Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 14, 2012

Were These Protests Really About That Film?

Reuters: Anti-American fury sweeps Middle East over film
Fury about a film that insults the Prophet Mohammad tore across the Middle East on Friday with protesters attacking U.S. embassies and burning American flags as the Pentagon rushed to bolster security at its missions.
These protests were not about that film.

The action at the consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday/Wednesday was a deliberate, well planned attack by some AQ affiliated or Salafist group. It seems that the storming of the embassy in Egypt was launched as a coordinated diversion for that attack.

The attacks on the U.S., German and British embassies in Khartoum today were state sponsored for local political reasons. Omar Hassan al-Bashir needed to prove his Islamic credentials and even designated the targets:

State-backed Islamic scholars in Sudan have called for a mass protest after Friday prayers over a film denigrating the Prophet Mohammed that originated in the United States and an Islamist group threatened to attack the U.S. embassy.
Sudan's Foreign Ministry also criticized Germany for allowing a protest last month by right-wing activists carrying a caricatures of the Prophet and for Chancellor Angela Merkel giving an award in 2010 to a Danish cartoonist who depicted the Prophet in 2005 triggering demonstrations across the Islamic world.
There was also a storm on the embassy in Tunis today. I do not know enough about that countries inner policy to guess who was behind that but it wasn't the government. Troops defended the embassy and even shot some protesters.

There were also rallies in Gaza, Malaysia, Jordan, Kenya, Bahrain, Qatar, Bangladesh, Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq and even in India.

But all of these rallies were rather small and mostly peaceful. In all a few thousand out of 1.3 billion Muslims protested. Were this then really protests about religion?

Or has the film simply given an occasion for various local interest to push their local agendas?

Posted by b on September 14, 2012 at 18:19 UTC | Permalink


I have thought, for some years now, that one day the US will wake up to discover how useful it would have been to study the story of the Sicilian Vespers or the St Bartholomews Day events in Paris.
The cause of these protests is complex, well known and of long standing. It would take many volumes top describe it in detail, but a word is enough: provocation will do. Arrogance. Hubris. Disrespect. Racism work as well. And then there is vengeance.
The forest is tinder dry, all that it requires is a spark. And a few days without rain.

Posted by: bevin | Sep 14 2012 19:23 utc | 1

Well, Qeida is serious about being behind all of this:

Zawahiri (- the brother -) wants to broker a peace agreement between al Qaeda and the West. In a three-page proposal that has not previously been published, the veteran jihadi laid out the terms for a potential treaty: If the United States and other Western powers release all Muslim prisoners, withdraw from Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf, and allow Muslims to establish governments based on sharia law, al Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist organizations will halt its attacks against the West and against what he described as "legitimate" Western interests in the Muslim world."

Posted by: somebody | Sep 14 2012 19:43 utc | 2

No protests in Saudi Arabia? What does this tell you?

Posted by: s | Sep 14 2012 19:52 utc | 3

It's ever thus. The troops, or the people in the streets, have to be motivated to sacrifice themselves to a great event. Remember Pearl Harbor.

SecDef Panetta, Baghdad, Jul 12, 2011: “The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked,’’ Panetta told the troops. “And 3,000 Americans - 3,000 not just Americans, 3,000 human beings, innocent human beings - got killed because of Al Qaeda. And we’ve[sic] been fighting as a result of that.’’

Given the predominate anti-American feeling in the Muslim world, and the ever-present need to distract citizens' attention from their own troubled existence (think "Iran threat" in the West), the film serves as a gift on a golden platter, custom-made for the exploitation of the masses.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 14 2012 20:13 utc | 4

s @ 3

No protests in Saudi Arabia? What does this tell you?

Client states know not to offend their protectors too much..There's been no protests in Turkey, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait...

What do they all have in common? They all have US BASES on their soil..In short, a US satrap...

Posted by: s | Sep 14 2012 20:14 utc | 5

For some reason Iranian media thinks there were protests in Saudi Arabia.

Events reported in Doha suggest protests are somewhat out of control and off official message

The atmosphere on Al Jazeera is slightly festive and tongue in cheek though. I suppose they are having their "America can't do a thing" moment.

I think I will put some money on alternative energy shares first thing on Monday.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 14 2012 20:21 utc | 6

This from the Guardian. Perhaps a Freudian slip? (the call to "reasonable people")

1h 33m ago
Clinton: 'It has been a difficult week'

"It has been a difficult week for the State Department," Clinton says. She again condemns the video, "which we had NOTHing to do with," emphasis hers.

"The people of Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob," she says. Clinton calls on "reasonable people" in every country to do everything they can to destroy security.

Clinton says the US must continue to lead the world. She pays tribute to all state department staff. She introduces the president.

Posted by: Sasha | Sep 14 2012 20:24 utc | 7

Sasha I guess it is the Grauniads workforce thinking themselves ...

It would be real irony if the "Arab Spring" in Saudi Arabia and Qatar should be a revolution by Salafis.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 14 2012 20:32 utc | 8

Of course the US government is keeping the focus on the film as the protest motivator and never question the wrongful US policies that create anti-Americanism and provide the proper environment for protests. So Clinton's frequent declarations, regarding the protests, that the US had nothing to do with the film. But what about the rest, Hillary? The killing. The deformed babies in Fallujah. Arabs, and Muslims in general, aren't stupid nor misinformed. They get it.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 14 2012 21:21 utc | 9

b. Your title,or the question that it contains, can be translated to : are those arabs , really that stupid to carry on , aimless protests, for the honour of a so called prophet who died 1500 years ago,even kill people , get killed in those protests, while at the same time, making the same guy who offended them, even more rich, by offering him the attention he was trying to get by making the film?

Let me give you a short answer , from an Arab who knows what he is talking about.the answer is yes : they are that stupid.

You have no idea, how uneducated , how easily manipulated the arabs can be , now .Especially if the religion is on the may think of it from your point of view , a christian point of view or an atheist point of view, and totally miss the point.there is no conspiracy here, people are THAT stupid.Period.

Posted by: nbazine | Sep 14 2012 22:11 utc | 10

Oh, I'm sure most of the protesters doubtlessly came out genuinely because of the film, but there probably wouldn't have been as much or as intense protests without the people with other agendas that would be served by there being protests to cover them...

Posted by: hk | Sep 14 2012 22:35 utc | 11

Video from Tunis.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 14 2012 23:06 utc | 12

Obama is trapped, powerless to change the imperialistic US foreign policy that is at the heart of all this disorder. This just in: Standing next to the caskets of four slain Americans, President Obama pledged the U.S. will honor their sacrifice by standing steadfast in the fight for “dignity and freedom.” -- He really said that. Dignity and freedom delivered by B-2 bombers.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 14 2012 23:22 utc | 13

'Burmese Days' by George Orwell. It's all in there.

Posted by: dh | Sep 14 2012 23:36 utc | 14


Let me give you a short answer , from an Arab who knows what he is talking about.the answer is yes : they are that stupid.
If you are willing to call yourself stupid, it's ok with me; after all, you are really only talking for yourself.

Posted by: claudio | Sep 14 2012 23:37 utc | 15

Tony Karon at TIME: "The furor over a provocative video has obscured the deep anger at U.S. foreign policy that has long existed in the Middle East." Now there's a smart man; he talks like me. :-))

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 14 2012 23:52 utc | 16

@Don Bacon - Obama, master of rhetoric. After four years of that inspired talk, face and eyes, someone might vote Romney just to get him off the screen

Posted by: claudio | Sep 14 2012 23:55 utc | 17

Marine teams similar to the one sent to Libya are en route to US embassies in Yemen and Sudan. In military parlance they are fifty-man FAST teams -- Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team. (They discarded the title Fleet Antiterrorism Reaction Team.)

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 15 2012 0:35 utc | 18

Jordan's King Met Secretly With Syrian Opposition
Al-Hayat has obtained information from prominent official sources in Jordan that the Jordanian authorities have launched behind-the-scenes efforts to reorganize the ranks of the Syrian opposition. The authorities’ decision has been put into effect following the undisclosed visit of Syrian Brig. Gen. Manaf Tlass to Jordan, which lasted for two days. Tlass, the son of former defense minister Mustapha Tlass, announced his defection from the Syrian regime on July 24. During his visit — which the Jordanian government sought to keep secret — the Syrian brigadier general met with defected Syrian Prime Minister, Riad Hijab, who fled to Jordan [last month] on the condition that he halt all his political activities in the region.According to reports, Tlass and Hijab met with Jordan’s King Abdullah II. However, the Jordanian government and the royal court refrained from confirming or denying that the meeting occurred.

whats done in secrecy can hardly be called 'democratic' or even legal...getting arab to fight against who would orchestrate this?

Posted by: brian | Sep 15 2012 0:44 utc | 19

Clinton refused to meet with the SNC in Istanbul, so they need a face for the transition they expect. The real fighters in Syria couldn't care less.

High-level Syrian opposition sources told Al-Hayat that meetings between Syrian opposition forces, which have been taking place in the Jordanian capital of Amman for several days now, seek to unite and establish an overreaching framework to serve as a substitute for the Syrian National Council (SNC). This united front will be headed by the defected Syrian Prime Minister Riyad Hijab, who is currently in Amman.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 15 2012 0:56 utc | 20

Promoting the "Clash of Civilitations"...From my point of view it is a desesperate psyop, given the crude and raw offence to sacred islam, better to ignore it but signaling the maniac hate promoters and "uncultured" sources. Up the (high) culture.

Posted by: RICKY | Sep 15 2012 1:44 utc | 21

well, i´m sorry signaling too the terrible consequences directly linked to the intended provocative film, ¿how we can show the high inhuman degree reached by some deviant minds?

Posted by: RICKY | Sep 15 2012 2:04 utc | 22

Nothing more from State on Benghazi:
MS. NULAND: Thank you for that opening, Arshad. I am going to frustrate all of you infinitely by telling you that now that we have an open FBI investigation on the death of these four Americans, we are not going to be in a position to talk at all about what the U.S. Government may or may not be learning about how any of this happened – not who they were, not how they happened, not what happened to Ambassador Stevens, not any of it – until the Justice Department is ready to talk about the investigation that it’s got. . . this is now a crime scene. This is now subject to an FBI investigation.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 15 2012 2:27 utc | 23

@ nbazine10 you missed that its fun too, if you are just wondering round with no real work to go to and your finger is worn out from all the reading its had to to do then somebody presses a few pounds into your hands tells you be near the embassy or some other point, and follow other's lead in working yourself into a white hot righteous indignation. And if somebody breaks in, well you never know what valuable items that might need to be protected for an extended period of time from the vandals in the crowd. Beats working third shift, part time, at Uncle Achmed's kabab cart.

Posted by: heathroi | Sep 15 2012 2:31 utc | 24

Right. In the Tunis video I watched that guy bouncing that rock off the asphalt, trying to get some stones that he could throw against The Man. The testosterone was kickin' in, for sure. Democracy has different faces for different people, that's what the Obamas don't get.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 15 2012 3:06 utc | 25

Juan Cole, recently returned from Libya, says “Libyans love the United States and ... [Ambassador] Chris Stevens was a hero to most of them.”

Posted by: bevin | Sep 15 2012 3:15 utc | 26

The true irony here is that the violence has given the RW scum ammunition to throw at Obama, when, in fact, Obama is a lightwieght when it comes to sucking Israeli dick. These Muslims, in giving Romney a boost, may be suprised at the ferver Romney will devote to the task of bringing Netanyahu to an earth-shattering orgasm.

They hate us. Were I a Muslim, I'd hate us too. In fact, as an American, its difficult not to engage in self loathing. We ARE the evil empire. And that little shitty spit of sand, Israel, helped us earn the title. Karma ain't gonna be kind to us.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 15 2012 3:20 utc | 27

Don Bacon #23. Good catch from Nuland.

It is now official that the US government is going mum on this whole fiasco. Why is that? Because of an FBI investigation? When did the FBI have international jurisdiction? This sounds like a major cover-up. If the US press accepts that BS then they really deserve the contempt that many of us had for them for the last few decades.

Posted by: ToivoS | Sep 15 2012 3:22 utc | 28

Since posting is slow, as a diversion-- The Taliban has "Operation Harry" on to get Prince Harry who has been posted to Afghanistan again. Yesterday there was an attack on the combined UK/US base Camp Bastion - Camp Leatherneck, 'way out in the desert in Helmand which was the main object of Obama's surge, and is now the home of the prince. How were they able to do it? Who knows. Like Benghazi, I guess. Anyhow, it was primarily directed against the Marine portion of the huge combined camp, which includes a two-mile long concrete airstrip, and two Marines were killed. The good news, according to the press, is that Prince Harry was unharmed. Unharmed. I just related that to my wife and she responded: "The world is a better place." She was kidding, of course.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 15 2012 3:28 utc | 29

this sequence of events is telling ... are they FOR or AGAINST us?

1. Shiekh Yusuf Al Qaradaw of International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) spoke at Friday prayers [Doha]

2. He said about the Movie, ”It’s unfair to put all the guilt on a full nation... Going to the embassies and breaking it or throwing rocks at it or burn it is not the right solution...

3. The second part of the speech was about Syria; Al Qaradawi asked all the Arabic countries to help Syria, in many ways including sending reinforcements of soldiers or weapons to the free army. “It’s their duty, religiously.”

4. After that a charged crowd head to the US Embassy which is very near to the mosque in many controversial chants such as “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama”...


P.S. the saudis have been working overtime to block all internet access to youtube videos depicting the anti-muslim film protests

Posted by: Kim Sky | Sep 15 2012 3:35 utc | 30

Benghazi is now a crime scene. See, when the US kills suspects on the other side of the globe it's justified, to keep Americans safe. Just kill 'em dead, and no recourse. But when an American who has organized an insurgency against a sovereign government is killed, it's a crime scene and the perps have to be "brought to justice." And that's why KFCs and Hardees are being burned to the ground in Sudan. A friggin' double standard, and people don't like it being treated like US property.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 15 2012 3:39 utc | 31

@Kim Sky -- We can always hope.
al-monitor, Sep 12, 2012

Saudis, Iran Tentatively Engage in Trying to Resolve Syrian Crisis
On Monday in Cairo, representatives from Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey met to resolve the Syrian conflict. This was the second regional initiative on Syria which included Iran after Saudi King Abdullah invited Iran’s President Ahmadinejad to attend a unity conference in Mecca in August.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 15 2012 4:01 utc | 32

from Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokesperson, today.


Our Embassy in Tunis, all of the Embassy personnel are safe and accounted for. The demonstrations have largely been dispersed. Our Embassy security team is working with Tunisian authorities to ensure the continued safety and security of our Embassy personnel. As you know, earlier today the Embassy compound was breached by demonstrators. There was some damage to the exterior of the building. There was, as I understand it, some damage to cars. You know that there was extensive damage to the American School. It’s basically unusable.

. .there were no breaches of the compound today. We did have – there were protests outside the Embassy today. Those protests have now been dispersed. Yesterday we did have a breach of the compound wall. We had damage to buildings, to the cars, to the windows. By buildings I mean the exterior of the buildings. There was never a breach of building security in Sana’a either.

In Khartoum there were protests around the Embassy that have now subsided. All of our mission personnel are accounted for. So in total, we still have about two to three thousand protestors. This was about midday our time, so this may have abated by now. We still had about two or three thousand protestors outside the Embassy after the security forces, Sudanese security forces, pushed back earlier demonstrations, including earlier in the day we had three protestors who managed to get on top of the perimeter wall and they were pushed back.

Well, in total, since the Benghazi incident, we have some 60 missions around the world that have put out specific targeted Warden Messages.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 15 2012 4:20 utc | 33

CNN Security Clearance
Benghazi was either spontaneous or planned by terrorists with beards and PRGs.

Senator John McCain, R-Arizona

"It's hard to know exactly what took place and how long it was planned. I don't have that information, The reporting is that 15 people, with beards, with weapons, such as PRGs - people don't go to demonstrate and carry RPGs and automatic weapons. I mean, the facts on its face indicate this was not a mob action by a group of protesters. It was a terrorist attack, organized and carried out by terrorists."

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland
"In the beginning, we feel that it was spontaneous – the protest – because it went on for two or three hours, which very [is] relevant because if it was something that was planned then they could have come and attacked right away."

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington
"This was not just a mob that got out of hand. Mobs don't come in and attack, guns blazing."

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan
"It is - it was clearly a coordinated attack, a well-coordinated attack, I might add, that was specifically planned to do and accomplish what you saw unfortunately unfold in Benghazi."

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 15 2012 4:42 utc | 34

a rare venture into the truth by McCain:

Senator John McCain, R-Arizona

"It's hard to know exactly what took place and how long it was planned. I don't have that information, The reporting is that 15 people, with beards, with weapons, such as PRGs - people don't go to demonstrate and carry RPGs and automatic weapons. I mean, the facts on its face indicate this was not a mob action by a group of protesters. It was a terrorist attack, organized and carried out by terrorists."
but he still resists the notion it may have been his terrorists

Posted by: brian | Sep 15 2012 5:09 utc | 35

'from Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokesperson, today.


Our Embassy in Tunis, all of the Embassy personnel are safe and accounted for. The demonstrations have largely been dispersed. Our Embassy security team is working with Tunisian authorities to ensure the continued safety and security of our Embassy personnel.'

bit of a contrast to the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela

Posted by: brian | Sep 15 2012 5:11 utc | 36

It is now official that the US government is going mum on this whole fiasco. Why is that? Because of an FBI investigation? When did the FBI have international jurisdiction? This sounds like a major cover-up. If the US press accepts that BS then they really deserve the contempt that many of us had for them for the last few decades.

Posted by: ToivoS | Sep 14, 2012 11:22:41 PM | 28
thats a good Michael Meiring a british american who back in 2002 was unlucky in having a bomb go off in his hotel bedroom in Mindanao....esp as it was HIS bomb!
he badly injured taken to hospital and under arrest....BUT then the FBI stepped in and spirited him away back to the US where he has since disappeared:

'DAVAO CITY-- Exactly a year ago today, May 30, a fuming Mayor Rodrigo Duterte lashed out at the “arrogant” agents of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation for having spirited out of the hospital an American national who nearly lost his life when explosives he owned went off inside his room in a budget hotel on May 16.'

Posted by: brian | Sep 15 2012 5:21 utc | 37

On Benghazi, I've been through the obvious possibilities:
* The US just got their guy installed to head the Libya government, straight from the US of A, and he's (of course) not an Islamist. The Islamists are pissed, after all their effort, and so they do Stevens for betraying them.
* Stevens worked with the Islamists and AQ-allies, and Qatar, and he knows too much. So the PTB off him.
* Gaddifi remnants resent Stevens, so they kill him. (The Libyan ambassador has suggested this.)

But then I got to wondering about this blanket that the US has thrown over events (the congressional prattling notwithstanding) and it recalled 9/11, and the suppression of all the Saudi Arabia information. Now supposedly SA was upset with the Western overthrow of its buddy Gaddafi, but let's suppose it got over that and saw the possibility of another oil-rich Wahhabi state in North Africa.

And in fact FRANCE 24's Leela Jacinto, nearly a year ago, offered some fascinating insights into the possible future of a post-Moammar Gaddafi Libya in a blog post entitled “No Surprises: An Islamic State in the Country of Men.” She quotes the man who was the National Transitional Council (NTC) chief and then acting prime minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil: “as a Muslim nation, we have chosen Islamic sharia as the source of legislation and therefore any law that contradicts sharia is legally null and void.”

But Jalil wasn't elected recently by the Congress, Libya’s Deputy Prime minister, Mistafa Abushagur, fresh off the boat from the US of A, was unexpectedly elected Libya PM. (I wonder what THAT cost.) That becomes a problem for Saudi Arabia. But SA has connections with Libya militias, the same ones that Ambassador Stevens THOUGHT he controlled, and was complacent about. So Stevens relaxed on security, was nonchalantly in Benghazi on 9/11 to open a new cultural center, and then . . .

Well, it's a thought. Saudi Arabia, with an interest in Libya (and in Syria). The US going dark on Benghazi. etc.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 15 2012 6:12 utc | 38

nbazine, no10, there is no real definition of intelligence, human makeup is the same all over the world, and yes, belief systems like religion are the strongest motivating force.

to choose 9/11 as a date for protests means they are not spontaneous.

why people go to protests and do what they do - ie. looting - oh well, did you follow the history of London riots?

Well I had a look at one that was expected to happen as it was the season. it was before the time the pubs close, nothing had happened yet but the tension was growing. Shops on the high street were boarded up. police was there but not showing much as not to aggravate the situation and become the target. teenagers were walking along the street using it as a "corso" - all made up, boys and girls eyeing each other.

When you are young and adventurous you go where the action is. Anything can develop from there.

The significant thing in Doha - if that blog post is to be trusted - seems that people did not heed the advice of the state appointed cleric trying to transfer the action to Syria.

And - they did not call for a US blasphemy law, they called for the removal of US bases.
I guess a lot about these protests is lost in translation. It is a protest against the invader.

Something else is significant - the organizations calling for the protests are Al Qeida and the Muslim brothers.

No, obviously, Western leaders do not wish to tell their populations how bad things are for them in the democratic Middle East.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 15 2012 6:17 utc | 39

Toivo @28
the short answer to the question about the FBI having jurisdiction overseas is yes
I am confident this is a unilateral decision but that is how it works when you are the biggest boy on the block.

Posted by: dan of steele | Sep 15 2012 6:42 utc | 40


I would never claim it was only the movie that sparked the violence, nor would I say it was "al Qaeda" alone. Don't forget that the u.s.a. and her lackeys have been waging war openly against Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and Libya and covertly against Iran and Syria. The result will surely be a feeling of pan-Islamic "victimhood".

Posted by: m_s | Sep 15 2012 6:43 utc | 41

m_s, there is a lot of "schadenfreude", sure, by people who are diametrically opposed to the ideology of Al Qeida and US foreign policy.
It is no win though really.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 15 2012 8:00 utc | 42

We have nations where a lot of people do not understand the nature of freedom of speech and religion - in a lot of Muslim countires, the undereducated masses assume that anything that is published, released or broadcast must be government-approved.

The educated memebers of these societies know better but are happy to incite the masses.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 15 2012 9:07 utc | 43

in a lot of Muslim countires, the undereducated masses assume that anything that is published, released or broadcast must be government-approved.

in the US and Europe the undereducated masses believe anything they see on teevee. and they become quite convinced of certain things, so much that they are willing to go against their own best interests in order to defend that position.

in my experience there is no citizenry more gullible and even infantile in their perception of the world and how it works than those of the US. I hear things that are truly exasperating....makes me shake my head in disbelief.

the educated members of the US society are no better. the indoctrination of american exceptionalism is profound and so well instilled we don't even think about it. it is simply the way things are, just as normal as the sun rising in the east. what is worse is that those undereducated masses you speak of have been trained to mistrust anyone who has a college degree, latte sipping liberal intellectuals are despised by the new republican party and most of the so called conservatives in the US.

Posted by: dan of steele | Sep 15 2012 9:29 utc | 44


Americans also have some strange ideas about what constitutes Freedom of Speech/Religion, mmanifestations of it can be found all over the GOP platform.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 15 2012 9:34 utc | 45

this is what Amnasty has helped bring into being:

'In a letter distributed by the Christian Aid Mission (CAM), a Christian Egyptian missionary wrote that Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood “announced they would destroy the country if Morsi didn’t win, but they also said they will take revenge from all those who voted for [his opponent Ahmed] Shafiq, especially the Christians as they are sure we did vote for Shafiq. Yesterday they began by killing two believers in el Sharqiya because of this,” the missionary added, speaking on condition of anonymity.[20]
This report came only weeks after Egyptian State TV (under Morsi’s control) showed ghastly video footage of a convert from Islam to Christianity being murdered by Muslims. The footage showed a young man being held down by masked men with a knife to his throat. As one man was heard chanting Muslim prayers in Arabic, mostly condemning Christianity, another man holding the knife to the Christian convert’s throat began to cut, slowly severing the head amid cries of “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is great”), according to transcripts. In the letter, the Egyptian missionary leader added that, “soon after Morsi won, Christians in upper Egypt were forcibly prevented from going to churches.” Many Muslims, the letter claimed, “also began to speak to women in the streets that they had to wear Islamic clothing including the head covering. They act as if they got the country for their own, it’s theirs now.” [21]'

the so called 'arab spring' ended up replacing secular states in tunisia and egypt and now libya with this...Syria is next on the list of secular states to be turned into fundamentalist hells....any chance the masses let alone amnastys executive will wake up?

Posted by: brian | Sep 15 2012 10:38 utc | 46

I guess it is not so much about education and free speech but what is taboo in a society. Like pussy riot this movie's Arabic translation was directed at the taboo.
Taboos are different from society to society and violations of the taboo are heavily censored - in every society.
Like in Germany you can make jokes on the virgin Mary but jokes on Jews - any jokes - are taboo except you can claim to be Jewish yourself to the point where the German version of Polanski's vampyre film translated when the vampyre was shown the cross "It does not work with me, I am Jewish" with "it does not work with me, I had garlic"
Another taboo in many European countries is Holocaust denial

All this is very understandable by European history. Some of it is enforced by law, some of it is self censorship or enforced by society.

The US first amendement rights stand out though of course there is taboo discourse where you get punished heavily by US society though not by law and there is a way of punishing insults plus pornography - another taboo - is not covered.

It is the fun of globalization. Taboos are used for effect by comedians, artists and politicians. I guess people have to learn not to react like Pavlov's dogs.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 15 2012 10:41 utc | 47

somebody, excellent post; on the subject of what's "unacceptable" for societies, I'd add two things:

in many societies (and the Mediterranean region hosts many of them) there is a more developed sense of "honor", whereby the range of "offenses" to which you have a "duty" to react to is wider; other cultures view this as being "touchy"; so you don't only have taboos, you also have disrespectful attitudes that might spark "excessive" reactions

plus, you have the general relationships between "cultures"; the victims of colonization or racial exploitation perceive a whole new range of attitudes as symbolic of a power relation, so that reacting to certain offenses bears also an anti-colonialist or anti-racist valence; being "politically correct" often simply means being aware of this (see for example the sensitiveness of the word "nigger", etc)

Posted by: claudio | Sep 15 2012 11:32 utc | 48

Yeah, for those guys in the middle east, where there's been conflict and war for resources and power for decades, there's obviously no other reason for outrage but an underground "movie" that no one had ever heard of until five days ago.
I don't believe a word about this movie being the reason for the current turmoil.
Just watch your mainstream media and how 99% of people are now discussing the usual "it's so easy to insult islamists - do we christians kill people only because of cartoons? - etc."; everyone already seems to take for granted that this "movie" is the reason. Mass Stupidity at its best.

Posted by: peter radiator | Sep 15 2012 11:46 utc | 49

The film was not in any degree promoted or approved by the US government, but it does seem to reflectthe view of any number of prominent politicians...

Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 15 2012 12:03 utc | 50

peter radiator "conflict and war for resources and power for decade" are not taboos and the actors are not limited to the US. Challenging the taboo always gets an reaction just follow Ahamadinejad to know how. These kids here are trying to do it in reverse - and succeding: As the reaction of the Twitterer where I found it is to call for the law

Tom Gara ‏@tomgara
@DaliaEzzat_ Irony here is I'm pretty sure that actually is illegal under Aussie racial / religious vilification laws.

plus outing himself

Tom Gara ‏@tomgara

The Orcs appear have developed ability to swim, fly, cross oceans - outside US consulate in Sydney: (via @postboxadam)

(Orcs are a subhuman race invented by Tolkien in the Lord of the Rings, I know many people love this book, however it is Christian Catholic Cryptofascist in many ways not the least inventing subhuman species, in the hugely popular film Orcs remind you of ... but you have to have seen the film for this)

Provocation always brings out the worst in people.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 15 2012 12:14 utc | 51

@nbazine #10

Faith trumps reason, any time, anywhere.

I'm not saying that is how it should be; just that it is that way, because a man can't live without hope.

That's also what's the matter with Kansas.

Posted by: Eumaios | Sep 15 2012 12:33 utc | 52

ralphieboy, we used to talk about projection long ago at the whiskey bar. that is still the case and republicans seem to know no other way. they simply take the worst qualities of themselves and their ideals and say that their opponents are like that.

even when you point out the obvious hypocrisy to them they just seem to shrug it off and continue saying whatever the current talking point is.

you may not have noticed but I pretty much pity those poor people. how can you help someone who will not help themselves?

best we can do is try to keep them from accumulating too much power.

Posted by: dan of steele | Sep 15 2012 13:39 utc | 53

I used to have faith in the tooth fairy and santa claus, then, I grew up.

Posted by: ben | Sep 15 2012 19:23 utc | 54

I agree, b, that the film and the public reaction look like a cover.

I would have thought, though, that the film and the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi were coordinated in some way.

I had a very strong smell, when the news emerged, of the Samarra bombing.

OK, the film came out in July, but the Arabic version was only released a day or two before 9/11. Just in time for the reaction.

If the attack upon the consulate was organised in advance, as you suggest, they had to know there would be a justification. Even to know that the ambassador would be there, and not in Tripoli.

For me it stinks of an Israeli-type event, but I doubt there will be proof. Only they or the US are capable of coordinating between California and Benghazi.

One way of detecting the intention is the political result. Here, it seems to me there is doubt, whatever the nature of the operation was. One result will be that there will be less enthusiasm for supporting the revolt in Syria, if that is what Salafists do. Asad may survive. Secondly an attack upon Iran may lead to a similar confusion. Another country in confusion won't suit the US. Thirdly, if it was aimed at the US, it does not seem to me clear that Romney has profited against Obama.

My impression is that was a coup, but that it didn't work politically. Reminds me of the second bombing of Samarra in July 2007. Intended to reinforce the successful effects of the first, in fact it had no political effect in the end. The political effects of these coups, even if intensively prepared, can be very uncertain.

Posted by: alexno | Sep 15 2012 19:42 utc | 55

PS: am open to any criticisms/objections

Posted by: alexno | Sep 15 2012 19:46 utc | 56

re 29

A number of aircraft, hangars and other buildings at the base were hit and badly damaged by insurgent fire. (Guardian)

Although the concentration of the story in the media on the attack on Camp Bastion has been on the number of American dead and wounded, and the fact that prince Harry is safe, I wonder whether the success of the attack wasn't in the number of aircraft destroyed. It sounds like a lot, although the figure is not given.

OK, the US has endless replacement capability. But it is the first time we've heard of US aircraft being destroyed on the ground. I should think the event will be repeated.

Posted by: alexno | Sep 15 2012 20:06 utc | 57

well alexno that seems to be the view from Teheran

if it was a conspiracy of that kind it was a very stupid conspiracy as it is obvious the Muslim world now found a common cause and a common enemy - the idea is to divide and rule, remember?

The Benghazi attack could have been done by anybody organized, Libya is full of militias and weapons. The presence of the ambassador might just have been sheer luck. Security must have been pretty bad, the fiction seems to have been the Libyan state would provide it, that state if full of people who might have been involved.

I don't think neither the US nor Israel has good intelligence on the Middle East nor France or Britain.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 15 2012 21:49 utc | 58

re somebody 58

I wouldn't be against what your video says.

If it was a coup, it didn't work, in my view. But, you know, an effect could appear which we didn't think of. That's why I'd prefer to wait before giving a definitive judgement.

Posted by: alexno | Sep 15 2012 22:20 utc | 59

So proud of this guy from my state: Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington--"This was not just a mob that got out of hand. Mobs don't come in and attack, guns blazing."

I don't know what mobs he hangs with. Mine ALWAYS come in guns blazing.

Posted by: Linda J | Sep 15 2012 22:21 utc | 60

Apparently Stevens felt that in Benghazi he was among allies, just as the US troops felt secure among the Afghan troops in that country. Now, not so much, with green-on-blue. The colonies are unstable and undependable, and the goals are unclear.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 15 2012 22:26 utc | 61

well alexno, it certainly all looks fake to me. a film by a guy using a fake name. and he's supposedly coptic, which i assume is egyptian. that leaves a fall guy to eventually shake out from this which is neither america nor israel. maybe we'll even be required at some point to go invade egypt to save coptics, and we can re-affirm colonial rule there while we're at it. that would make israel happy, and even open up a new opportunity to occupy land up to the nile.

and, while bush was an overt war president, obama has been a covert war president. that includes taking a low profile during the libya war (actually made the argument that lobbing missiles from the med wasn't waging war), drone wars waged from above on pakistanis, afghanis, sudanese. and mercanary-fought war in syria. why not just hire a few more thugs to attack embassies?

i guess i am pretty skeptical of all of it, and that includes the bad blood between obama and netanyahu. who really knows if that is real or just theatre? one thing that is real is the result. and the result is that we are inching ever closer to wesley clark's 7 in 5 under this president. it isn't being done under "mission accomplished" banners, but it is accomplished. iran may soon be the next domino to fall, and israel will possibly occupy land from the nile to euphrates.

Posted by: Proton Soup | Sep 16 2012 0:17 utc | 62

"It is the fun of globalization. Taboos are used for effect by comedians, artists and politicians. I guess people have to learn not to react like Pavlov's dogs

Tom Friedmann?

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 16 2012 1:16 utc | 63

alexno, I'm still leaning to the idea that its an Al Quada thing, largely because the last thing DC and Tel Aviv, apart from arabs sacking embassies and making them look like tools, is sunni and shia finding common cause in US/Isreali insults of the prophet. Does anyone know if the Arabic version of the trailer were done
by the same people that released it in July?

Posted by: heath | Sep 16 2012 3:01 utc | 64

'First of all as to the “film” or whatever. As news managed to get past the “controllers,” it became obvious that the “Israeli” director never existed and the film had been financed by a group out of Las Vegas in the casino business tied directly to the Romney campaign.'

Posted by: brian | Sep 16 2012 3:58 utc | 65

and this from the NYT...

"But amid the backlash against the attack — and the news that the beloved United States ambassador was killed — the group’s leaders have tried to distance themselves from the assault, often in muddled or contradictory ways."

"beloved"?! The spin is becoming so surreal that it makes my pointy head hurt, a lot...
I mean, even at the height of the Cold War, I don't remember the Soviet press ever referring to their diplomats as being "beloved".
Then, when Pravda was the official organ of the Soviet media, at least Russian people understood that it was to be taken with a bushel of salt, but in the present West, I doubt that the message is swallowed with the same chaser of skepticism. To what wild lengths of deceit must they go before "enough is enough" is finally said? Are the majority of the people too obsessed with pro sports, staying employed and sheltered, their savings, what? I despair for our future, as the choices we have at the polls are a farce (I live in Canada, same thing). Our only real power is to stop buying and stop paying taxes. That is where our worth lies, as consumers of garbage that we don't need, and cows to be milked for money that's spent on mayhem ensuring that we can keep getting this garbage cheap. We can at least still exercise our power in these ways if we act in concert.
God fucking help me, I'm almost to the point of hoping for aliens to attack this planet and obliterate it all, but that's exactly what and how I'm supposed to feel - impotent, helpless. Not an option.
I'm fucking sick of watching my country (amongst others) engage in behavior that was sanctioned as "the supreme War Crime" 60 odd years ago, and get away with it under the auspices of spreading our beloved democracy with our beloved missiles.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here that feels this way, the burning question is - WTF can we do to stop the madness?

Posted by: Sasha | Sep 16 2012 7:11 utc | 66

@DOS #53: I am sometimes concerned about how the USA can continue to accomodate these people and still remain a modern, functional democracy. They have started to reach a critical mass in which they are effecting the way our children are educated.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 16 2012 7:18 utc | 67

the second phase of egyptian revolution has begun, the extremist faction will now try to wrest power from morsi, what will morsi do when he visits US on september 23 amid protests against US

Posted by: nikon | Sep 16 2012 7:22 utc | 68

Taliban was able to breach the british air base and destroy 6 US fighter jets

Posted by: nikon | Sep 16 2012 7:52 utc | 69

"Lieutenant Colonel Hagen Messer conceded that the scale of damage, carried out by more than a dozen attackers dressed in U.S. Army uniforms and armed with guns, rockets and suicide vests who managed to storm the airfield, was unprecedented."

apperently a dozen taliban fighters is able to breach and cause unprecedented damage to one of the most heavily fortified NATO base in afghanistan.

Posted by: nikon | Sep 16 2012 7:56 utc | 70

Nikon - perhaps it's an extension of the "green on blue" syndrome. I have no idea what constitutes the perimeter security at these places, but it stands to reason that at some point it's the Afghans that are the buffer between the base and the rest of the area. Maybe blind eye turned towards this infiltration of perimeter.
Of the "G on B" action, it seems to be feeding on itself, maybe to the point where nobody wants to turn their back on an Afghan now, then the seemingly "our guy" Afghans will be viewed with hostility, making any sort of co-operation impossible. Would make Vietnam look like a dignified exit.
BTW - Read 3 Colombians were injured in the Sinai disturbance, seem to remember them making up a lot of the private contractor forces in the KSA and Emirates, recruited by whatever the Hell Blackwater is called now. Any of those types in Afghanistan?

Posted by: Sasha | Sep 16 2012 8:27 utc | 71

Arte Reportage followed the FSA in Aleppo for 8 days.

Part II is about Ugandan mercenaries in Iraq. (good.)

Available for 6 days, in F or German.

Apparently Stevens felt that in Benghazi he was among allies

I watched that promo vid of him there and some others of him speaking etc. (you tube turns up quite a lot) and despite the fact that his position and I’d add his personality (as i read it from these snippets) was to appear very much at ease, in contact, open, and so on, what Don wrote is imho absolutely true. Stevens was a cookie-cutter soft power man - I don’t mean this in any demeaning way at all - and he was happy or even thrilled to be in that post.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 16 2012 9:01 utc | 72

Some interesting talk about taboos above. To which one should add, I think, the recent prominence of the personal over the political. Sociologists and the like started discussing mass ‘hysteria’ in a new way after the death of Lady Di. If you recall, the outpourings of grief by the man -or girl- in the street was so massive it shocked and surprised many. It seemed overblown, hysterical, even fake or hypocritical. (Of course some form of national mourning etc. was to be expected.) It looks like the negative, personal emotions of grief, outrage, unfocussed anger, emotional pain and hurt, which were previously ‘family like’ or kept private suddenly found a wide echo chamber, and acceptability. And then, they can slip over into action (violence against US embassies, etc. Note I am not stating that the movie is a direct cause, said the opposite some ways back. Just that this type of expression has become conventional, and the explanations given deal precisely with personal feelings, taboos, insult, and the like, rather than socio-politics.)

The public, mass, expressions of joy, adulation, approval, happiness, etc. - positive emotions, is judged by some to have become muted and less genuine in the past 20 years. (?) As for the public expression of embarrassment, guilt and shame or other self-castigation - very scripted in all societies as they are most unpleasant - are disappearing. (Some psychologists even speculate that shame is no longer really a felt emotion on the personal level amongst young ppl. in the W.) Or rather, have slipped into a mode of: forced confession, often partial, pro forma apology, followed by oblivion.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 16 2012 9:45 utc | 73

What, if anything, actually happened? Here's a suggestion that there was no American diplomatic mission in Benghasi and the alleged attacks there and elsewhere were faked, or perpetrated by Mossad as a prelude to an attack on Iran.

Posted by: Odin's Raven | Sep 16 2012 11:43 utc | 74

How the Afghans/Taliban have managed to breached NATO's heavily fortified base and destroyed SIX fighter jets should be a sign on the wall for NATO officials..

This is no easy feat and to think this was done by only a dozen Taliban should be a real concerned.But then, as usual, we'll be told all is well and that we're "winning"...

Posted by: Zico | Sep 16 2012 13:07 utc | 75

somebody - yes you can only divide so much, the laws of nature always show up. The US has forgotten to cultivate a bourgeoisie in their new oil territories. BIG mistake. That and with the dern internet the whole project looks to be short-lived, at least in the historical sense. Completely dumb empire.

Posted by: L Bean | Sep 16 2012 19:17 utc | 76

It is debatable if the US ever was an empire in the old fashioned sense of the word.

Wishing death to your military - taboo in the West -
convicted for a facebook rant - where is Free Speech now

Posted by: somebody | Sep 16 2012 21:01 utc | 77

I have watched, "US Under Attack In The Middle East And At Home", by Ed Butowsky.

Posted by: Janice A | Sep 17 2012 5:17 utc | 78

Or has the film simply given an occasion for various local interest to push their local agendas?

Right on the money, with local interests now expanded to every political/ideological faction with an interest in the middle-east...

This is also providing enormous benefits to the "Clash of Civilisation" ideologues & neocon factions, who had previously lost a lot of the ground they gained under Bush.

Would probably be fitting that our modern age equivalent to the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is a dodgy overdubbed film by a conman.

Posted by: KenM | Sep 17 2012 5:27 utc | 79

The film-trailer wouldn't spike such fervor without underlying resentment towards the US. The anti-islamic film is the trigger which everyone rallies around, but the motivation runs very much deeper.

Posted by: Alexander | Sep 17 2012 15:02 utc | 80

Still one wonders if it will have any major effect on Western thinking. Most will see it as 'just a bunch of Muslim crazies again'.

Posted by: dh | Sep 17 2012 15:19 utc | 81

I think some westerners since the Muhammed-charicatures, and now this film, with all the mayhem it has caused - even loss of lives, are opening up for the idea that some restrictions on free speech would be in order - along the same lines as anti-semittic laws. In my personal opinion, I feel free speech should be reserved for more important causes than the right to insult others. I think all can agree it has little or no artistic or intellectual value this blasphemy.
Those who have cynically exploited the free speech to provoke violence and killing doesn't need a protected right to do so. There are other restrictions on free speech which make far less sense.

Posted by: Alexander | Sep 17 2012 15:27 utc | 82

@82 "I think all can agree it has little or no artistic or intellectual value this blasphemy."

I certainly agree. The free speech privilege should carry responsibilities.

Posted by: dh | Sep 17 2012 16:00 utc | 83

Excepting yelling fire in an auditorium, free speech means free speech, that I can say any damn thing I want to without any worry about "responsibilities." It's well exercised on this blog, even when POA isn't here. :-)

As has been pointed out repeatedly in the present case, it wasn't the film that was the basis for riots it is rather the nearly total dislike of the West by Muslims because of their persecution. This requires a change in US policy -- but there's no sign that this will happen. It makes too much sense, and Christians are similar to Muslims or any other religion in believing that their religion is tops. The difference is that the Christians have the military forces and don't hesitate to use them. And the persecution goes with it, on many levels.

For example, here's a recent news report:

Jul 20, 2012 -- Would-be Pentagon model-plane bomber enters guilty plea
(Reuters) - The Massachusetts man charged with plotting to attack the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol with remote-controlled model airplanes packed with explosives entered a guilty plea in a Boston federal court on Friday. Rezwan Ferdaus told a packed courtroom, including his distraught family members, that he would accept the plea deal for a 17-year prison sentence that was hammered out by his attorneys and prosecutors earlier this month.

A Muslim-American born and raised in Massachusetts to parents of Bangladeshi descent, Ferdaus was arrested after an FBI investigation during which he requested and took delivery of explosives, grenades and assault rifles from undercover FBI agents that he believed were members of al Qaeda. . . .

Imagine that -- a Muslim-American born and raised in Massachusetts! That's clearly just one example of religious prejudice against Muslims, because we will never see "A Baptist-American born and raised in Alabama" in any news report, I promise.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 17 2012 17:24 utc | 84

@84 Yes Don but b deletes it when it falls to the level of blatant insult. The worst offenders even get banned.

Posted by: dh | Sep 17 2012 17:30 utc | 85

Most blogs rule out ad hominem attacks, as they should. We're here to seek truth, or should be, by considering the message and not the messenger.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 17 2012 18:00 utc | 86

Don Bacon: "free speech is free speech, period"
of course, given that unfortunately, there's no way to establish by law what's a gratuitous insult, what a deliberate provocation, what a witty parody, what a plain truth; common sense would be good enough, but not when you deal with state power (supported by conformism) that can be exercised against unwelcome minorities

as others said, if we just stopped exploiting the people of the Middle East and blindly supporting Israel, Muslims wouldn't care less what films we produce; or rather, they'd tune down their protests on a level comparable to that of Christians against movies and laws they don't like (hoping they will not take anti-abortionists as an example)

Posted by: claudio | Sep 17 2012 18:04 utc | 87

@87 '.... there's no way to establish by law what's a gratuitous insult, etc...'

Don't libel laws cover that kind of thing? I'm not sure how or if that approach would cover the infamous video. Certainly the free speech argument trumps all but it would be interesting to see Nakoula in court for something. How about incitement to violence?

Posted by: dh | Sep 17 2012 18:46 utc | 88

I'm not sure of the meaning of your first paragraph but I fully agree with the second. Blatant in-your-face American Exceptionalism, embraced by US politicians, is not appreciated by anyone else. Mexicans, Canadians, Germans, Chinese, you-name-it, they all (mostly) are willing to credit the U.S. for its good deeds but resent a I'm-better-than-you attitude, as they should. I'm better than you because I was clever enough to be born in the USA? And therefore I can ram a Hellfire rocket up your rear end? No.

That's what the protests are really about.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 17 2012 18:48 utc | 89

For libel to be proved, you must not only lie, the lie must be proven to have malicious intent. That's difficult, or impossible.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 17 2012 19:00 utc | 90

@90 I understand. I was responding to claudio's point about there being no solid legal definition of free speech.....or what constitutes the limits thereof. Clearly, as you say ad hominem attacks are out of bounds (maybe even irresponsible?) but it is perfectly OK to insult a religion or body of people so long as it's covered by free speech.

To be honest I've been thinking about all this for some days now and I'm going round in circles. :)

Posted by: dh | Sep 17 2012 19:15 utc | 91

Ecstatic gods made of him a great warrior. So what? Did they give him the right to spread slander? --Agamemnon denounces Achilles beside the hollow ships.

Posted by: ruralito | Sep 17 2012 20:15 utc | 92

@dh - it's centuries that people are going round in circles around these matters ... at the end, if you are for free speech, you can't exclude idiots from abusing this right

Posted by: claudio | Sep 17 2012 22:15 utc | 93

Hollande may declare there is freedom of speech in France andnot ban the US video..BUT Here's what happened to Siné after he caricatured a Jew in Charlie Hebdo mag..... He got fired.

Posted by: brian | Sep 21 2012 8:16 utc | 94


The White House claims that protesters against that anti-Muslim video “spontaneously” attacked the so-called “consulate.” In reality there were no protesters anywhere in Benghazi at the time of the attack. When Fox News questioned US officials about this, the officials admitted the truth. (13)

Nonetheless, the Obama administration/regime continues to insist that “protesters did it”. This lie not only conceals the Green Resistance; it also makes Muslims all seem irrational and blood-lusting, thereby justifying imperialist aggression (that is, the “war on terror”).

The absence of protesters was confirmed by one of the eight Libyans guarding the private group of villas used by Ambassador Stevens and his staff. The eyewitness, aged 27, is being treated in a hospital for five shrapnel wounds in one leg, and two bullet wounds in the other. He asked that his name be withheld, and that the hospital not be identified, for fear that “militants” (that is, the Green Resistance) would track him down and kill him.

Of the eight Libyan security guards, the eyewitness and four others had been hired by a British firm. The remaining three were members of Libya’s 17th of February Brigade, a group of pro-NATO terrorists formed at the start of the NATO campaign to destroy Gaddafi and Libyan society.

In an interview with McClatchy news service last Thursday (13 September 2012) the eyewitness said there were no protesters at all.

“The Americans would have left if there had been protesters, but there wasn’t a single ant. The area was totally quiet until about 9:35 pm, when as many as 125 men attacked with machine guns, grenades, RPGs, and anti-aircraft weapons. They threw grenades into the villas, wounding me and knocking me down. Then they stormed through the facility’s main gate, moving from villa to villa.”

That does not sound like a “spontaneous protest” against a blasphemous B-movie that suddenly appeared on the internet, as the White House and others claim; rather, it was a sharply executed military strike that must have been planned meticulously well in advance.

Posted by: brian | Sep 22 2012 3:23 utc | 95


Admin of Jisr al-Shugour News Network on Facebook for delivering news from the area. He was killed by armed terrorist groups for page he ran.

someone is monitoring the media...and its not the grunts in the field...they merely act on orders...but whos?

Posted by: brian | Sep 22 2012 5:11 utc | 96

The comments to this entry are closed.