10. Off the shelf intel ops by the out of power repug party.

They did it to Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, now Obama.

The Mumbai attackers used a ship called the MV Alpha, as transport from Pakistan to Bombay-Mumbai. It was jointly owned by the CIA and Pakistani ISI. That kicked off the foreign policy flare ups our current Dem administration have had to deal with. 2 hostile nuclear armed nations, where all of the sudden one has some extremists who cross the border to commit an act of war on the other's soil. Timed a few weeks after the Dems got elected. That's the repugs signalling that even when they lose, they can make trouble for the elected Dem leadership in foreign policy.

I watched that blatant bircher blowhard Alex Jones try to pin Mumbai on the Mossad, though the attackers hit some Jewish targets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:55 AM

15. Yes, and it goes back further than Kennedy.

We need some investigative journalism about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:40 AM

21. I'd like to see some good investigative journalism, and good gov oversight investigation by OUR side

This fake Benghazi outrage is preventing a look into the mechanism that prompted the smoke screen demonstrations that the attacks used as cover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #21)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:19 PM

23. That's why I posted this thread. Maybe some trolling journalist will get an idea.

Can't hurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:50 AM

54. Exactly

I posted this a few days ago:
"If the repugs dig too deeply into it they might find that that anti-muslim film which led to all the protests in many countries in the Middle East was produced by a mysterious ex-con who secured funding, equipment, production people, production location, actors, video translation to Arabic, video posting to YouTube, and the alerting of the Arab media of its existence online, done all within two months of the producer getting out of jail. All of that is just not possible for a just-out-of-jail ex-con without monetary backing by someone. And Romney held a press conference to bash the President before the smoke even cleared in Libya. Seems he had been primed to do this to gain electoral advantage because his little press conference (ending with a smirk on his face) came only two, I repeat, two minutes after Secretary Clinton went on the air to give the info that the State Department had on the on-going incident. Where did Romney get the information before the rest of the country? All this seems, including Romney's timing of his little smirking attack on the administration, too coordinated to just be coincidence. I say let them keep digging and they might find links to right wingers with SuperPac money who were so determined to win the election that anything was fair game in damaging the President, with a few deaths being just collateral damage. And that video producer, by the way, has been bum rushed back to jail on other charges. Seems someone doesn't want him available to investigative reporters. I wonder why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #54)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:08 AM

59. I think your post is excellent, has great points.

How to run against a president who killed bin-laden, when your side dragged their feet for 10 years on that little 'to-do list' item. How to run as 'strong on foreign policy / national security' when media is paying increasing attention to NY Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald's story about umpteen specific warnings about impending 9-11 attacks that were ignored by the 'strong' repug team. Hmm. What to do, what to do? I can see foreign policy Rove repugs scratching their heads and stroking their beards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:16 AM

2. "Let's start riots so we can complain about the lack of law and order"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:23 AM

6. Exactly. And maybe "let's start riots" so that they will lead to an October surprise.

Let's start riots in the hope that something terrible happens that we can use to make President Obama look bad.

Willard Romney was a little quick to take to the podium before the dust had even settled. And he had that little smirk on his face. This was all planned. By whom? Koch brothers would be my guess - which would explain why the Republicans in Congress (Koch lap dogs) are doing what they're doing now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:19 AM

3. last I heard the filmaker was in jail on

 

immigration violations. So he got punished for it, in a manner of speaking. Still, I don't think some silly video is a good excuse for religious fanatics to go on a rampage and start rioting. There is NO excuse for that reaction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:21 AM

5. I think that you're missing my point.

The filmmaker didn't do this on his own. Somebody provided a lot of money to fund the production and distribution of this video. This wasn't a homemade production. Hollywood actors were hired. This was slick.

Based on past experience, the people who financed and distributed this video knew that it would cause violence and riots. Who financed it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:42 AM

9. The CIA?

Actually I would not be surprised to find out it was the Koch brothers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:49 AM

12. That piece of garbage is NOT a high-budget production

 

No more than $10,000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:53 AM

13. Really? Iirc at least one Hollywood actor said that they were hired as talent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:44 AM

51. really. just google it. it was a low, low cost thingie.

there is no argument over that. None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #51)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:33 AM

68. See post #54

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:06 AM

16. It was not slick, required almost no money to produce and

it was ridiculous. 'Hollywood actors'. Lol. OK.

Have you even seen the film??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:26 PM

28. This is the article I remembered reading.

"Hollywood actors" may not be correct. But a professional actor was hired and she is interviewed in this article.

Also, somebody went to a lot of trouble to hide the identity of the filmmaker at first. What gives? Don't you think that there might be a story here?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/13/benghazi-mystery-deepens-film

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #28)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:47 AM

53. you might at least try due diligence and actually research before posting bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #53)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:39 AM

61. I have no argument with you about the actual cost, cal.

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:51 AM - Edit history (1)

I've willfully passed up ten opportunities to view the posted clip of the 'movie', (which makes me a noted non-expert in terms of cost.) And I think the clip is all that exists. But there is a lie that a movie exists. There is another lie that the movie cost $5 million dollars to make, or that amount was raised for it.

I don't think Yard's trying to feed us a red herring by pointing out the red herring exists. Your o.p. on McCain's Benghazi-Watergate hearings had an important piece of the picture, repugs using the attacks for partisan politics. Yard's o.p. has an important piece, too -- my take is repugs Generating the attacks for partisan politics. Yard is questioning to get info about the people behind the generation of the 'movie' that was the (red-herring) pretext for the attacks. Demonstrations occurred on 9-11-12, and were used as a cover or smokescreen for attacks on 9-11-12. The demonstrations were supposed to be prompted by attention being drawn to this obscure pin-head's magnum opus, even if that supposition is yet another red herring.

Even if the youtube clip cost a buck ninety eight in reality, it could be helpful to find out about the whole crew of cockroaches that spread it, and the actual mechanism they used to do so. Just like the u-stash-i pastor Jones, a little mutant creep with about 2 dozen followers who has to be begged by Pentagon reps not to use his ginormous 'influence' to put our foreign policy national security personnel at risk with his out-sized bull horn, the perps who produced this pic wield a disproportionately out-sized bull horn on the international scene. GOP skul dug er ee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #53)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:31 AM

67. Are you saying that the article is bullshit? What is your evidence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:14 AM

18. It sounds to me like lame excuses for religious fanatics

 

What, maybe we should be real sensitive to Muslims and not make any movies or cartoons that skewer their religion, because other wise they might go on a rampage and kill people. Seriously? I say no way. Fuck them. OK, they have a right to get offended, but not act like savage beasts and as if they are medieval era barbarians with blood lust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:20 PM

24. Interesting use of right-wing talking points to attempt to derail this thread.

Interesting dismissal of any suggestion that we follow the money and find out who put together the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:44 PM

32. No, I just don't see what the point would be of

 

investigating some backers of a stupid you tube video. First, are you suggesting they did something illegal? Otherwise, why investigate them. I don't see where that would lead to, unless you think they should have criminal charges leveled against them for making a video offensive to the Islam religion.

Either that, or I guess this OP is just about conspiracy theory junk, and I have had more than enough of that lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 05:35 PM

39. the original video-maker was not involved in the translation and dubbed script

or in posting it to you-tube. That is who I've been wondering about. I think it was a Rove trick to incite ME violence and it spun out of control when a terrorist group used the protests as cover for the attack.

Nobody is saying the video is an excuse for a riot. It is, as history has shown, a reason to expect riots. Whether or not you and I think that is reasonable, rational or acceptable is beside the point. It simply is a given. You put something like that out there, riots will ensue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:45 AM

52. no. it was violation of parole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:51 AM

76. He was convicted of bank fraud, then released on probation

after he served his sentence IIRC.

He was hauled back in for violating the terms of probation, which included not using the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:48 AM

11. It doesn't matter who funded it

 

First Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:53 AM

14. Way to the miss the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:09 AM

17. Your point is moot. The video was not the true cause of any riots or violence.

 

The riots and violence are the result of centuries of festering tribal conflicts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:23 PM

27. I don't think you understand my point or you are trying hard to divert attention from it.

My OP isn't about the riots. It's about the video - who made it, who distributed it, why isn't that being investigated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:48 PM

33. I'll say it again - It doesn't matter who made the video or who paid for it.

 

It's about the video - who made it, who distributed it, why isn't that being investigated.

Investigated for what? No crime was committed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #33)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:15 AM

56. Open your mind a bit

A mysterious ex-con secured funding, equipment, production people, production location, actors, video translation to Arabic, video posting to YouTube, and the alerting of the Arab media of its existence online, all within two months of getting out of jail? Do you really think all of that is possible for a just-out-of-jail ex-con without huge monetary backing by someone? And Romney held a press conference to bash the President before the smoke even cleared in Libya. Seems he had been primed to do this to gain electoral advantage because his little press conference (ending with a smirk on his face) came only two, I repeat, two minutes after Secretary Clinton went on the air to give the info that the State Department had on the on-going incident. Where did Romney get the information before the rest of the country? All this seems, including Romney's timing of his little smirking attack on the administration, too coordinated to just be coincidence. I say we need to find out who funded the video. Could very well have been right wingers with SuperPac money who were so determined to win the election that anything was fair game in damaging the President, with a few deaths being just collateral damage. And that video producer/pawn, by the way, has been bum rushed back to jail on other charges. Seems someone doesn't want him available to investigative reporters. I wonder why? The ones to benefit from escalating protests and a terrorist attack flaring up in the Middle East timed for 9/11 and a couple of months before our election, that also damages the President's foreign policy bona fides by the way, would be none other than the repugs. We definitely need to follow the money instead of falling for all the McCain/Graham bluster and outrage over Susan Rice just reading talking inaccurate talking points given to her by the CIA. McCain's attacks could be more than his enmity towards the President and Rice. They could be designed to keep the public's attention away from the origin and funding of the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #56)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:33 AM

63. OK, it's open now.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #63)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:39 AM

65. So you don't think . . .

. . . all those coincidences are worth investigating? What's that going to hurt? Nothing seems odd to you that all these things happened that just coincided with 9/11, and 2 months from our election? If so, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #65)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:04 AM

66. Forget it, brush.

The discussion is safely pigeon holed as 'conspiracy theory', now. With a lovely illustration of a guy with broadcasting equipment wearing an aluminum dome cover, to boot.

In our legal system, there are a large number of 'conspiracy to commit' charges working their way through the courts. Two guys talk about robbing a place is 'conspiracy to commit'. But as soon as someone points out the corporate media's official story line doesn't appear to jibe with reality, just use two words or the letters 'c. t.', and that ends the discussion.

At least slack didn't hit you with the little 'spinning eye face' icon, from the 'smilies' arsenal. That can be so hurtful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #65)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:49 AM

74. Investigating for WHAT? There's no indication that a crime was committed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #74)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:54 AM

77. We're talking about a political process.

???? You're on Democratic Underground, a political discussion board. We're talking about political strategy here. Republican political strategy and ways for Democrats to respond.

"Investigation" doesn't always mean a crime was committed. Journalists used to "investigate" things to find out the truth about what happened. Political operatives "investigate" the actions and motivations of their opposition all the time. It's how elections get won. In case you haven't noticed, the Republican noise machine is screeching that "Obama lied, people died" and the Republicans in the Senate are trying to block a Secretary of State nominee over this. It would be wise for the Democrats to "investigate."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #77)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:58 AM

80. If nobody is investigating it to your satisfaction, perhaps you should investigate it yourself

 

I look forward to your findings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #80)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:26 AM

86. This thread is yielding all kinds of interesting discussion, which was my goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #56)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 05:34 PM

119. Thank you for your excellent assessment. I agree.

Why the heck would anyone at DU not think this type of political/media manipulation is not a fact of reality?

Your narrative is speculation but is a repeat form of history should be obviou sto any intelligent and somewhat aware liberal mind of average intelligence that has lived the past 50 years in western civilization.

We (present USA) ignore systematic economic, moral, and war crimes against humanity and citizens.

The creepy film and murders in Libya timed to the POTUS election is too ripe.

The Middle East has more than enough reason to congregate for demonstrations, look at Egypt now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:32 AM

58. Tell that to Egypt and the dozen other nations that rioted because of the movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barack_America (Reply #58)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:42 AM

90. Funny, there are millions of muslims in the US. None of them

 

were forced to riot by that movie. And they are more likely to have actually seen it.

Maybe the movie didn't cause generations of hate and ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #90)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:04 PM

121. The movie wasn't publicized here like it was in Egypt.

By sensationalist news media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:33 AM

19. People put offensive and stupid things on the internet every day, probably a million times a day.

But for being just another stupid offensive internet post, this film clip sure wielded an outsized bullhorn in terms of international exposure and effect.

I agree with you about the actual production values being small, but I've seen some high dollar figures on the funding for it.

There's no argument against the first Amendment being made here. The u-Stash-i pastor can burn Korans and televise it, the nazis can march in Skokie and have the ACLU defend their rights to demonstrate in an area with a large number of Jewish concentration camp survivors, 'Sam Bacile' can make this stupid film clip. Nobody said they can't.

The adherents of Islam and people living in North Africa and the Middle East can easily see how outrageously bigoted official western policy is toward them, and can see a million bad moves being made by those powers. Coups, rendition, torture, bombings, drone strikes, false pretext wars, all sorts of deadly things. So what made this video clip such a big outrage spark-er, to cause the smoke-screen demonstrations that provided cover for a heavily armed, time coordinated attack?

Yes, it matters who funded and disseminated this First Amendment protected piece of shit 'Free Speech' piece. The makers are as proud of their free speech opinions as hooded Klansmen are, when they 'light' a cross. If we find out who they are, we'll see how they connect in to repug oil nazis with intel connections. That's just my First Amendment protected opinion, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:41 PM

31. +1 for First Amendment protected rights to ask questions and have opinions.

It is interesting how invested a few posters are in telling us that there is nothing to see here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #31)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 06:57 AM

49. I noticed "Slack's" lack of re to my 19,

while her/his post 33, reiterating the same opinion I addressed, ironically comes up right above my 19 now. S/he is exercising the First amendment right NOT to express an opinion to me, in accordance with American values and DU protocols. Or just ignoring me.

It is definitely a spin to say that people who want to find out about the personalities and methods of the aspiring 'Christian' film-makers (the 'who' and 'how') are attempting to stifle free speech. It's a further irony that the 'anti' posters are saying to us 'the film makers have the right to express themselves, so shut up. End of discussion.'

The creep film makers have a deeply believed, strongly held opinion about Islam. (I'm a R. Catholic, so I have no axe to grind personally. But I don't hate Mohammedans.) They're driven enough to push it in video media, all over the web. But they're far too modest when it comes to taking any credit for it. Like cockroaches that scuttle away from the kitchen when a light is switched on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #31)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:49 AM

91. Yeah

I'm wondering about that too. You'd think people on a Democratic discussion board would want an investigation to get to the bottom of an unwarranted smear attack of a career Democratic ambassador. Maybe the repug agenda is in full effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:23 AM

105. Yes, it does....

...especially if it was part of a plan to "swift boat" the President similar to what was done to Kerry.

Additionally, I don't believe the protections of free speech provided by the First Amendment has anything to do with protecting who funded the film.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #105)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:07 PM

112. Um, those protections would protect whoever funded it as well

 

Occams razor here: some religious fellow doesn't like islam, cobbles together cheaply made movie and puts it on youtube.
Or . . . elaborate conspiracy to unseat Obama puts together . . . a horribly produced movie and puts it on youtube in some scheme to discredit the president in a plan that makes Wiley Coyote seem practical.

Yeah . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #112)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:14 PM

115. About as "elaborate" as the scheme put together to make John Kerry's military service....

....look like a big lie.

Or the constant yammerings by the Bush Admin about WMDs in Iraq. You know how that one ended, don't you?

Or the manufacturing of an incident in the Tonkin Gulf which never actually happened to build US public opinion for escalating the war in Vietnam.

Yeah, real elaborate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #115)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:30 PM

116. I think all this talk about political conspiracies is just a smoke screen to keep people from

 

talking about the real culprit here: Aliens.

Youtube . . . take the u and move it to the front, adjust the t slightly and move it second, and then finally remove all other letters except the o. What does that get you? UFO.

What did they use to attack the embassy? Rockets.
What do we use to go to space, where aliens live? Rockets.



It's pretty freaking obvious once you take off your blinders.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:38 AM

20. Why was this filmmaker/turd even in the US?

This guy is not a US national. This guy was committing fraud for years yet when he got out of prison he was able to walk the streets.

Why wasn't he driven to the airport with a one-way ticket back to Egypt and forever barred when he got out of prison?

I believe the term for this three flusher is undesirable alien.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:22 PM

26. Good questions. I wonder why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:01 PM

22. There does not appear to be a link between the video and Benghazi

It was more the anniversary of 9/11

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #22)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:21 PM

25. There may be no link with Benghazi but it's a hell of a coincidence

that the two things happened more or less simultaneously, don't you think? On the anniversary of 9/11 no less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:40 AM

50. From a post-er appelated 'azurnoir', posted on Hissy's 'Flash' o.p., on 9/12:

" An "angry crowd" marched on the consulate on Tuesday, angry about an online film considered offensive to Islam, Libya's Deputy Interior Minister Wanis al-Sharif said Wednesday. The U.S. mission in Egypt was also attacked Tuesday in response to the film.

Al-Sharif said that consulate security staff opened fire when they heard gunfire outside the mission.

"This led to more anger and this is when the consulate was stormed," he said, suggesting that there were elements loyal to the regime of deposed dictator Moammar Gadhafi aiming to create chaos among the protesters.

"Criminals managed to get in and they burned and ransacked the consulate," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed/index.html

the article also states that Libyans were also killed but doesn't say how many "

--Azur's post ends.

CNN said the Libyan Deputy Interior Minister said the attack was in response to the film. Now two months later, things are getting muddier and more obscured, instead of clearer. Maybe the film created the furor, maybe not. But CNN reported initially that the new Libyan gov thought it did. When the media keeps contradicting themselves and changing the story, tossing red herrings into the mix, there is intel skulduggery involved. The whole OP had some interesting info on the issue, links to initial mainstream news coverage. Of course, you'll have to wade through beaucoup 'Free Speech' sidetracking:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014226496

Post-er triplepoint's post 36 has some info on the players. Ash F's post 34 says the filmmaker claimed the movie 'cost' $5 mil to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #25)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:13 PM

113. I think it's a hell of a coincidence that 9/11 occurred

 

a mere 11 years before this event.

Now I'm not saying 9/11 was a ruse used to generate this movie which was a ruse used to attack our embassies which was a ruse intended to unseat the president.

But it is a hell of a coincidence.

Terrorists blow up the WTC knowing that it would boost Bush's numbers so he could have a second term. This would then lead to the republican losing in 2008 as people got sick of republicans. This would then enable a previously little known politician rising to power EXACTLY IN TIME for the movie to be made forcing the benghazi attacks that would hurt his reelection chances. And who would step in to power? Yep: Romney.


It's all so obvious now. 9/11 was the ruse. Everything else was a vast an elaborate conspiracy leading up to putting a Mormon in the whitehouse so he could begin a theocratic America just as the Joseph Smith forsaw.

It's pretty clear to anyone but the most deluded souls that this was a mormon conspiracy going back to the formation of the Church of latter day saints to force the US in to theocratic rule. And they almost made it.


/what, I'm just asking questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:28 PM

29. Unlikely.

There was a protest that day. Hours later, late evening, a group that knew where a safehouse was, what staffing levels were, and had planned and organized this attack. Coincidentally, on 9/11.

The planning almost certainly didn't take a day or two. It took a bit more, if only because of the information that was needed. It's connected to the video protests only because it occurred shortly after the protests. "Post hoc" reasoning, in other words.

Nobody in the CIA/FBI claims that the (R) dismissing of the video as the cause of the attack is false. They also say they're causally unrelated.

The low-budget video was funded by Copts and intended to dissuade Muslims in the US from being Muslims. Months after it flopped in the US somebody finally got around to dubbing it into Arabic so that it could be imported to majority-Muslim countries. It was posted on Youtube and got scant traffic. So a few days later the makers tried to bring it to the attention of a Coptic newspaper in Egypt to get some free press. It was ignored for a day or two, then the Coptic newspaper, contacted and pressured by the makers of the film, printed a small article about it. After all, there's probably not just a great deal of Copt-oriented news emanating from the US. But that little article got no press at first.

This is pretty much parallel to the Danish cartoon mess in some respects. The Danish cartoons had been printed in an Egyptian newspaper months before they became a BFD. Nobody cared. It took a group of imams making sure that Islamists were properly offended to organize the grass-roots protests against portraying Islam and its prophet/adherents as violent by rioting and maiming. Irony is not apparently a Middle-Eastern literary device.

A few days after the Coptic newspaper printed their little blurb about the movie an Islamist-oriented newspaper that monitors the Coptic press made a bigger deal out of it. From there it spread through Islamist sources until everybody who wants to be pissed at uppity Xians was pissed and spontaneous grassroots protests were organized by imams and other groups, complete with the distribution of spontaneous preprinted posters and banners translated into English for the Western press. The delicate sensibilities of the Muslims and hurt their feelings were again offended and their devotion to peace, or at least pacification, again had to be affirmed.

Note that this film was truly low-budget and anything but slick. There are far slicker student productions at 2nd-tier film schools by students after general ed credits. They often hire actors as well. This was cheap because there were few actors, not union scale, and only for a day or two. The sets were in the maker's house or basement. These days you shoot digitally and edit on a home computer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:39 PM

30. I'm not saying that the video caused the attacks. Nobody is saying that.

That's the distraction that is drowning out a lot of other reasonable questions. The Republicans keep shouting that the video didn't cause the attacks - we get that. Now let's ask some more questions about who made sure that the video was seen in the Arab world.

Your suggestions are plausible. This could all be a giant coincidence. It just happened to happen right before the U.S. election, and the Republican candidate just happened to hold a press release before anybody else knew anything about it, and he just happened to be smirking all through the press release, and the Republicans just happen to be hammering, hammering, hammering away at Benghazi, first in an effort to defeat Obama and now in an effort to impeach him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #30)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:56 AM

94. Keep making sense, yardwork . . .

Maybe the naysayers will eventually get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:58 PM

34. In the absence of other data, it was reasonable to assume the video and attack were related

It IS too big of a coincidence to ignore without spending time investigating to rule it out. It seems it is ruled out now, but the coincidence is still pretty striking.

Reality is, the Benghazi kerfuffle is nothing more than the latest attempt by Republicans to impeach a re-elected Democratic President on whatever outrage du jour they thought they could trump up for the task.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:26 PM

35. Good question

I had the same thought and I think it was more than a coincidence. Why NOT investigate it? Even if it is not a crime, there is journalistic value in determining the people behind it.

People also seem to forget, when Susan Rice was making her comments, weren't there still on-going protests at other embassies around the world that were casually linked to the video? Why not understand who was interested in stoking that fire and

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 04:45 PM

36. I've been working on this ...

Last edited Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Ok, I’ve been obsessed with the idea that the release of “The Innocence of Muslims” film a couple of months before the election was meant to be the catalyst for a Republican facilitated “October Surprise,” planned to stoke the flames of unrest in the Muslim world and embarrass President Obama by making him look weak and ineffective on foreign policy - one of his strengths. So, yes, an important question is who was involved in the production and financial support of the film? Here is what I have discovered so far:

The film was made around September 2011.

A copy of the film was dubbed in Arabic and sent to an Egyptian journalist on 9/6/12 by Coptic rights activist Morris Sadek.

The producer of the film was Joseph Nassarala Abdelmasih of Media for Christ - a non-profit organization that sponsors The Way TV, a Coptic Christian tv channel

The film was made someone using the name of Nakoula or Sam Bacile (the same person), who may have been an “informant” of kind.

Steve Klein, a member of a Christian Militia group located in Los Angeles, and anti-Islam crusader, served as a consultant for the project.

The film was promoted by Pastor Terry Jones of Gainsville, Florida (there’s that Florida connection I was trying to find). Terry Jones had previously threatened to burn Korans in protest of the decision to build a mosque in lower Manhattan. On 9/12/12, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asks Jones to withdraw his support from the film.

Pamela Geller is a right-wing Jewish blogger on her website Atlas Shrugs, which published a solicitation for funds to produce an anti-Mohammed movie in February 2012. She is an anti-Islamic activist who helped organize the June 6, 2010 protest of the plans for a Mosque in lower Manhattan, collaborating with Pastor Terry Jones in this effort. In her solicitation for funds to make an anti-Mohammed film (not necessarily The Innocence of Muslims, which was actually made 6 months earlier, she lists Ali Sina, ex-Muslim and founder of Faithfreedom.org as a partner. Mr. Sina is noted for his comparisons of President Obama to Hitler. She also has been associated with another anti-Muslim activist and author, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. Both Geller and Robert Spencer were both closely allied with John Bolton and the Romney campaign.

Robert Spencer is a Melkite Greek Catholic - rite of the Roman Catholic church whose adherents are mostly found in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Turkey. It is probably a coincidence, but Jill Kelley and her twin sister, Natalie Khawan, are Maronite Catholic Christians from Lebanon. I actually went off on this entire tangent in an effort to see if I could find a link between between the twins and the making of the film in question. Nothing so far.

None of this proves anything, but will keep digging. Meanwhile, here are some links that might be of interest.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/14/was-innocence-of-muslims-director-also-an-informant.html

http://www2.tbo.com/lifestyles/breaking-news/2012/sep/12/3/gainesville-pastor-terry-jones-indirectly-tied-to-ar-495749/

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/9/16/12752/9534

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/41048_Mitt__Romney_Pamela_Geller_EDLs_Tommy_Robinson_Robert_Spencer_and_John_Bolton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mme. Defarge (Reply #36)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:12 AM

40. Thank you very much! This is exactly what I was hoping somebody would start to explore.

I really appreciate your post and I hope that your work will be published. There are a lot more facts in your brief post than in the average article about the Petraeus affair.

Pastor Terry Jones himself is a figure who ought to be garnering a lot more attention.

Imagine if all these people were connected to Democrats instead of Republicans. Imagine the wealth of "investigative journalism" we would see then!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #40)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:23 AM

42. I think the amazing thing - what needs to be focused on is not as much the production

but the distribution. How do you make a measly film and have everyone on the street in the ME know about it? That was an amazing feat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #42)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:44 AM

44. Very good point. That would take money and connections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #44)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:45 AM

45. and maybe twitter (seriously)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #40)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:03 AM

46. What interested me the most

was the neo-con connection between Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, John Bolton, and candidate Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mme. Defarge (Reply #46)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:05 AM

98. YES!

Those three names connected to the video, its distribution and whether it did or did not have anything to do with the attack on the consulate should raise the eyebrows of most reasonable people. But we're talking McCain and Graham and a few inexplicably unconcerned posters here (seems to me their unconcern is a whole other agenda in itself).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mme. Defarge (Reply #36)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 06:31 AM

48. Thanks for the sum up and links.

There was a lot of progressive site 'chatter' about the origins of the 'movie'. CA Film Commission has no permit record, there's no IMBd page for the film, con-man felon behind it, maybe the whole movie was screened once, but there's no record. Buzzflash, TPM, Max B., Al Jazeera, Lucas Kavner at Huff Post, all putting info out about the slap-dash nature of the film that 'caused' the attacks. AP says that they traced it to Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who covered up the 'Basseley' part of his CA driver's license with his thumb, when he showed it to AP to prove his identity. (Sam 'Bacile'.) The fact that it's easy to get lost in the sea of red herrings, on the 'cause' part of the attacks, shows that it's a typical half-baked repug foreign policy op.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mme. Defarge (Reply #36)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:28 AM

57. +1

Thanks for the legwork ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mme. Defarge (Reply #36)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:45 AM

71. Interesting that Geller was soliciting after the movie was made...

Was she shilling knowing that the movie had already been made - and they need funds for further activity?

Did Geller ever produce a movie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hexola (Reply #71)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:14 AM

102. She did produce those anti-muslim posters . . .

. . . that ran in the NYC subway system at around the same time that the video uproar was going on. The poster later ran in the DC metro also.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/anti-muslim-subway-posters-nypd-increase-security_n_1912239.html

At the time it seemed crazy for someone to release the posters when rioting in the Middle East was going on over the anti-muslim video. Talk about fanning the flames . . . and these people and their possible connections to rightwing superpacs go uninvestigated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mme. Defarge (Reply #36)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:05 AM

82. My money's on Pam Geller...BUT the bigger question is the coordination....

that turned this piece of trash into an agitprop event. Especially on the Egyptian and Syrian "al-Qaeda" side.

Before the final history is written. don't be surprised if THIS is what caused the Petraeus resignation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #82)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:16 AM

103. Ah hah!

All the more reason for an investigation. I did read somewhere recently that general's biographer has Rove connections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #82)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 04:27 PM

117. Exactement!

I feel in my bones that the distribution of the film in early September and the Patraeus debacle are of a piece. Paula Broadwell with classified material in her home, her connection with Karl Rove, Natalie Khawan's ex, Grayson Wolfe's neo-con connections, and the lawyering up of the twins - Jill with a criminal attorney and Natalie with a civil attorney - and two generals intervening in a custody case involving one of the twins, Paula Broadwell disclosing the existence if an illegal CIA prison in Libya in a public lecture, the neo-con connections to the film that incited rioting during the last stages of the campaign season ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mme. Defarge (Reply #117)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 06:19 PM

120. My point above is

that the film snippet and the Patraeus scandal both seem to have neo-con connections. Bring in an FBI agent with an apparent political agenda right before the election and it doesn't seem unreasonable to try connecting some dots. How could this not have something to do with trying to influence an election in order to advance the interests of neo-cons and military contractors?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 05:29 PM

37. The numerous protests seemed to be well organized...

almost orchestrated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #37)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:25 AM

43. wouldn't this be amazing,,,,if this was all uncovered and proven to be a staged event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #43)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:48 AM

73. Who were the mysterious "people who were saved" by the ex-seals??

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hexola (Reply #73)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:28 AM

106. More please

I don't remember that part of it. Do you have more info on this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 05:29 PM

38. The attack on Rice is a smokescreen to cover for Romney.

This was the October surprise, a wee bit early. So was the Benghazi attack.

Petraeus was used for information on the ambassador's movements but he wasn't part of the treasonous plot. His biographer was. She did access classified info to pass along to the Romney campaign.

President Obama found out where the evidence was leading shortly before the first debate.

This is my conclusion from all I've seen and heard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #38)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:14 AM

41. Interesting speculation!

So you think that this was meant to be something very big, and either it failed to pan out as big as planned, or somebody intervened and prevented it from being the "October Surprise," and the Republicans are helplessly flailing at what is left?

If Romney machinations caused the deaths of four Americans, not to mention all the people killed in those riots, then he has blood on his hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #41)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:07 AM

47. Yes.

That's why he jumped onto national TV with an immediate condemnation of President Obama, two *whole* minutes after SoS Clinton first spoke about the attack to the American public.

Almost as if he had been prepared in advance.

So yes, I believe he has blood on his hands. He certainly has enough money stashed all over the world to pay for both the video and the Benghazi operation.

He also had tremendous support from other equally wealthy crackpots, as we heard in the 47% recording, one of whom actually suggested a hostage type occurrence and asked if Mitt would take advantage of that situation if it presented itself. Mitt said of course he would.

Can you imagine what the RWers would be saying about President Obama if he had said those words? I see no reason to come to any different conclusion, given the same set of facts, given the girlfriend situation with the CIA director, and given her relationship with Rove and the right wing.

P.S. The video was always meant to stir up trouble, cause unrest, probably in Libya as well as other places. That it didn't in Libya was a surprise at the time, and made it obvious that the attack was a professional one. More military than your normal terrorist attack, really. Better weapons and better executed, speaking to a very well trained strike force. And a very well informed strike force. This is the most obvious part to me.

But in the end the protests and lack thereof created confusion at first that the RW is using to claim that the Admin is covering something up. They'll use anything they can to keep people from remembering what Romney said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #38)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:32 AM

107. So there may be more to Patraeus' downfall . . .

. . . than the affair. God, this think keeps expanding. Where are Seymour Hersh or Greg Palast when we need them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:00 AM

55. I don't think there was ever actually a "movie"

Imho the only thing that ever will exist is the "preview" that was posted on youtube.

It was so amazingly poor low budget. Some of the actors in it said that the dialogue was changed, and voices in it were obviously dubbed.

There was never an actual "movie" just the "preview."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to d_r (Reply #55)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:45 AM

72. Calling it a preview implied that an entire movie was in production. That was the point.

Somebody made sure that this little low-budget "preview" got translated into Arabic and disseminated all over the Muslim world. Riots ensued, which was 100% predictable based on previous experience. It takes very little to get people to riot if one knows the buttons to bush. Which (cough cough) the CIA certainly knows how to do. Coincidentally or not, a U.S. ambassador and three other diplomats were murdered in Libya, where riots over the "preview" were taking place. The CIA told the State Department that those two things were connected. David Petraeus was head of the CIA. Immediately after Rice's testimony the Republicans claimed that Obama had "lied" about the video and was coddling terrorists. It's a right-wing talking point that that video had nothing to do with the deaths of Americans in Benghazi.

I don't believe right-wing talking points even when they see plausible. I am always suspicious of them and it makes me want to know more about this video clip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:24 AM

60. video.

have you guys actually seen the video?

let me tell you. it is utterly ridiculous. not in an offensive way, but in a "I cannot believe anyone would kill over this garbage." the video seems like it was made by a 5th grader. And no offense to 5th graders. So, when I hear the words funding, CIA, Koch Brothers used in the same discussion as this video, I am a bit perplexed. you guys have seen the video, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bionnaki (Reply #60)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:38 AM

70. But people did riot over it. People riot when preacher Terry burns a Koran in Florida.

Don't underestimate how little it takes to put a match to a powder keg. Rove and Co know how to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bionnaki (Reply #60)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:08 AM

83. The video is just a maguffin. The effect comes from what the TV pundits

and imams say about it. The protesters don't even need to watch it.

In fact, if you think back to most religiously motivated protests about films or books, the protesters specifically do NOT watch or read it, because it's against their religion of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #83)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:25 AM

85. Exactly! What is going on here?

That video clip is at the center of a very complex series of events, but when one looks at the video there isn't much to see.

It's the maguffin. Brilliant analogy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:17 AM

62. It was laughable how could anyone get offended at such nonsense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #62)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:35 AM

64. I'm pretty sure most of the rioters never saw the video

 

They rioted because they were told to riot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #64)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:36 AM

69. So it sounds like you recognize that this was a coordinated plan

Your dismissal of conspiracy theory notwithstanding, you recognize that thousands of people were "told to riot."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #69)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:51 AM

75. The riots were all about the anniversary of 9/11

 

The video and whoever produced it are not the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #75)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:56 AM

78. And you know this for a fact how? Did the CIA provide you with talking points?

How can you be so certain that there is nothing to see here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #78)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:59 AM

81. A bunch of Muslims rioting on September 11 is nothing to see

 

Nothing at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #75)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:37 AM

108. Ahhh . . .

. . . I disagree. That's the whole issue if you're paying attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:57 AM

79. I'm betting money that the regular names were involved

and they're all ReTHUGs. I'd imagine a good place to start would be that lunatic Gaffney

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #79)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:08 AM

84. There's also a clear Florida connection, which suggests the Bushes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #84)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:38 AM

109. Which would mean Rove.

And his superpac money connections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #84)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 05:12 PM

118. Don't rule it out

They need a new 9/11 in Benghazi to revise history in time for Jebbie in 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:30 AM

87. No laws were broken. That's why law enforcement isn't investigating

 

Offending delicate sensibilities isn't a crime in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #87)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:35 AM

88. That talking point got trashed upthread. You'll need to check with headquarters for the next one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #88)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:38 AM

89. When did 'talking point' become code for an accurate and true point

 

that you don't want to address?

What laws were broken?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #87)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:51 AM

92. One word -

sedition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #92)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:52 AM

93. Er, no.

 

I mean yes, that is one word. But it doesn't apply here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #93)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:56 AM

95. Why not?

In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #95)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:59 AM

96. Because the movie didn't advocate rebelling against US laws

 

or attacking Americans.

If so then catcher in the rye should be banned as well because it led to a deranged individual attempting to assassinate a siting US president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #96)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:02 AM

97. Love your narrowly defined definition of sedition... NOT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #97)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:07 AM

99. I used the definition you provided

 

And the law agrees with me.

You know what I don't love? People who would use the barbaric actions of others to push for fewer freedoms back home because the thought that others think differently frightens and confuses them.

Do you think if we got rid of free speech those rioters would decide they love us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #99)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:10 AM

100. You may want to read it again.

We won't know if various people/organizations committed sedition until it is investigated, which seems the point of the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #100)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:14 AM

101. Actually you may want to read it

 

In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at
direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.



See that first sentence? What legal authority has deemed this sedition?

Take your time, and feel free to provide links.

/unless you are a supreme court justice you are not a legal authority. Just FYI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #101)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:40 AM

110. Again, we won't know until investigated.

Americans were killed at an American consulate, thus American territory. Why don't you want an investigation? You seem to have decided that everyone just needs to move on. Why don't you like questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #110)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:59 AM

111. No court has considered this a crime

 

hence no investigation.


Americans were killed at an American consulate, thus American territory. Why don't you want an investigation?


Because it would be a waste of time and money and set the unpleasant precedent of putting people on trial for their speech.

You seem to have decided that everyone just needs to move on. Why don't you like questions?


The ultimate fallback of every conspiracy theorist. I'm not saying aliens took down the towers, by why not investigate the role UFOs played on 9/11? I'm just asking questions.


Even assuming the CIA/illuminat/bigfoot/Walmart conspiracy were behind funding this movie (and managed to scrape up like 10,000 between them) what would that prove? That would still not be a crime. Nor would it excuse the actions of the deranged individuals who killed over this.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:20 AM

104. Sideshow. The real question, what exactly were Stevens and the CIA doing in Benghazi?

That will likely not be directly asked by the corporate media or fully answered by the USG, but the answer is obvious.

Syria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #104)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:26 PM

122. Well, yeah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:26 PM

114. It's been rightfully forgotten

Because the only people who care about it can't seem to take a joke about their religion, like modern people seem to be able to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread