There used to be one significance about the date September 11th--the day when Wahabi terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Centers and killed over 3,000 people. Since then, a lot of us have laughed or rolled our eyes at the U.S. government when threat alerts go up on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks. We argue that no one would be dumb enough to attack a U.S. government compound on this date again for as long as the United States is around.
This idea has been realized by the terrorists, and this year, 2012, they took advantage of it.
It started out as a peaceful protest in the Middle East against a video released which mocks Prophet Muhammad (SAWH.) However, the protest quickly evolved when the Muslim Brotherhood got involved. While there wasn't much destruction even then, terrorists used the protest as an excuse to attack the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya. I have remained quiet on these protests and attacks so far since the facts are still coming in and, unlike Hillary Clinton, I didn't want to make any preemptive judgments.
The attack on the embassy killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, causing both presidential nominee Mitt Romney and President Obama to give speeches condemning the attacks along with their usual political rhetoric. Both president and presidential candidate used the opportunity to
make political moves against the other side, which wasn't taken lightly by Americans.
(The U.S. embassy in Egypt) said in a statement that it "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."
"Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy," the statement said. "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."
The embassy statement set off a political spat back in the United States after the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, criticized its message and linked it to his opponent for the White House.
"It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks," Romney said in a statement released late Tuesday.
...
"We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack," Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman said in an email.
Hillary Clinton quite literally condemned Libyans in the hours following the attack, saying that the U.S. helped Libya and that it was a disgrace to kill the U.S. ambassador. I knew we'd hear something like that eventually, now that Libya is tied with assistance-debt and obligation to the U.S. for helping.
After Hillary burned a critical bridge with Libya, evidence came out that the attack on the embassy was, in fact, a terrorist attack and not part of the protests.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in this article that it was clear that those "were terrorists who planned that attack." However, by this time it's already too late for Hillary to take back what she said right after the attack. Libyans have already been shown her arrogance, and I doubt they will take her as credible again for rushing to judgment so quickly.
Even so, the current administration still tried to save face when the evidence was released.
Panetta's comments are the most definitive to date by an administration official that the Benghazi assault was planned. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said on September 16th that the attack "began spontaneously" as a protest against an anti-Muslim film that "spun" from there.
In other words, they finally gave in and admitted that the script they gave Hillary was "jumping the gun." It was an "oops" moment for the administration.
Last week, testifying to Congress, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center said, at that point, there was no indication of "significant" plotting.
"What we don't have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack," Matt Olsen said.
You can see here that at the time Hillary condemned Libya, the investigation was still preliminary. Passing judgment like that was uncalled for and very disappointing. If I was a Libyan, I would not have taken it lightly at all.
The attackers had rocket launchers and were heavily armed. They knew exactly what they were doing, so even initial reports coming from the area pointed to the fact that these people were prepared, and used the protests as a cover-up. Still, to further our agenda of making Muslims look like terrorists to keep the support of international war crimes up, the administration will blame the attack on all of Libya, when it actually wasn't Libya at all.
I came across an
article that talks about LIBYANS carrying the ambassador to a hospital. Ever wonder who transported him? It wasn't his faithful Americans who, among heightened tensions in the Middle East, slashed the military's budget, leaving the consulate unsecured.
The chaos is palpable, as a throng of Libyans frantically scramble outside a damaged building. Suddenly, a man's body is carried from inside toward an open window -- and the frenzy and sounds become even more urgent, more emotional.
"Get him out!" some yell.
After joyfully discovering the man -- a foreigner, apparently, a voice in the crowd says -- is alive after he's dragged out, fresh screams ring out.
"Allahu Akbar," which translates from Arabic to "God is great," men in the crowd shout. Others raise fists to the sky, seemingly rejoicing that this man has somehow survived.
So Allahu akbar doesn't mean "we're going to kill you and your family" anymore? I like how CNN only provides the translation when they're forced to, since their readers are now asking "but wait, didn't you say this was a war cry? Why are they shouting a war cry and celebrating when he's alive?" Then CNN sighs and says "We lied." I'm not surprised.
At any rate, if you watch the video you will see the celebration. How happy Libyans are that they saved the U.S. ambassador. These are the people Hillary condemned. Unfortunately, the ambassador died from smoke inhalation later on, but he clearly wasn't purposely killed by Libyans. The terrorists got the last laugh because they succeeded in their mission, but Libyans actually tried to thwart the terrorists' efforts. Shouldn't they get credit for that? Yes? So why didn't I hear Hillary apologize for condemning them and then thanking them for trying to save a U.S. diplomat? Because the administration doesn't work that way. We're quick to condemn, but not quick to thank. Think of people you know who are like that. Have you ever done something for someone and they give you hell instead of thanking you? What are your impressions of that person? Now consider this situation from Libya's perspective.
Today, it's common knowledge that one of the best ways to start protests in the Middle East and anger Muslims abroad is to mock their prophet. Despite credible evidence against claims such as Muhammad being a womanizer, mad man, or murderer, anti-Islam rhetoric continues especially in the U.S. where several groups and individuals use such propaganda to swing the public opinion towards favoring demolishing the Middle East. Politicians such as Geert Wilders and Adam Hasner are also guilty of this as well, so we can't argue the government is innocent in any way.
If we know that these claims against Prophet Muhammad are false, and that making a video about them like Geert Wilders' video "Fitna" will cause unrest, yet we do it anyway, what could our reasoning possibly be? Only one thing comes to mind--the video was purposely put online and circulated to cause the unrest. Once again, anti-Islam activists have blood on their hands, and those involved can
join Geert Wilders.
Posted in July on YouTube, (the video) got more notice recently after Egyptian television aired segments and anti-Islam activists promoted it online. Numerous questions surround the film, which includes cartoonish scenes of Mohammed as a womanizer, child molester and ruthless killer.
According to a FBI/Homeland Security joint statement, the film's producer identified himself to news media as an Israeli -- an assertion Israel's government denies -- and falsely claimed the movie was financed with help from more than 100 Jewish donors.
He releases a video, and further claims it was funded by Jewish donors. Why would he do such a thing? The only logical answer to this question is that he is familiar with Arab-Israel tensions and knows that if he injects this false claim into the production, it will help add fuel to the fire. Then, he will be able to point to the Arabs and claim "See how they are? I was right!"
I find it odd that this man can inject a false claim into his production efforts and Islam haters still believe the words that come out of his mouth; it shows how ignorant these groups, individuals and politicians promoting anti-Islam propaganda are.
Wait, his debasement doesn't stop there.
While he'd been identified in July 2011 by various names, including Sam Bassiel, federal officials now say they believe the filmmaker's name is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. He was convicted in 2009 of bank fraud, with the indictment from the U.S. Attorney's Office listing seven aliases.
A criminal made a low-quality film spreading lies about Prophet Muhammad and people actually believe him?
A production staffer said he believed the filmmaker was a Coptic Christian who also went by the name Abenob Nakoula Bassely.
Even his own team doesn't know who he really is. Still, anti-Islam propagandists don't care about any of that; to them the content is just as credible. Then again, we can't expect anything more from them if they already believe Geert Wilders' claims and say that everyone who argues against Wilders is going on their own assumptions and has no evidence, despite
the contrary.
The anti-Islam propagandists will also ignore the peaceful protests, or
Muslims denouncing the protests.
"These protests are a bad image for Egypt," said a Cairo street vendor named Ahmed. "Of course I'm against insulting Islam, but it's the undereducated, poor people who are out here causing problems."
"All I want for Egypt is security and stability," he said. "And as you can see this isn't it."
Still, to the anti-Islam activists, it's "all Muslims are terrorists."
Sometimes, the way God does things leaves me speechless. Remember the
Fathima Bary case where eventually the teenage girl was
found to be full of lies and
Global Revolution church was disbanded because of the evidence leveled against them? Now the evidence is coming out that Mr. Video Creator--whatever his name is--is actually a criminal who just wanted a good laugh.
As more questions are being answered, we recently found that there was an extremist Coptic church in California that was responsible for the film. Further, Terry Jones, the man responsible for "International Burn the Quran Day" was directly involved in the film's production. Coptic Christians and Egyptians have been at odds going back generations, and even more since the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt after the Arab Spring revolution.
In addition to the film's producer being a criminal,
evidence is mounting against the legitimacy of the film. Several actors have claimed they were lied to and had been given a script that was portrayed as anything but debasing Prophet Muhammad. As Fox reports:
In a statement issued to multiple outlets from the film’s cast and crew, they said (they) were “shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved.” No specific representative was named in the statement, however. Most of the dialogue that relates to Islam or religion in the trailer looks like it was overdubbed in post-production, with many suggesting that the dialogue was translated with words (from) something completely different to lines delivered.
One of the film’s actors, Cindy Lee Garcia, 43, from Bakersfield, Calif., who had a small role as a woman who’s daughter is given to Muhammad to marry, said in multiple interviews that she had no idea she was involved in such an offensive movie, and that (she) was simply given a script entitled “Desert Warriors.” Garcia also said that her lines were changed to be far more inflammatory in post-production.
Another unnamed actress reportedly claimed that the original script did not contain a Prophet Muhammad character, but rather a man named “George,” and several actors reportedly complained that their lines were altered.
Also, the producer's original claim that the movie cost $5,000,000.00 to develop has been called into question.
The supposedly two-hour feature is said to have cost $5 million to make, with “mom and pop” donations coming in from across the world, although many are scratching their heads with regards to how the clearly unprofessional, no-name and no production value film – as projected by the 13-minute trailer – could possibly have cost that much.
“There is absolutely no way that film could have cost five million,” one independent film producer told FoxNews.com. “More likely, five dollars… It looks like a hoax.”
The article also claims that the movie was produced under a fictitious company name, and that there was no permit given for large-scale release although an early version was shown in Vine Theater, and "fewer than ten seats in the theater were filled."
Can any smart person still believe the video's content after it was made in such a way?
As we've denounced the filmmakers and those who believe it on the anti-Muslim side, the same applies to people who protest the film. If you're foundation in Islam is so weak that one video created in low quality by a criminal makes you so mad you
go and burn your country and condemn the U.S., I don't know what to tell you.
Many of them (the protesters) directed their anger, too, at the U.S. government and its Israeli allies. In Cairo, for instance, a photo showed a man standing over chalk-writing, in Arabic, that read, "Remember your black day 11 September."
The man mentioned in the quote is perfectly okay with standing for prayers and saying "Keep me on the straight path. ... The path of those whom you have blessed" (Quran surah 1), yet he condemns an entire nation and indirectly threatens to wipe out an entire people over a damn video which is false in the first place. Where are this man's priorities, and where are the priorities of the rest of the violent protesters? If one video makes you kill someone without even blinking an eye, I venture to say that you have no idea what religion's prophet you are "fighting jihad for." The only people who had it right were the Libyans who tried to save an innocent American, and the peaceful protesters who wouldn't dream of taking a life or burning down their own country which is trying to make a future for itself after it went through the Arab Spring and removed Hosni from power. Islam is larger than one criminal's video and Terry Jones' burning of the Quran. These anti-Islamic acts are no excuse to go kill an innocent person when that person probably knows more about your religion than you do. It seems like the only thing these violent protesters are good at is releasing a fatwa. Ask them about the philosophical nature about Islam or how Islam has given you inner peace or what Islam says about the blessed Prophet Jesus or what Islam says about the Abrahamic roots and you will leave them stumbling for words. This is the problem with Muslims today. We're shallow-minded when we hold the answer to one of the greatest religions to ever exist, but we throw it all away because someone released a video about the Prophet.
Did the video change anything? Did anyone who knows the real Islam believe it? No. The only people who even considered its contents to be factual already hate Islam, since no smart person would believe such a blatant fabrication, especially after evidence was released about the producers.
Last term, I took a course at university called "Islamic Thought and Culture" and the professor asked each of us why we were in his course. Several people said that Terry Jones was burning Qurans and talking trash about Islam, so they wanted to find out what Islam really was instead of what Jones was saying about it. O yes, I forgot to mention, my Arab kill-Americans-over-a-video friends! The people who took the course to get the real side of Islam WERE AMERICANS. So if you're a Muslim and whether you're American or Arab and if you support the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, you're horribly misguided and you need to step out of your protective bubble.
Small and large demonstrations have occurred in recent days all around North Africa and the Middle East. While some protesters say they have not seen any of the online film, they were incensed by reports of its depiction of the Prophet Mohammed.
These are the types of people we are dealing with. Of course, your
extremist fundamentalist violent jihadist terrorist media will purposely keep the facts away from you. Essentially, a lot of these people protesting don't even know really what happened and they are so ignorant that one report by state-run media will get them going. The media probably ignored the fact that the group creating the video has criminal ties. All they mentioned is that the group is Coptic, when the Egyptian Coptic Christians had nothing to do with the film and were living with Muslims as brothers before the protests started.
I'm disgusted by the stupidity of these Muslims. Haven't you heard about the murder of Imam Ali (A.S) when the man stabbed him with the sword and he was dying, how he told the guards who had captured his killer before he died that they should give the murderer milk because he saw the murderer was thirsty? Further, when they asked Ali what they should do with the man, he told them that the man should be struck with the sword just as he struck Ali, but not to hurt him (give him a light blow and minus the poison so as not to kill him) and let him go. By contrast, the Muslim protesters will kill people who haven't even touched them, and are with them in condemning the video.
These are also the same people who will torture prisoners of war when Prophet Muhammad always treated prisoners well and condemned torturing them. He made sure their women were also taken care of while the men were held prisoner lest someone takes advantage of the women, and when he conquered Mecca he didn't kill any of the civilians; in fact, he brought more just laws to the land.
These protesters, during the Arab Spring, have been known to torture people who were on the side of the opposition. During the U.S.-led wars, they would capture American JOURNALISTS (not even military personnel) and behead them, when their Prophet wouldn't even let his people so much as strike prisoners of war, let alone kill journalists. Look at how they err!
But of course, these Muslims don't know the real Islam. From birth they've been conditioned to take America as the common enemy and support September 11th, 2001 because they've been told that America was attacked and are never told (or don't care because they are heartless) that innocent people died--including Muslims. In fact, some of them are so heartless they'll
turn an innocent kid into a suicide bomber and make him blow himself up amongst a bunch of other innocent kids. I'd like to take you inside a hospital and introduce you to one of the kids injured in the blast.
Recovering in one of the wards is 17-year-old Naweed Tanha. He was badly injured on September 8 when a teenage suicide bomber blew himself up outside ISAF Headquarters in Kabul. It was the 55th suicide bombing in Afghanistan this year. "We were all selling bracelets in that place," explains Naweed, quietly sitting on a bench outside, happy to get out of the crammed hospital ward. His right hand is thickly bandaged after the explosion tore a chunk off his palm. His legs and back were also badly injured after being flung ten meters by the force of the blast.
You're suicide bombing your own countrymen? Why? Who in their right minds would do such a thing?
"I was with my friends -- we're all poor, innocent people. I was a few meters away getting some water from the nearby water hand pump and as I was returning the bang happened," Naweed says.
"By the time I opened my eyes I saw myself injured and saw bodies of my other friends laying on the ground. I started crying and running towards them when police stopped me. They put me in a car and brought me here to the hospital. "
Killing adults, people you hate, military personnel, and government officials is one thing; killing an innocent child is quite another thing. This is the part Western media and propagandists leave out when they start their anti-Islam rhetoric--that even Muslims are a victim of terrorism. So is it logical for a religion that supposedly promotes violence to kill someone who supposedly promotes violence?
Four were killed in the blast, including 14-year-old Khorshid Hawa and her 10-year-old sister Parwana. "I am so upset for losing my friends," says Naweed, his eyes dark, his pupils bloodshot from crying. But he has no more tears to shed -- just hurt and anger oozes from his body. "What kind of people would do this? Why are they continuing to do this? It is ruining our country and our future."
Yes, they are, unfortunately, ruining your future. These terrorists won't let you progress, and now they're getting so desperate they took a kid who would have been part of your future and brainwashed him. They are now using child soldiers against child soldiers, and yet they're perfectly ok with claiming to follow Prophet Muhammad. Did Muhammad tell you to go kill kids? On the contrary, he was always making better lives for orphaned kids, to the point where a narration from him says to not even hug your child in front of an orphan kid so you don't entice sadness in the orphan's heart. This is the type of man the Prophet was, and yet his people have gone so astray.
Observe the anger in Naweed's statements. He's not mad at the U.S., he's mad at the terrorists. So those of you who think these terrorists are Muslim, think of Naweed the next time you find yourselves nodding at something Wilders or Spencer say.
