‘Anti-Islam’ film spurs U.S. embassy, consulate attacks in Cairo, Benghazi

[Karee 4,190]

You think I'm accusing the ambassador of inciting terror - this what you deduced from my posts ????

I'm trying to figure out why you are bringing the issue of U.S. targeted killings into this thread. I'm not making the connection.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I'm trying to figure out why you are bringing the issue of U.S. targeted killings into this thread. I'm not making the connection.

The key word is incitement, but I don't know if that particular clue will be enough to help you.

[Karee 4,190]

The key word is incitement, but I don't know if that particular clue will be enough to help you.

I don't like playing clue. Mr. Plumb did it in the library with the candlestick is not my kind of fun. I like facts, not clues.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I think she may be referring to the film makers, and their associates, if they link back to a certain group in North Africa.

Exactly.

Somebody coordinated the Arabic translation of the film to be uploaded in the days before 9/11, and somebody tipped off the group in Libya in time for them to prepare their attack on the consulate, which investigators have said was not spontaneous, but pre-planned.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Oh boy.

Media for Christ is a tax-exempt nonprofit organization, so their tax returns are public record.

According to their 2011 IRS Form 990, their revenues shot up from $46,248 in 2008, to $633,516 in 2010, to $1,016,366 in 2011 (listed as "contributions, gifts, grants" etc.) That's quite an increase.

According to the Statement of Expenses, they spent $648,980 on "TV recording production" in 2011.

http://www.irmep.org/990/2011-MEC.pdf

It might be interesting to find out who suddenly gave them all that money.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Interesting. So, there's a possibility that inciting a protest was orchestrated by AQ operatives to allow them to move about in the open and execute an attack? If true, there's irony in those who are complaining about the focus on the film, because that's what AQ wants the U.S. to believe the killings were about and not a planned attack. AQ would be all too happy to erode any U.S./Libyan alliance since that undermines their objectives of getting the Muslim world to view the U.S. as ' the enemy.'

Edited September 14, 2012 by Commie Appeaser

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Remember that the U.S. has conducted targeted assassinations to take out "inciters" of terror - even people who never took part in any actual act of terror. It seems incitement is not "irrelevant," at least not in the eyes of the U.S. government.

Making a film which angers certain Muslims is as easy as drawing a cartoon bear, and even if a film is designed to upset said super-sensitive Muslims that is a VERY different activity than attempting to recruit and/or incite acts of terrorism.

There is no logical way to equate two very distinct activities, one of which could lead to righteous targeted assassination. Being a jerk and trying to tick a group of zealots off might be a wrong thing to do, but it isn't at all the same thing as advocating or recruiting to commit actual acts of terrorism.

Edited September 14, 2012 by ready4ONE

[sandinista! 1,816]

It certainly can be when the protests are used strategically to contribute to a chaotic scene in order to carry out a terror attack. If it were all about riling up

Muslims in general, why did zero, zilch, nada happen in Indonesia? Where were the protests and chaotic scenes in Chad, Mauritania, or Uzbekistan?

[sandinista! 1,816]

Really, Ready, you are in favor of targeted assassinations, even of American citizens without due process?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Making a film which angers certain Muslims is as easy as drawing a cartoon bear, and even if a film is designed to upset said super-sensitive Muslims that is a VERY different activity than attempting to recruit and/or incite acts of terrorism.

There is no logical way to equate two very distinct activities, one of which could lead to righteous targeted assassination. Being a jerk and trying to tick a group of zealots off might be a wrong thing to do, but it isn't at all the same thing as advocating or recruiting to commit actual acts of terrorism.

I think you're missing what this actually might be about. You have to separate the protesters from the assailants and consider that the assailants helped incite the protesters to provide them with a cover to carry out their planned attack. If that sounds incredible, one only needs to look at Protest Warrior to see how perceptions can be manipulated. AQ wants you to be angry about people protesting over a stupid movie. They thrive on hatred and their relevance in the Muslim world depends on mutual animosity and discontent.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The squawks of protest that anyone would want to take a closer look at the filmmakers or who funded them (or who may have deliberately fed Salafist groups in Egypt and in Libya an Arabic translation, timed to coincide with 9/11) are right along the lines of Pamela Geller's response to Alex Kane, when asked about it. From the Mondoweiss link:

"In any case, whether or not Joseph Nassralla was involved in this film, it doesn't matter, because the film itself doesn't matter. It was not the cause of these riots and murders. The film was on YouTube for months before the Muslim rage over it began, and that rage was clearly carefully planned and orchestrated. The film is just a pretext to justify the violence and intimidate the West into adopting Sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech, so that jihad can advance unimpeded and unopposed in the West. And you, by focusing on the film and demonizing the filmmakers, are abetting that."

-Pamela Geller

I haven't gone to have a look over at Atlas Shrugged, but I would not be surprised if she has a column up with the same sort of reasoning that's been repeated by some people here.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The group suspected to be behind the assault -- the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades -- first surfaced in May when it claimed responsibility for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi. The following month the group claimed responsibility for detonating an explosive device outside the U.S. Consulate and later released a video of that attack.

Noman Benotman, once a leading member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and now based at the Quilliam Foundation in London told CNN, "An attack like this would likely have required preparation. This would not seem to be merely a protest which escalated."

"According to our sources, the attack was the work of roughly 20 militants, prepared for a military assault; it is rare that an RPG7 is present at a peaceful protest," Benotman said.

"According to our sources, the attack against the consulate had two waves. The first attack led to U.S. officials being evacuated from the consulate by Libyan security forces, only for the second wave to be launched against U.S. officials after they were kept in a secure location."

That analysis is supported by U.S. sources who say the attack on the consulate is believed to have been pre-plan

ned. The sources say the attackers used the protest as a diversion to launch the attack, although the sources could not say if the attackers instigated the protest or merely took advantage of it.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html

Edited September 14, 2012 by Commie Appeaser

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The group suspected to be behind the assault -- the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades -- first surfaced in May when it claimed responsibility for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi. The following month the group claimed responsibility for detonating an explosive device outside the U.S. Consulate and later released a video of that attack.

Noman Benotman, once a leading member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and now based at the Quilliam Foundation in London told CNN, "An attack like this would likely have required preparation. This would not seem to be merely a protest which escalated."

"According to our sources, the attack was the work of roughly 20 militants, prepared for a military assault; it is rare that an RPG7 is present at a peaceful protest," Benotman said.

"According to our sources, the attack against the consulate had two waves. The first attack led to U.S. officials being evacuated from the consulate by Libyan security forces, only for the second wave to be launched against U.S. officials after they were kept in a secure location."

That analysis is supported by U.S. sources who say the attack on the consulate is believed to have been pre-plan

ned. The sources say the attackers used the protest as a diversion to launch the attack, although the sources could not say if the attackers instigated the protest or merely took advantage of it.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html

Yes, I noted that in an earlier post in the thread. Some of the witnesses said that the attackers were the ones who actually incited the riot. It's clear that the attack was not a spontaneous escalation of the riot. It's looking like the riot was intentionally incited as a tactic to prompt the evacuation of the consulate, so that officials could be targeted in the second wave.

More questions: did the attackers know that the ambassador was to be in Benghazi that day (was his visit publicized ?) and how did they know where the safe house was ? (it's supposedly a secret location.)

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I think you're missing what this actually might be about. You have to separate the protesters from the assailants and consider that the assailants helped incite the protesters to provide them with a cover to carry out their planned attack. If that sounds incredible, one only needs to look at Protest Warrior to see how perceptions can be manipulated. AQ wants you to be angry about people protesting over a stupid movie. They thrive on hatred and their relevance in the Muslim world depends on mutual animosity and discontent.

I am fine with the protesters, even though I think it is beyond silly to get destructive or violent over a movie. Lybia and Egypt are very different events. Seattle has legit protests wrecked by small groups bent on destruction which taint the legitimate protesters too.

The movie, even if it exists and is more than a poorly made trailer, even if it was solely designed to upset zealous believers remains irrelevant as an excuse.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I am fine with the protesters, even though I think it is beyond silly to get destructive or violent over a movie. Lybia and Egypt are very different events. Seattle has legit protests wrecked by small groups bent on destruction which taint the legitimate protesters too.

The movie, even if it exists and is more than a poorly made trailer, even if it was solely designed to upset zealous believers remains irrelevant as an excuse.

I also think it is silly to get destructive or violent over a movie, or a cartoon, etc.

My question about the film and the filmmakers is: did one of the people connected with the film deliberately try to incite violence to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary by uploading it in Arabic in the days just before 9/11, and then informing Salafist (possibly AQ) groups about it so that they could plan an attack ? This would be very disturbing, and this is what investigators will try to find out.

There was a long quiet period between the time the film was made and uploaded in English (which happened last summer) and the sudden, intense new activity beginning earlier this month with the uploading of the Arabic version accompanied by press releases sent out to news media across the Arab world, in the days shortly before 9/11. This is what's suspicious - especially considering that the attack in Libya appears to be pre-planned, rather than a spontaneous reaction to the film.