HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Nakoula just a fall guy. ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:19 PM

Nakoula just a fall guy. Keyman: Joseph Nassralla

Source: Daily Kos

The media has trumpeted a number of false leads on the identities behind the "Innocence of Muslims" agit-prop.

It has settled its narrative on an unlikable ex-con named Nakoula with a (self-described) minor role in the affair.

Unfortunately for the narrative, Nakoula was in federal detention in the period when the movie was planned, he was released from detention only in June 22, 2011.

Far more likely, Joseph Nassralla Abdelmasih, owner of Media for Christ, and a right-wing media star during the NYC anti-mosque rallies is responsible.
More follows........


Read more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/13/1131422/-Nakoula-just-a-fall-guy-Keyman-Joseph-Nassralla



It just keeps getting more interesting the closer we get to the source of the stench.

39 replies, 6381 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 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply Nakoula just a fall guy. Keyman: Joseph Nassralla (Original post)
Jessy169 Sep 2012 OP
The Magistrate Sep 2012 #1
Jessy169 Sep 2012 #2
SoapBox Sep 2012 #4
humbled_opinion Sep 2012 #6
Jessy169 Sep 2012 #9
humbled_opinion Sep 2012 #21
Jessy169 Sep 2012 #24
Green_Lantern Sep 2012 #37
lunatica Sep 2012 #33
glinda Sep 2012 #15
former9thward Sep 2012 #23
Jessy169 Sep 2012 #26
Green_Lantern Sep 2012 #38
hifiguy Sep 2012 #35
PatrynXX Sep 2012 #3
PatrynXX Sep 2012 #5
Hab Habit Sep 2012 #7
cali Sep 2012 #8
Jessy169 Sep 2012 #10
Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2012 #28
cali Sep 2012 #31
winstars Sep 2012 #11
Jessy169 Sep 2012 #13
dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #12
Stuart G Sep 2012 #14
AlinPA Sep 2012 #16
chill_wind Sep 2012 #27
Marrah_G Sep 2012 #17
grandpamike1 Sep 2012 #18
HooptieWagon Sep 2012 #22
zeemike Sep 2012 #19
LibGranny Sep 2012 #20
harutmasikyan Sep 2012 #25
cpwm17 Sep 2012 #29
chill_wind Sep 2012 #30
sendero Sep 2012 #32
sofa king Sep 2012 #34
jsr Sep 2012 #36
naaman fletcher Sep 2012 #39

Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:26 PM

1. Looks Very Likely, Ma'am

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:36 PM

2. Be sure to read the comments under the article

The comments posted under the article contain a significant amount of wisdom and not undue speculation as to who produced this video and why, and the implications.

My point of view: Freedom of speech is guaranteed. However, there ARE legal limits to freedom of speech. You cannot go into a theatre and scream "fire, fire" and then later plead "freedom of speech" to the judge after several people get trampled to death. You cannot willingly and knowingly incite violence by practicing "free speech" when the only logical outcome of that free speech is violence and mayhem.

Free speech is great, but there are limitations, and their are consequences to misuse of that fundamental right.

In my opinion, this is one of those times. We have yet to see how this unfolds, but my opinion is that a crime has been knowingly committed. Let's see how it plays out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:53 PM

4. Bravo, bravo...Jessy169, I could not agree more.

Well said...and my thoughts, regarding free speech exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:14 PM

6. Did you see the movie?

Does it really fall into the category of clear and present danger? or are the people reacting to the movie showing intolerance of alternative views?

I have not seen the movie, but I am very liberal when it comes to free speech, I wouldn't want to advocate that a religious group is justified in violence because someone mocked their beliefs....imagine where that could lead...

Just saying...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:32 PM

9. I am also humble in offering my opinion

My understanding is that not many people have seen the entire movie. It was the trailer for the movie that was translated into Arabic and promoted on YouTube which incited the Muslim reaction.

I live in America. I can stand on the street corner and yell any insulting tripe that I want, and as long as I'm not violating noise or trespassing ordinances, I'm free to keep being an obnoxious fool -- everybody avoids me, eventually I get tired and go home. No harm done.

I go to the Middle East. I'm American -- I have the right of free speech in my country. I start yelling the same obnoxious crap. The Muslims who live by a different set of rules and laws than I do get very upset, they behead me on the spot. Under their law and rules, it was justified. Me, I'm just an idiot who was offensive to the wrong people in the wrong place and I paid the price for my stupidity.

Communications media cut across international lines. The movie trailer in question was produced in English and never caused any problems. Then suddenly, conveniently perhaps, it was overdubbed in Arabic and deliberately placed on YouTube in such a way as to reach right across the oceans and into the homes of Arabic speaking Muslims. Why? What was the intent? To educate? To start a discussion, a debate? Or was it just a way of saying "fuck you, now do something about it", knowing or at least having every reasonable basis for knowing that the big "fuck you" would create riot and mayhem?

Anybody who throws gasoline on a small flame is responsible for the bonfire that results, and any damage caused by that bonfire.

Just my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #9)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:16 PM

21. Yeah I get your point...

However, one of the major points of free expression is the fact that it gets people talking and thinking about subjects that they may not want to otherwise discuss. It is very important sometimes, to poke the hornets nest, just to see what type of reaction you get. I am not a Muslim but if they are so sensitive that other people must be careful of what they do or say than maybe they need to reflect on their own tolerance issues.

i.e, see Salman Rushdie...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #21)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:54 PM

24. All good points

But there's the way it is, and the way it ought to be. And the way it is, there was (and is) a very high probability of inciting riot and violence by pushing such a "repulsive" (as Hillary described it) video right in the faces of the target audience who have as yet had no training or experience in religious tolerance whatsoever. It took western civilization centuries to develop our tolerance. We can't expect people around the world to be "ready" for our version of freedom of expression. The person or people responsible for this video are anything but stupid. There can be little doubt but that they were keenly aware the video would provoke an extreme reaction. None of us are naive. We can reasonably speculate that the sole intent of that video was only to incite violence. That video had no intrinsic or artistic value whatsoever. It was clearly meant as a provocation. It was, figuratively speaking, a lit match tossed onto a dry tinder pile. The outcome was guaranteed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #24)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 01:17 PM

37. if this video is illegal because it pisses people off than...

Basically many things would be banned.

Even if they intended to piss people off I don't see how you can prove they intended people to be harmed.

Incitement of violence doesn't mean producing a video that makes people mad and they become violent. Incitement would be actually encouraging people to commit violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #21)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 07:10 AM

33. When you know that by poking the hornets nest you're going to cause death and nothing more

then your motive is to incite violence that leads to those deaths. It's pretty simple in this case. No true effort to make anyone think is intentioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:27 PM

15. If nothing is done then that tactic will be exploited by others as justified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:34 PM

23. What crime exactly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #23)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:55 PM

26. I'm not an attorney -- I don't know

If you walk into a crowded theatre, yell "fire" as a practical joke or as an exercise in "freedom of speech", cause a stampede where people are killed or injured and property damage occurs -- what crime is that?

Or, more directly to the point, if it can be established that your sole intent is to cause a stampede resulting in injury, death and/or property damage, then what crime is that? Or is it a crime? Maybe anybody can do that in American and just use the "freedom of speech" excuse. But I doubt it.

Any lawyers here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #26)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 01:26 PM

38. the threat of harm has to be imminent...

This film was released months ago so it is hard to say it was an imminent threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #2)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:11 AM

35. One small correction

What Justice Holmes said is that someone has no right to falsely shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Doing the same thing when there actually was a fire would be both appropriate and protected under the First Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:36 PM

3. just no more knee jerks

first he's Jewish then He's Egyptian now he's an American Republican. o_O so I thought the repukes were banging us for being anti Israeli... yet thats the first one out the gate. That'd be bad if at some point taxpayer money was used for this..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:01 PM

5. running on commments about the article in general

This would no longer fall under free speech. as someone says when you give aid and comfort to the enemy.... Usually we call this treason. So we have to tread carefully here. Don't know how far up the pipe this goes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrynXX (Reply #5)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:16 PM

7. Up the Pipe?

 

As in Daniel with an s?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:20 PM

8. not buying this

so what if he was in jail in 2011? The "movie" wasn't even filmed until this year and you can plan things from jail. Furthermore, his self-described role (manager of the film company that made the piece of shit) is hardly minor. And c'mon, how much planning went into it? And it's certainly possible that both were deeply involved in this.


the poster doesn't make a compelling case for Nakoula's minor involvement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:34 PM

10. I think maybe the actual article makes a more compelling case

Also, please read the comments at the bottom of the article, which go even further in making the case.

---------------

First, many sources are documented in my earlier diary: http://www.dailykos.com/... I will not repeat all documentation, but refer to that as a source.

Joseph Nassralla and Media for Christ (M4C) applied for the filming permit for Desert Warrior (per San Gabriel Valley media sources). M4C has IRS non-profit status and files 990 returns. The 2011 return shows a budget of 1 million dollars, and assets that could be used to produce the film.

The film used Hollywood forms: Casting Calls, Permits, SAG categorization. The film used modern green screen techniques, and sound editing and overdubs.

The Media for Christ (aka ATVSat.com ) website is a video blog production. Klein and others use it for their platforms.

Nassralla knows how to roll a production. There is no evidence that the incompetent Nakoula has any experience -- his indictment for check kiting schemes makes clear that he was not sophisticated in avoiding detection or recognition.

Joseph Nassralla has a very deep media trail, mostly on account of his featured roles in the various Pamela Geller promoted anti-Mosque events in New York City. SEE: http://rainoutreachtv.com/...

I think it is not beyond speculation to think that the NYC-based English speaking anti-Islamic clique of Geller , Robert Spencer, David Pipes commissioned the "Desert Warrior" project. The movie was made in English (and likely for an American audience) and the overdubbing to Arabic appears to be a second thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #10)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 01:01 AM

28. Yes. Actors in the film had scripts titled "Desert Warrior" and are shocked at the outcome. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #10)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 05:57 AM

31. I read the whole piece and now it's been blown out of the water

Nakoula admits he wrote the "script" in prison.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014229767

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:37 PM

11. Casting notices I saw posted at Kos were from August 2011, although they don't prove it was filmed..

shortly thereafter (in 2011) it does make sense that would have been. I have not read when it was actually filmed. Did not the actress who decried the film yesterday say it was filmed last year???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winstars (Reply #11)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:39 PM

13. Yes, that is my understanding

based on what I've read. The film in question caused no problems until, conveniently (I repeat myself), the 15-or-so minute trailer was translated into Arabic and posted on YouTube. Shortly thereafter, just in time for 911 one might suspect, the shit hit the fan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:37 PM

12. The plot, like the gravy , thickens.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:16 PM

14. k & r thanks for posting...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:36 PM

16. "The media has trumpeted a number of false leads .." Then a question should be asked: Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlinPA (Reply #16)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:35 AM

27. Exactly. And it appears it's the ever intrepid AP in the starring role, leading the feds to his ID.

"During a conversation outside his home, Nakoula offered his driverís license to show his identity but kept his thumb over his middle name, Basseley. Records checks by the AP subsequently found that middle name as well as other connections to the Bacile persona.

The AP located Bacile after obtaining his cellphone number from Morris Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the U.S. who had promoted the anti-Muslim film in recent days on his website. Egyptís Christian Coptic populace has long decried what they describe as a history of discrimination and occasional violence from the countryís Arab majority."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/california-man-confirms-role-in-anti-islam-film/2012/09/13/9a166bda-fdb4-11e1-a31e-804fccb658f9_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:41 PM

17. Unfortunately the damage is done and the mobs will never know the truth

nor will they believe it if they do. They will believe the fundy imams that will continue to rile them up for jihad.

Not one of them will go " crap, I made a mistake and everyone should stop trying to kill other people in the name of god"

I despise these religions more every year that goes by.

If there is indeed a God of Abraham that these three religions all profess to worship, then that god is the biggest asshole around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:48 PM

18. Maybe

Maybe if someone can find out and post the names of the supposed 100 who funded the movie, would be eye opening, and should be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grandpamike1 (Reply #18)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:26 PM

22. The 100 may not exist.

However, funds came from somewhere. As a non-profit, are their donors listed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 08:32 PM

19. All well planed evil schemes need a patsy.

And Nakoula needs to be careful because if he were killed by an "Islamic terrorist" it would be such a golden opportunity for the Christian crusaders...and such a cover for the ones behind it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:02 PM

20. this movie probably financed by Romney & his rich

supporters!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:55 PM

25. Nakoula just a fall guy. Keyman: Joseph Nassralla

 

interesting news

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 02:31 AM

29. Here is Nasralla Abdelmasih at a rally

organized by Pamela Geller in opposition to the Islamic center in Manhattan:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 03:14 AM

30. To me, a real figure of interest here

is this self-promoting guy and his buddies:

The Southern Poverty Law Center says they have been tracking Klein for several years and have labeled two of the organizations he is affiliated with as hate groups.

Klein founded Courageous Christians United, which conducts protests outside abortion clinics, Mormon temples and mosques, and started Concerned Citizens for the First Amendment, which preaches against Muslims and publishes volumes of anti-Muslim propaganda that Klein distributes. He also has helped train paramilitary militias at the church of Kaweah near Three Rivers, about an hour southeast of Fresno, to prepare for what they believe is a coming holy war with Muslim sleeper cells, according to the law center.


Steve Klein & 'Innocence Of Muslims': Film Promoter Remains Outspoken On Islam
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/steve-klein-innocence-of-muslims-producer_n_1882595.html

He's got a really disturbing quote here:

As a consultant for the film named Steve Klein said: "We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/13/egypt-libya-hollywood-film

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 06:58 AM

32. All of this interest in the film..

... is fine, but the more I learn about this attack the more I believe that the film was just an excuse. A demonstration about the film was used as cover for a well-planned attack.

The film is reprehensible and I support the application of some sort of consequence for the maggot that produced it, but I think it had little to do with this event.

JMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #32)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 08:09 AM

34. Yes, which raises questions about the timing.

Since the operation depended upon the protest and upon the non-interference of the guards, does that mean that the three things, the protest, the guards' surrender, and the operation, were planned simultaneously? Recall that the operation prepared two ambushes, one for the escaping ambassador, and one for the arriving Marine reinforcements, which would have come from a totally different direction.

That's some sophisticated, detailed planning, if they were planned simultaneously, and could not have been performed without the collusion of dozens of people, possibly across multiple countries. There were something like 36 guards on the scene, for example, few of whom did their jobs.

Keep pulling on this snake's tail, and sooner or later we are going to find an elephant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:12 AM

36. Very good theory

It's not just The Imbecile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 03:45 PM

39. This isn't the source of the stench

 

This is all a cover.

This is an inside game, with both sides happy to come up with this bullshit excuse for the violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread