Posted on 06/12/2014 2:26:22 PM PDT by gwgn02
I’ve been trying to get to this story for a couple of days now, but there are so many tentacles to it I’ve had trouble making the time to put it together.
In short, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the alleged ‘Coptic Christian’ who made the infamous Muhammad video that the Obama administration blamed the Benghazi attack on — well it turns out Nakoula is really a Muslim, not a Coptic Christian. And that’s been confirmed.
It also turns out that the official terms of Nakoula’s parole in 2009 was bogus, and that the administration used his parole as leverage to help him with their agenda: To create a climate for non-Muslim governments to enact laws that make criticism of Islam a criminal offense.
Sound far fetched? Well then I guess you haven’t heard about the ‘Istanbul Process’ meetings Hillary went to in Turkey as Secretary of State that were designed to help facilitate the creation of a “climate for non-Muslim governments to enact laws that make criticism of Islam a criminal offense.”
But before Nakoula could get the video finished, Benghazi happened and the administration quickly blamed it on that video.
One more compelling note: Nakoula called Walid on his private home number, a number he should have never been able to get through non-government channels, and asked Walid not to expose this. Seriously.
Walid Shoebat has done a lot of work to dig up the evidence for this article and, as always, he’s quite thorough.
I encourage you to read Walid’s full article on this before you discount the above as some conspiracy theory. Walid doesn’t do conspiracy theories. He only goes where the evidence leads.
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
I never understood why there wasn’t an uproar when Hillary told one of the victim’s family that they were going to punish the maker of the video. I think that statement should have made headlines.
If that was the same occasion on which Obama was blaming Benghazi on the video, yes I heard it. I also watched it blow up in his face. It is still blowing up. How are they going to use this video to ban free speech in the US when they can’t even make a compelling case that Benghazi was a direct result of the same video?
If that was the same occasion on which Obama was blaming Benghazi on the video, yes I heard it. I also watched it blow up in his face. It is still blowing up. How are they going to use this video to ban free speech in the US when they can’t even make a compelling case that Benghazi was a direct result of the same video?I take it that you weren’t listening when Obama was trashing the First Amendment at the UN . . .
I didn’t see a plausible legal strategy to outlaw criticism of homosexuality coming, either . . .
The specific issue I have been addressing is, can this *particular* video be used to outlaw criticism of Islam. The answer would be yes, IF Trey Gowdy is a Dem plant/undercover operative, and has agreed to find the video responsible for the Benghazi attack regardless of evidence.
If, however, he is the Trey Gowdy we think he is, this video is not the vehicle by which sharia will be imposed on the US. In all likelihood Gowdy will beat the video excuse like a red-headed step-mule, & Obama, Clinton, Rice et al will rue the day they LIED about the motivation for this attack.
1) Muslims made the film.
2) The film makers have some connection to the US government.
3) The film was part of a plan to produce laws restricting freedom of speech.
Do you always choke on gnats and swallow elephants? The BIG ELEPHANT item is: The film makers have some connection to the US government.
You may have noticed I didn’t reply to your bizarre post to me yesterday. You asked me if I wanted to live. Here is your exact quote, sum total, in a post from you to me:
“You want to live?”
I don’t know why you posted that to me. It is creepy. Now you’re apparently in attack mode over something else. Look, would it be alright if we just ignored each other? That would suit me wonderfully, & I hope it suits you too.
You in post 6: If he is their guy, why hustle him off to jail in the middle of the night? & why would he play along?
Me in post 18: You want to live?
The meaning is THEY THREATENED HIS LIFE.
And as far as “attack mode”, you have got to be kidding. Asking 1 question is attack mode?
Usually when you ask somebody if they want to live, it’s a not too thinly veiled death threat. Explaining it is all well & good, but you didn’t say they threatened the filmmaker. You asked *me* if *I* wanted to live. As I said, it creeped me out. It still does.
The meaning was obvious. It’s like saying “nice place you got here”, or “you know this is a tough neighborhood” etc.
For at least a day you’ve been bearing down on a secondary point while ignore the primary point: that the video maker is connected with the government. It’s your business, carry on, but don’t be surprised if others think it tedious.
Didn’t realize you were made of tissue paper. Good bye.
You have insulted me in just about every post you’ve ever addressed to me. Not all, but most. I don’t know why. If you never posted to me again, I would not miss it one iota. Here’s hoping....
Produce them.
“The meaning was obvious.”
On this we agree. When you ask someone if they want to live, yes indeed, The Meaning Is Obvious.
Go away.
I don’t believe the filmmaker is a Muslim. If he were, he would not have insulted the [so-call] prophet with his movie trailer. He would know that is an automatic death sentence. People say, ‘but it is taqqiya’. No; insulting the prophet is not taqqiya. Taqqiya is lying to the advantage of Islam. It is never considered to Islam’s advantage to insult the prophet:
‘the clerics emphatically called for the death of a Muslim man who tore the Koran on YouTube — and anyone else, including non-Muslims, who dare offend Islam. A section follows:
… After the video of the man tearing the Koran was played, one of three guests, a bearded and white-robed Dr. Mahmoud Sha’ban, visibly shaken by what he had just seen, said:
Someone like him must receive the punishment he deserves, and it is death. He is an apostate”¦ It is clear from what he says that he is a Muslim, and must be killed as an apostate. As for that act itself, it is an infidel act, and he deserves to be struck by the sword in a public place””and as soon as possible; as soon as possible; as soon as possible. It must be announced and photographed and disseminated among the people, so that all the people may know that we respect our Koran and its words from Allah, and whoever insults it, receives his punishment from Allah. If people like him are left alone, they will only get bolder and bolder.
.
The next guest, Sheikh Abdul Mohsin, said: “I support the words of Sheikh Mahmoud [who just spoke], that this man must be killed fast, that he may be an example to others, so that all learn that we have reached a new phase in respecting Islam and the holy sanctity of the Koran and Sunna. This man has become an apostate and must suffer the penalty in front of the people.”
The third and final guest, Dr. Abdullah, was somewhat critical of the first two Islamic scholars, not because they called for the man’s death, but because, by focusing on the fact that the man had apostatized, it seemed as if they were exonerating non-Muslims: “The issue of killing him is not limited to his being a Muslim and then apostatizing. No, it is known to us from the Sharia that whoever insults the Prophet or tears the Koran, his judgment is death, whether he’s a Muslim or non-Muslim.”
Later, a listener called in saying, “Just so you know, if I ever meet one of these people, their life is void, they’re simply dead.” The talk show host, who agreed that the man must be slain, responded with some moderate talk about letting the state handle such people, to which the first sheikh, Dr. Mahmoud Sha’ban, erupted in rage:
“Man, we’re talking about the religion of Allah! The religion! The religion!! The woman who insulted the Prophet, he voided her life! There were ten people at the conquest of Mecca whose lives the Prophet also voided!”’
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/raymond-ibrahim-muslim-clerics-kill-all-who-insult-islam
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.