Why Would A Muslim Create The Anti-Muslim “Film”
Innocence of Muslims?
September 30, 2012
– Frank Newman
The question still being asked is: Is Obama and his Administration covering-up the fact that they knew that the attack on the Libyan Embassy was carried-out by terrorists?
The questions should first be:
a.) At what point did the Obama Administration actually know that terrorists carried out the attack in Benghazi?
b.) Did they in fact know that the terrorists were planning the attack before it took place?
c.) If that is the case, above all, why did they not provide the necessary security to fend-off such an attack?
d.) And also then, why would Obama still go on to reference “the video” seven times, during his speech at the U.N. on September 25, 2012, insisting that the video and the mentality behind it are solely responsible for the Libyan massacre?
Of course, that last question seems as though it would be easy enough to address, but for the fact that the White House and State Department had indeed been informed, at least 14 days beforehand, that al Qaeda affiliated terrorists had carried-out the attack5, as al Qaeda declared that the assault was executed in revenge for a US drone strike in June, that killed their organization’s number two leader, Abu Yahya al-Libi6.
This article aims to show how the Obama Administration had prior knowledge of the attack in Benghazi, and that they also intentionally suppressed that knowledge as well as their knowledge of who was truly responsible for it.
Furthermore, this article will clearly show, based upon the evidence, how the Obama Administration blamed the Innocence of Muslims video for the attack in Benghazi, so as to thereby assign to Obama’s political opposition the same mentality as might appear to be behind the video’s production. That is, the Obama Administration intended to lead others, particularly American voters, to believe that whoever created that video, as well as anyone even remotely aligned with him (in this case, allegedly Right-wing Conservative fanatics, Christians and/or Jews) were ultimately responsible for the atrocity.
In other words, the whole narrative that “the video, and the kind of intolerant, Rightwing, Christian or Jewish or Secular fanatics that it’s creator claimed to align himself with, are alone responsible for the attack”, is merely a red herring, a decoy, a bold attempt to peddle disinformation and is the epitome of Leftist propaganda.3
Consider the following from TheSmokingGun.com:
SEPTEMBER 14–In remarks stressing that the U.S. government had “absolutely nothing to do with” the anti-Islam film that has touched off violence in the Middle East, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday sought to quash Arab concerns that the “disgusting and reprehensible” movie was somehow produced or condoned by American officials. [Note: Nakoula, the creator of the video, never suggested or implied to anyone that the US government was in any way responsible for the film, but he did allege that Jews were responsible for it - a charge that the Madam Secretary (for reasons that may soon become more clear) conspicuously chose not to repudiate.]
However, Clinton’s attempt to distance the U.S. from “Innocence of Muslims”–and, by extension, its felonious producer–may be complicated by the revelation that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula became a government informant after his 2009 arrest for bank fraud…”
Though many key documents from the U.S. District Court case remain sealed, a June 2010 sentencing transcript provides an account of Nakoula’s cooperation with federal investigators in Los Angeles (and how his prison sentence was reduced as a result).
Nakoula, 55, was arrested in June 2009 for his role in a check-kiting ring that stole nearly $800,000 from six financial institutions by using stolen Social Security numbers and identities. Nakoula was named in a six-count felony indictment accusing him and unnamed “co-schemers” of perpetrating the bank fraud.
[Sentenced and] Denied bail, Nakoula, a married father of three, was locked up at the Metropolitan Detention Center in L.A. when he began cooperating with Justice Department lawyers and federal agents. During a series of debriefing sessions, Nakoula provided investigators with a detailed account of the fraud operation and fingered the man who allegedly headed the operation, according to comments made by his lawyer at sentencing.
Nakoula identified the ring’s leader as Eiad Salameh [Walid Shoebat’s cousin2], a notorious fraudster who has been tracked for more than a decade by state and federal investigators. In his debriefings, Nakoula said he was recruited as a “runner” by Salameh, who pocketed the majority of money generated by the bank swindles, according to James Henderson, Nakoula’s attorney. [This claim by Nakoula is summarily rejected by Eiad’s cousin Walid Shoebat.2]
In return for Nakoula’s cooperation, prosecutors provided Snyder with a letter noting that his substantial assistance to authorities warranted a sentence reduction.
In our analysis of this situation, we must keep in mind that there are literally hundreds of billions of dollars on the line, which the Left is convinced it has the right to access, to further squeeze from taxpayers and to control. Obama, along with an extensive, global network of Leftwing politicians, activists and financiers, are desperate to gain absolute control, amidst what has turned-out to be a MUCH tighter race for the Presidency of the United States, than what they had anticipated running (not that, if it looked like a landslide for them, they would suddenly all back-off and begin operating above-board).
So, Obama and his cohorts, including the Left-controlled, Mainstream Media, are simply very desperate to win him re-election at this point. However, for this article to be worthy of serious consideration, it must also be established that the same people are also more than willing to lie to the American people, to achieve that end.
Of course, that could easily be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt (not merely alleged), by literally hundreds of documented instances, so, it will not be the focus of this article.11
Now, in studying the lengths to which the desperate man will go, in order to get what he must have, when he is also clearly not averse to lying, we must recognize that lying is always foundational to his every plan, and furthermore, that knowing exactly how to lie – so that it seems true or is almost impossible for the average person to believe is a lie – is of paramount importance. And if he is to be a “successful” liar, then all of that necessitates his absolute mastery of appearing to be at-ease, confident and trustworthy, along with a kind of “aw-shucks, I’m just a regular-guy” type of feigned humility, especially while lying.
Every “good” liar lives and dies by these tenants… Just look at the character traits and behavioral patterns of those whom we know have been the best liars of all time – President Bill Clinton is actually a textbook example of this.
As was understood by Hitler’s Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, the master liar must recognize that the average person will simply refuse to believe that someone, in whom they trust, could lie (especially where the lie would result in certain “collateral damage”). In other words, most people simply can’t believe anyone they know could be capable of such depravity, and this is mainly because they don’t believe that they themselves could be. The problem is, they somehow forget how there most certainly have been people throughout history who have proven to be precisely that most despicable kind of liar, and how, for instance, during WWII, millions of German citizens who supported Hitler, could not have been all that different from themselves. And because they all simply failed to recognize that what Hitler was selling was so utterly depraved and they bought-into it, history would also remember them as such – completely devoid of any, inner moral compass – right alongside the Nazis. However, in truth, it did not make them monsters, like the Nazis; it simply made them tools… Now, most of us, looking back, can see how that was certainly bad enough, and hopefully we also recognize exactly why and how such an unimaginable lapse of collective judgement absolutely must be avoided in the future.
The Master Liar however, relies upon the fact that the average person tends to trust others at their word, and that, when someone else seems sincere, it is much easier for most people to simply trust them, rather than remain guarded or on-alert. (Note: Of course, it is an added benefit to the liar that Western society also now tends to encourage people to employ the more passive, warm-and-fuzzy approach, while generally frowning upon the guarded, cautious, “trust but verify” alternative way of living… But however important it may be for us to see how and why that notion is based upon a fundamental confusion between what would be a “perfect world” and the real one in which we live, it is a separate discussion, for another arena.)
We also must acknowledge that Barack Obama, the person, has always been plagued with certain insecurities: He had no stable father figure throughout his childhood and teen years, and even by his own admissions, largely due to that void in his life, he has often felt conflicted and confused, just as he has also admitted that he has felt both insecure about his identity among “Black folk” and indeed ashamed that he was half-White.
It appears that as a result, Barack Obama now spends most of his energy struggling to appear at ease, trustworthy and compassionate, at least while in the limelight. One need only read a few random pages of either of his two books to recognize what amounts to this unfortunate character flaw in the man and to understand his misguided attempts to over-compensate for the demons of his past. Notwithstanding, he has obviously yet to overcome them, as evidenced by his deceitful/duplicitous record, and so, forged by the denial of it all, he has fallen under the control of those demons, just as is so often the tragic result of the selfish and unnecessary abandonment of a father in anyone’s life.
When we are unable to overcome our insecurities with true courage, then we look for whatever ways might allow us to fit-in; even to the extreme of doing things like changing our name, so that we might be more accepted in the circles we believe will support us most. This is because what we really want is to feel accepted, valued, admired and loved – all of those most important things that both fathers and mothers provide for their children… or they are at least meant to. It is an emotionally driven need for the acceptance and love and admiration – that we feel we never got quite enough of – that insecurities always create in us and that Barry Sotero (Obama) was and always has been looking to satisfy. And it all really began as he was living-out a kind of little brother/apprentice role to Marxist radicals like Frank Marshall Davis17 and terrorists like Bill Ayers18, during the tumultuous, “liberated” 1970s, when he was first exposed to the anti-colonialist, anti-American, redistributive, Islamist ideologies that he now either proudly or clandestinely represents and defends.
So, with all of that in mind and in light of the fact that Barack Obama and many others are equally desperate to keep him in the White House (so that he can continue pushing-through the far-Left agenda), it behooves the rest of us to ask ourselves a few questions regarding this Libya crisis/“cover-up”…
Again, why would Obama point to the Nakoula video seven times (inferring that the mentality behind it is solely responsible for the Libyan massacre) during his speech at the U.N. on September 25, 2012, when the White House and State Department had learned, at least 14 days before, that terrorists connected to al Qaeda had claimed full responsibility for the attack and had even provided their rationale for it6, not to mention there was not one shred of evidence or one eye-witness account to corroborate the assertion that the video caused the attack?
To completely answer that question, it is necessary to point-out how the approach taken by the Obama Administration, was straight from the teachings of Cloward & Piven9 and also Saul Alinsky7, while falling right in-line with the famous quote by Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel (in 2009) – “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”8
And with all of the above in mind, it should be obvious that Obama and his cohorts desperately want him re-elected and, true-to-form, they recognized this Libya crisis as a golden opportunity to place the blame for the attack squarely in the lap of his political opposition, namely “those evil, intolerant, Right-wing, Conservative, Christians and Jews” etc.
It was the perfect plan…
Seize a crisis, or create one9, or in this case simply allow one to happen, and then turn it into an opportunity that would easily sweep them right back into the White House! The truth is, it was not only a crisis, but a terrible tragedy that the Obama Administration could have easily averted, had they heeded the repeated pleas from Ambassador Stevens, for heightened security12.
The above questions must be asked, and the subsequent conclusions reached (as delineated), and they also simply cannot be dismissed, based upon logic or in light of the preponderance of evidence.
Needless to say, this is a matter requiring an independent investigative task force.
Now, aside from the questions above, there are others, which, when cobbled together, the answers seem bit less obvious or are perhaps a bit more difficult to ascertain, but they are of no less importance and are as potentially incriminating.
Why would anyone create or promote a film filled with hatred for Muslims?
Because either they hate Muslims or because they want to make it look like someone else hates Muslims.
But why would anyone want to make it appear that someone else hates Muslims?
To lead others to believe that that person, and his or her ideology and affiliations, are to blame for certain violent acts allegedly perpetrated by outraged Muslims, in retaliation.
In the case of what transpired in Benghazi, on September 11, 2012, the Obama Administration somehow chose to immediately blame a thirteen-minute-long video (which is actually merely a trailer for Innocence of Muslims) for the targeted, brutal massacre of four American citizens there… without a shred of actual evidence linking the video to the attack. And, as if that wasn’t crazy enough, the creator of the video who first claimed to be a Right-wing, Copt Christian, anti-Muslim fanatic, who then claimed to be a Jew and Israeli citizen (which, according to the Israeli government, is a lie), was quickly identified as such by the Obama Administration (and every Left-wing news outlet), before he later claimed, in an Egyptian television interview, to be Secularist2!
To put it simply… Mr. Nakoula was messing up “the plan”. Everything had been falling into place so nicely… just as everyone behind the plan had hoped. The Mainstream Media was very much on-board, deftly disseminating the story about how the video caused the attack etc. as if it was Gospel, of course making sure to lace each story with bits of truth, to convince anyone who might happen to be teetering on the edge. It was poling very well too. People were buying it, hook-line-and-sinker… just as they always did. Yes, there were a few rough edges, but those could always be smoothed-over, in time…
And then of course, there was “the gift” – Mitt Romney spoke-out about the manner in which the Obama Administration was handling the whole affair. It wasn’t much; but of course the Left never needed much. They immediately knew they could cry “foul” and have the full force of the Media come down on Romney, about how he was “disrespecting the President” in the midst of a crisis and how he was “politicizing” a tragic event etc. etc., thus gingerly diverting the attention of the public, and even a the few of the more serious news outlets, away from the crisis itself, specifically the question of why there was no security at the consulate on the anniversary of 9-11, when, for months leading up to it, they had been forewarned of a growing al Qaeda threat!12 And of course, that is exactly what the Media did: With charges of, “before the bodies were even cold”20 etc., as if anyone, (especially one seeking the Office of the President of the United States) should have waited for a minute to express their outrage about the senseless and completely avoidable slaughter of the four innocent Human Beings and how the Obama Administration was actually apologizing to those responsible, rather than flatly condemning the atrocity.
That reaction by the Left – attempting to demonize Romney while defending Obama’s apology for the video (which they made sure remained the front page news story for well-over a week) – supports the assertion that the Obama Administration desperately wanted to convince the American public of the validity of its claim that the video was the sole cause of the attack.
Then there is the question of, why, if Nakoula is actually a Muslim2, would a he create a cartoonish anti-Muslim film?
Answer: In order to further the cause of Islam.
But, how could an anti-Muslim film possibly help further the cause of Islam?
In truth it ultimately could not, but that is not what Nakoula believed. He believed that by making sure that the film was obviously not at all a serious work (which may actually be the understatement of the millennium), while also making sure that it was offensive to Muslims, to thereby stir-up widespread hatred towards whoever was said to be responsible for it… his own jihadist mission would be accomplished. All he had to do was go about creating an identity (which he could probably do in his sleep – see below) that matched that which made him appear to be a Jew, perhaps even an Israeli citizen, and/or a Copt Christian (to maybe get the Egyptian Muslims riled-up) and then follow that up with a claim that he was actually a Secularist (to implicate the entire non-religious population of the world, but most importantly, of the U.S.).
“The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” – Joseph Goebbels
You see, if Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was good at anything, he was definitely good at identity fraud, making-up alises and posing as someone he was not2. The following are just a few of the aliases we know of, that he has used: Matthew Nekola; Ahmed Hamdy; Amal Nada; Daniel K. Caresman; Sobhi Bushra; Robert Bacily; Thomas J. Tanas; Abanob Basseley Nakoula; Sam Bacile; Mark Basseley Youseff; Kritbag Difrat; Erwin Salameh; Nicola Bacily; Yousseff M. Basseley; Malid Ahlawi; and even P.J. Tobacco (during a cigarette smuggling stint, believe it or not).2 & 19
Note: Nakoula is actually a known (and long sought after, by the FBI) anti-American and Muslim Extremist, not to mention wanted, but for reasons yet to be fully understood, he has never been made to answer for all of his known criminal activity. The truth is, Nakoula has carried-out fraud schemes involving welfare, social security, credit cards, banks, check-kiting, PCP & Methamphetamine manufacture and dealing, warehouses, contraband and possibly, along with Eiad Salameh, buying Infamil milk (for Seniors) from the government and reselling it at a mark-up to a branch of Stater Bros. (a super market chain) run by Middle Easterners.
That is only a partial list of all of Nakoula’s many unscrupulous dealings that, along with Eiad Salameh2 and others, have bilked the American people out of literally millions of dollars… most of which was sent over seas to support various Middle Eastern terrorist organizations2, which are of course in the business of murdering innocent people.
The point being, no one was better qualified to represent himself as a Copt Christian or a Jew and even an Israeli citizen, than Mr. Nakoula Bassele Nakoula (believed to be is real name)2.
After decades of fooling everybody, with all of his name changes, Mr. Nakoula obviously thought he could convince whoever he wanted that he was in fact an Israeli citizen or a Copt Christian, or perhaps even Santa Clause, if he so pleased. That is, he had not anticipated that anyone would ever catch him at his name game… but of course, he had never tried it out on the world stage…
The truth is, Mr. Nakoula is a Muslim, through and through. It can easily be proven. In fact, the FBI knows it.
Ironically, by having created what is without a doubt the absolute, most pathetic film ever made, he has actually now established himself at the top of the heap, of all Muslim “heroes”. By way of his natural penchant for identity fraud, and with the help of Obama and the Left-wing Media, he has successfully “sparked” the rage of the entire Muslim world against a collective of not only Jews and Christians, but also of even “intolerant” Right-wing Secularists… all of whom are conveniently tied to America. Bada bing bada boom.
Now literally dozens of countries and millions of Muslims are up in arms and out for blood. Whose blood? Well, interestingly, and conveniently, the blood (both literally and figuratively) of those whom Obama and his cronies dislike most.
So, in one fell-swoop, whether or not Mr. Nakoula realizes it now (while sitting in his jail cell, reading his “Holy” Book2, likely provided to him courtesy of the American taxpayer) he has actually elevated himself among the most highly esteemed figures in Muslim history… since Mohammed himself set the no-holds-barred guidelines of Islamic jihad – spreading Islam and ridding the world of infidels.
But how could it be considered right for a Muslim to lie and cheat and steal and even murder for the cause of Islam?
The Muslim Extremists’ ace-in-the-hole is that their “Holy” Book makes it very clear that, in certain circumstances – i.e. wherever one might deem it somehow beneficial to Islam – lying or whatever else, is perfectly A-OK… as long as one’s heart isn’t really in it.4 Wink wink.
So, based on this convoluted sound-bite of Islamic doctrine, Mr. Nakoula is theoretically able to sleep like a baby at night, knowing that his movie, ostensibly about Mohamed, is not any kind of reflection on his own, truly devout Muslim heart; no, it’s just a little white lie… for Allah. While making the film, Nakoula had his fingers crossed, so to speak (without the Christian implication of course).
What is more, he has undoubtedly convinced himself that making and promoting the video actually fulfills his calling, as a Muslim, to do whatever he can to spread Islam and relieve the world of “infidels”, which of course, is affirmed by the violence and death perpetrated upon them as a result of his video (again with the help of Obama and the Leftwing Media), not to mention, that which has yet to be perpetrated because of it. So, if the justification that “lying, cheating, stealing and murdering is all OK, as long as it is for Islam” can be taken seriously, then not only is Nakoula sleeping like a baby, but he is also likely dreaming of the seventy-two virgins lined-up waiting for him.
Further Question regarding the Obama Administration and their approach to the Crisis:
Why would Obama possibly have announced so quickly, that the video was to blame for a mob riot around the Libyan Consulate, when in fact, there is absolutely no evidence that it was?
Does it therefore seem at least plausible that Obama and his cohorts had actually planned (prior to 9/11/12) to come out with the statement that the video would be the cause of the attack?
Again, why would Obama continue to claim, for as long as two weeks afterward, that Nakoula’s video was to blame for the attack, when he obviously had to have known, at least ever since a day or two following the event, that it clearly was not?
Could it be that Obama desperately wanted to believe that he and his Administration could still get away with a plan of convincing America and the rest of the world that it was a Rightwing, Copt Christian/Jew, anti-Muslim-fanatic video that was totally responsible for the massacre?
Could it also be that Obama doubled-down with the lie about the video being solely responsible for the attack, in order to distract from the fact that he refrained from providing the necessary security to the consulate, and to show the Muslim world that America is taking a more passive approach toward Muslim Extremists, on the anniversary of 9-11 and even after Ambassador Stevens had requested additional security?
With all of this in mind, and if it can be proven that Obama was complicit in a plan to allow the terrorist attack to occur, or at least offer no resistance to it, and to then place the blame for it on a video and the anti-Muslim, Right-wing Christians and/or Jews who are all somehow collectively responsible for it (which is completely untrue), then shouldn’t Obama be impeached and charged with high treason?
Questions regarding Nakoula and his rationale for making and promoting the video:
Why would any anti-Islam Christian or Jewish activist (as Nakoula first claimed to be) create a cartoonish and incendiary video about Mohammed (and then announce to the world that he – the creator of it – is a Copt Christian and/or a Jew etc.), knowing how that would certainly bring about great violence and destruction upon his own people? It makes zero sense,2 especially in light of the fact that Nakoula made it known that he was well-aware of how the Muslim world reacted to Salman Rushdie and Theo van Gogh. In other words, he admittedly knew that a film such as that which he was creating would do exactly what it has done (again, with the help of Obama and the Mainstream Media).
That is to say, it actually makes perfect sense that Nakoula, who is anything but anti-Muslim, knew that (with a little help) his video would bring about great harm upon the Jews, Christians and/or the Right wing Secularists of America, all of which, on separate occasions he boldly proclaimed (obviously lying through his teeth) that he, the creator of the video, was.
What Nakoula may or may not have known was that what certainly appears to be the Obama Administration’s “plan” to use him and the video to demonize their political opposition (whether months or only days in the making), could in fact succeed and thus lead to another four years of Obama in the White House.
A few more very serious points and questions:
Nakoula defended the Feds and insisted they were not involved in the film.
Hilary Clinton and also Barack Obama and many others have also repeatedly insisted that the US government had nothing to do with the video… “Methinks, [just maybe] thou doth protest too much…?”
Was this defense of the government perhaps Nakoula’s payment to them for their having allowed him to get away with decades of felony fraud, illegal activity and the funneling of millions of dollars to terrorist organizations?
Is it possible that the Obama Administration, having always relied so heavily upon propaganda and what they apparently believe is the unmatched power of visual Media (to elicit a desired emotional response in the viewer), did actually have something to do with the creation and promotion of the video, and is it possible that the video turned-out to be just what they had hoped for, because it showed such blatant disrespect for Muslims and could so easily be used to demonize anyone or any group that they could frame as being similarly unsympathetic to Muslims (namely anyone who might vote for a Republican)?
Is it plausible that Nakoula was creating the video for the very purpose that the Obama Administration had in mind for it, at some later date, whether that date was known or unknown? Is it possible that, in conjunction with Nakoula remaining an informant2, the video was requested of him, with the caveat that he would also simply work-up another identity – this time as a Rightwing Christian, Jew and/or Secularist (or all three), which the Media would be sure to make headline news, should everything go according to plan?
Is it also plausible that the video was even financed by the Feds, with the clever plan to later claim that “100 Jews” had financed it?
Is it plausible that the Obama administration, through the Feds, knew of Nakoula and his reputation, and so, chose him specifically as one who, with his proven capacity to pose as anyone they might wish, could thus provide them the germ for their plan… which again was to blame the Right for the attack in Benghazi and/or for Muslim mayhem in general?
Is it also possible that such a request, potentially made by the Feds, for Nakoula to create such a video, along with some fairly routine identity fraud, was not at all objectionable to Nakoula? In fact, is it possible that he was all to eager to get started because he saw that he and the Feds somehow, by way of their plan, actually seemed to have the very same end-goal in mind, i.e. to discredit and/or even destroy anti-Muslim, Rightwing Conservative Christians and Jews.
Nakoula was interrogated soon after the Benghazi attack, but was quickly released. During that interrogation he talked about how his “film” was funded by “100 Jews” or “100 Jewish families” (kinda like 72 virgins). Not 99 or 101, but “100” exactly. Of course, it would be worth at least trying to track them all down, so as to prove they never existed.
Is it also possible that said “interrogation” was actually more of a coaching session, carried-out by certain Federal Agents, in order to make sure that Nakoula provided all of the “right” answers to questions that the unsuspecting public would want to know, such as: What is your name? Who are you? Who do you work for? What groups do you associate with? Who funded the video production? Why did you make the film? What or who was your inspiration for it?
On 9-12-12, only one day after the attack in Benghazi, in an interview, which Obama was no doubt informed would be aired roughly two weeks later, Obama told Steve Croft of 60 Minutes that the massacre was merely one of many “bumps in the road” that he had been supposedly anticipating. Many immediately recognized this as a glaring example of unconscionable callousness. Many did not.
For those who do see it as such, it simply further supports the possiblity that Obama had somehow already moved passed any mourning or real sadness about the violent and senseless deaths of the four innocent American men in Libya, which had happened just the day before. And this clearly shows that, if nothing else, Barack Obama is an unfathomably insensitive man, which is due either to a deep, individual character flaw, or to the fact that, in this case, at the time of the interview, he might have actually expected or hoped that when it was to air, the whole matter would be swept under the rug.
1.) Court transcript: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/nakoula-transcript
2.) Reference: http://www.shoebat.com/2012/09/25/innocence-of-muslims-film-was-made-by-terrorists/
Full report on Nakoula: http://www.shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Anti_Muhammad_Film_Terrorism_092412.pdf
3.) Reference source: http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/111933/who-is-sam-bacile
4.) Islamic ace-in-the-hole: Lying is OK, if for the sake of Islam…
Islam permits lying! It is called “Al-taqiyya.”
Qur’an (16:106) – Yhere are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Qur’an (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”
Qur’an (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture.
Qur’an (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”
Qur’an (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”
Qur’an (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.”
The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.”
“Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you.” – Islamic Cleric: Archbishop of Izmir
Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Qu’ran from the early part of Mohammed’s ministry while living in Mecca which exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. However, these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers.
It is imperative to understand that Muslims know that they can lie and then absolve themselves, because the lie was to further the cause of Islam. Also, what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. That is, according to the Qu’ran, it is not what they say that is the real issue, but only what they truly believe in their hearts.
In the Quran, Allah, allegedly, says:
‘Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.’ Surah 2:225
‘Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith – but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.’ Surah 16: 106
The noted Islamic commentator, Al-Tabary explained Surah 16:106 as a verse that had been revealed to Mohammed after he learned that Ammar Ibn Yasser was forced to deny his faith in Mohammed when kidnapped by the Banu Moghera tribe. Mohammed consoled Ammar by telling him, “If they turned, you turn.” (Meaning: if they again capture you, you are allowed to deny me again.)
These and similar passages from the Quran clearly reveal that Muslims’ unintentional lies are forgivable and that even their intentional lies can be absolved by performing extra duties. It is also clear that if forced to do so, Muslims can lie while under oath and can even falsely deny faith in Allah, as long as they maintain the profession of faith in their hearts.
In the Hadith, Mohammed, emphasizes the same concept. From ‘Ehiaa Oloum al-Din,’ by the famous Islamic scholar al-Ghazali, Vol. 3: PP.284-287:
One of Mohammed’s daughters, Umm Kalthoum, testified that she had never heard the Apostle of Allah condone lying, except in these three situations:
For reconciliation among people.
Amongst spouses, to keep peace in the family.
One passage from the Hadith quotes Mohammed as saying: ‘The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies except those uttered to help bring reconciliation between Muslims.’ Another says, ‘Aba Kahl, reconcile among people.’(Meaning: even through lying.)
The following quote demonstrates the broadness of situations in which the prophet permitted lying. ‘The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies with these exceptions: During war because war is deception, to reconcile among two quarreling men, and for a man to appease his wife.’
The principle of Al-Takeyya
The Arabic word, ‘Takeyya”, means “to prevent,’ or guard against. The principle of Al Takeyya conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one’s self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-Takeyya is based on the following Quranic verse:
‘Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.’ Surah 3: 28
According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and display adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming him.
Under the concept of Takeyya and short of killing another human being, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The following actions are acceptable:
Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan.
Renounce belief in Allah.
Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
Utter insincere oaths.
The implications of the principle of Al-Takeyya
Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.
In the sphere of international politics, the question is: Can Muslim countries be trusted to keep their end of the agreements that they sign with non-Muslim nations? It is a known Islamic practice, that when Muslims are weak they can agree with most anything. Once they become strong, then they negate what they formerly vowed.
The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to polish Islam’s image and make it more attractive to prospective converts. They carefully try to avoid, obscure, and omit mentioning any of the negative Islamic texts and teachings.
An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Quran from the early part of Mohammed’s ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers
In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts.”
5.) White House Knowingly Gave False Information to Media on Benghazi Terror Attack (Video) – http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/they-lied-within-24-hours-obama-knew-benghazi-attacks-were-work-of-al-qaeda-video/
7.) From the first page of Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky:
“Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul…” Thomas Paine
“Lest we forget ay least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did is so effectively that he at least won his Own kingdom – Lucifer.” - Saul Alinsky
- RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
- RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
- RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
- RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
- RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
- RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
- RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
- RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
- RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
- RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
- RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
- RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
8.) Rahm Emanuel video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk
9.) The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis – http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7522
10.) Manufactured Crisis: http://eyeofvigilance.us/?p=472
13.) Video – CNN report revealing how the Libyan people were disgusted by what happened at the hands of the al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, and not at all in support of it, as Obama would have everyone believe. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/22/world/africa/libya-ambassador-journal/index.html
14.) Video – CNN report: For months, the weakened, Libyan Government had been “openly” requesting help from America to fight the growing al Qaeda threat there. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/22/world/africa/libya-ambassador-journal/index.html
15.) Article which reveals that Nakoula claimed to be an Israeli citizen (which he is not), showing that, with the film, he was merely attempting to create more hatred for Israel by Muslims. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/j-christopher-stevens-ambassador-to-libya-killed_n_1876544.html
16.) Barack Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood
Obama Administration admits “hundreds” of closed-door meetings with Hamas-linked CAIR:
Why Is the Pentagon Listening to Hamas-Linked CAIR?
Obama Administration ignores and downplays the beliefs, motives and goals of America’s jihadist enemies.
2011: The Islamic Supremacists Advance Court Docs: Iranian-American Lobbying Group NIAC Defrauded Feds, Lied to Congressmen, Paid for Congressional Testimony, and Arranged Secret US/Iran Meetings
Libya and Syria: Is Barack Obama inconsistent?
19.) Nakoula used at least 14 different aliases.