Brian Lilley: The MSM is lying about the muslim riots video 12:01
(Street interviews in Cairo, not about "video.")
(Street interviews in Cairo, not about "video.")
Posted on 10/24/2012 12:17:19 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen
Something doesn't smell right.
There were protests or riots in what looks to be perhaps 100 cities around the world.
Every participant, when asked, just parrots "the video". It was reported on September 15 that some in Cairo were paid to protest.
These protests and attacks were obviously coordinated by muslim leaders throughout the world, i.e., what they planned for this 9/11 anniversary. You simply don't get protests in dozens of cities all parroting the same reason, without some coordination and management.
There are thousands of youtube videos that are offensive to islam, and they have been posted for years, so this video is nothing new that is not already out there.
Clearly, the protest organizers planned to use the video as their false flag "offense" that "triggered" protests and at least the protestors were told this; perhaps others were as well.
Now we come to the Admininstration. Some very simple web searching turns up reports that the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, responding to the video which was aired on the Egyptian network al-Nas on September 8, published a statement condemning the video. This is the infamous statement that was no longer available on their website by September 13. Key point: it was posted proactively, before the Cairo protest/attack started. The State Department was aware of at least that protest before it started. How many more were they aware of before they started ?
What really is starting to make me think is that there appears to be no reason for the White House, State Department and CIA to highlight the video as a cause for the Libyan Consulate attack and the consequent murder and/or assassination of Ambassador Stevens, as opposed to saying they were not sure of the cause. Saying you don't know is the standard response until an administration runs things up the management chain and decides on a response. There seems to be even less of a purpose to them sticking with the video in the ensuing weeks. We know now that hundreds in the government received the terror attack emergency broadcast emails in realtime. Everyone in the administration would had to have been aware that they were to keep silent about the emergency email, and simply parrot the "video" story when talking to the news media.
It's almost as if someone had, prior to the attacks, directed throughout the White House, State Departement and CIA that the video was going to be used as the cause. How else could everyone been kept quiet about the emergency emails and simply parrot a lie with the press clamoring for a story ? It's almost as if such phantom order has taken quite some time to be rescinded, as well. The hypothetical order would make sense of why the pResident made the statements he did at the U.N. on September 25, that is, if that was an objective from the start, to get that speech in the media or on the record. Other than that, the speech was spectacularly off the wall, since most everyone by then had discounted the video as a false flag.
Such a hypothetical "outside origin" order is the only scenario that I can think of that would cause the White House, the State Department and the CIA to all speak so irrationally and all in the same parroting fashion.
It also dawned on me that Ambassador Stevens was our "point man" in Libya, and was undboubtedly aware of the movements of various arms and who knows what or who into and out of Libya. It was reported that he had not been to Benghazi for a couple weeks and came in for these meetings scheduled on September 11. The last visitor he saw was a representative from Turkey. Why would the meeting need to take place on the 11th ? Did he select the date or his visitors or his bosses at the State Department ? It did not seem to make much sense to go to the terror hotbed on the anniversary of 9/11 with almost no security against a major attack. It seems about as nonsensical to go there as some cheesy horror film where everyone is yelling at the screen. Why would he go there on that day ? Would or did his State Department bosses tell him to avoid that day and stay in Tripoli ?
He must have thought that he was at the center of everything and knew the players involved and the situation, however, perhaps we should note that Turkey, Syria, Libya and the U.S. all have leaders that could be talking to each other through mediators other than him or perhaps directly. Whatever the Ambassador knew about what was going on, we may never know. His assassination certainly would be a way to ensure his silence if any of the parties involved had desired it. Perhaps having almost no security there for him would a) help ensure the success of the assassination and b) keep the loss of American lives to a small number, which would make it less of an issue than if 20 or 30 were lost additionally.
This does not do the Obama campaign any good unless the attack was thwarted, so it's highly doubtful that the White House had any sway over the attacks prior to them happening. While they may have been forewarned, they certainly were not architected the way the White House would have wanted.
The State Department clearly looks terrible and this does nothing to help any political future for Hitlery.
IMHO, it does not appear that the timing or other details were controlled in any way by the administration. But it's hard to see, with the nonsensical video story - which the left wing media is also dutifully doing everything it can to keep alive (see various left wing websites) - where the administration does not appear to be marching to someone else's orders that seem perfectly orchestrated with media coverage from the moment the video first aired on Egyptian TV.
ME protests: the hardline 'tele-Islamist' who brought anti-Islam film to Muslim world's attention...but nobody had paid attention to its crude libels against the Prophet Mohammed until Mr Abdullah's show broadcast clips from it last weekend,... - Sept. 8-9
-----------------------------------------------
Egypt intelligence warns (on Sept 4th) of attacks on Israel, US embassies
Congress was warned about Libya last month
Libyan president: 'No doubt' attack 'preplanned' (Magariaf on Face the Nation)
"It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival," Magariaf said.
No demonstration before attack on US Consulate, source says
"The intelligence source said no protests were happening before the attackers struck at about 9:35 p.m. local time last Tuesday. The account backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack."
Source: Slain ambassador Stevens said he was on al Qaeda list
WASHINGTON - In the months leading up to his death, Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, worried about constant security threats in Benghazi and mentioned that his name was on an al Qaeda hit list, a source familiar with his thinking told CNN.
Report: Never an Anti-American Protest in Benghazi, Only a Planned Attack (CBS Video Report)
-------------------------------------------------
(Ambassador) RICE: -- "was a result, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the US government had nothing to do with,..."
U.S. denies premeditation report
"The Obama administration is flatly denying a blaring British newspaper report that the U.S. diplomats in Libya were killed as a result of a “continuing security breach,” and that “credible information” about possible attacks had been ignored. A U.S. official told POLITICO: “There's no intelligence indicating that the attack in Benghazi was premeditated.”"
Obama and Hillary Apologize for Free Speech on Pakistani TV (taxpayer-funded ads)
No doubt about it. There is no intelligence in the 0bama administration.
The worldwide muslim hysteria is *orchestrated* by Obama. But people are catching up to what this guy is.
He kept mentioning the movie to stoke the rioting. That was obvious to FReepers.
Yeah so of course, everyone just HAD to check out the video for themselves to see what the fuss was about.
From what I’ve read, it seems much more like all such activity originates in the Soros revolution factory.
Also, what my post is describing, is that the WH response, IMHO, would seem to indicate that a Soros-like figure is actually simply dropping instructions to Obama these past 4 years.
Obama, IMHO, is “orchestrating” nothing, he’s simply following orders.
That's what a "communist agitator...err community organizer" does. And in case anyone didn't hear about it in Pakistan they ran an ad. But zero's motivation is obvious but what about Hillary? Why does she stand by for this?
Hillary is extremely good friends with Soros.
Have you seen all the places Soros has his fingers, and heard some of what he’s said ?
The dude’s right out of a James Bond movie.
Hillary is a commie from way back in her college days.
Early news reports claimed that an anti-Muslim movie sparked the violence. This could not have legitimately been the cause of spontaneous riots. That evening, some 15 hours after the Egyptian protests began, the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube trailer, posted way back in July, had garnered only 1,000 views. It should have been viral by then, but it is doubtful that many Muslims had even heard of the film.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012100117135/editorial/rsn-pick-of-the-day/innocence-film-a-premeditated-provocation-for-islamic-terror.html
At around 6 a.m. on September 11th, well before any protests were launched, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued the following statement, now disavowed by the State Department:
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
They sent out supporting tweets at 5:53 and 6:10 a.m. stating, “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy,” and “US Embassy condemns religious incitement.”
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012100117135/editorial/rsn-pick-of-the-day/innocence-film-a-premeditated-provocation-for-islamic-terror.html
There were protests going on in Cairo on Sept 11th, CNN interviewed and had video of it. The protests were over The Blind Sheikh. There are signs, flags and banners to prove there was an organized protest for the release of the Blind Sheikh. CNN decided not to give us that proof and video but our Canadian neighbor gave it to us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M86ndC4V7EQ
What happened in Libya had nothing to do with the video-NOTHING.
Embassies of ours and others were attacked, people hurt and killed, tons of property damage, shame brought to us— all over a stupid dam* lie. All of the other embassy attacks/protests happened AFTER 9/11 and happened because they heard about this video in the news, because our government used that video as a fig-leaf.
OUR GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA CAUSED MOST ALL OF THIS BY RUNNING WITH A KNOWN LIE.
Good post..
I've thought the same thing. The war on fossil fuel, the inflation of the currency, ObamaCare, and the perpetuation of the recession, damage the U.S. economy but benefit large investors who are positioned to profit through inside knowledge from the White House.
There is more to the “video” producer too than we have been told. He had some strange ties to some nefarious individuals. I don’t think he was some Coptic just making an anti-Islam video.
I agree with you, this was well orchestrated. The first time I ever heard of Stevens was in reference to him being an “envoy” to the militias fighting in Libya.
Obama said that regular troops would not be put in Libya. He referenced special forces and CIA agents. Well, Stevens wasn’t special forces so that leaves one to believe he was CIA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.