Friday, September 28, 2012

REVEALED

A few days ago, Aries offered us this comment: “So now we hear that the film that upset the poor Muzzies[sic] may have been made by terrorists themselves, and Obama bought right into the whole scam.”

We had not heard this previously and asked about Aries’ sources. Always on Watch responded a few hours later citing this article written by Walid Shoebat. Before we get to the article, let’s discuss Mr. Shoebat.

Walid Shoebat is an émigré from Palestine. Raised as a Muslim, Shoebat converted to Christianity in 1993. Formerly a terrorist, he today lectures on the dangers of Islamic radicalism and is a strong supporter of the state of Israel. His critics question his alleged PLO affiliation, which is the foundation for his claim of authority on the subject of militant Islam.

In an article published on 25 September 2012, Mr. Shoebat states the following:

“When it comes to the film Innocence of Muslims, our government and the media uses a narrative mired in contradiction and false statements provided by the filmmaker, who himself is an untrustworthy source.

“If we stick to what can be proven, we might obtain the possibility that terror supporters produced the film. Muhammad al-Dura and Paliwood are two cases in point, showing the type of stunts used by Palestinian terrorists.

“So let’s examine the facts instead of the filmmaker’s fiction.

“Court documents reveal that Nakoula Bacile Nakoula, producer of the film Innocence of Muslims, partnered in a scheme with Fiad Salameh, my first cousin.”

Go ahead: read the article and form your own conclusions. We will only say that Shoebat has a lot of credibility with us; we have listened to his speak on several occasions on both televised news programs and on the Gathering Storm Blog Talk Radio program co-hosted by Always on Watch.

But now we must evaluate the impact of this revelation.

If the Muslim Brotherhood produced this film to foment insurrection against United States embassies and consulates, then no one from the Obama administration can claim the events leading to the death of American diplomats was spontaneous. There is no such thing as a spontaneous film.

If the Muslim Brotherhood produced this film, then we must view with concern the number of contacts between the Obama White House and members of this terrorist organization. What business could Mr. Obama have with individuals with known connections to terrorism? [Source]

And now we must ask this question, which I admit is somewhat confusing. If the Muslim Brotherhood conspired to produce a film that resulted in violence against the United States of America, and given Barack Obama’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, what did Mr. Obama know about the attack before it actually happened?  And if Mr. Obama knew about the attack, does that make Mr. Obama complicit in the deaths of our American Ambassador and three other state department employees?

Finally, we can no longer argue that foreign agents are attempting to stifle our right to “free speech.” At best, such an argument becomes a red herring. If Nakoula Bacile Nakoula conspired with known terrorists to produce this film, if terrorist organizations helped to fund this film, then the argument over the first amendment is moot. No one has a right to conspire with terrorists to produce terrorism. The Bill of Rights doesn't go that far in the real world, even if Bill Ayers does.

Will we ever know what Obama’s real involvement has been in this disturbing chain of events? Not until judgment day, but we do have the capacity of formulating an opinion about this, even in the absence of verifiable facts. It is what we must do whenever government agencies conspire to cover up what really happened, when they lie to us about the chronology of events, about what they knew (and when they knew it), and when they obfuscate the facts.

But if we can imagine for a moment that Obama did conspire with the Muslim Brotherhood to set these events in motion … then our only conclusion can be that Barack Hussein Obama is guilty of high treason against the United States of America, and its people. And this does makes sense in this context: Barack Obama has steadfastly refused to call the Benghazi attack an "act of terrorism." Now we can understand why.

No one in the press is touching this; no surprise there, right? But we are interested in knowing your opinions.  Z:  today, I heard a lib on Michael Medved's show screeching (literally) and whining about how Conservatives produced that video just to make Obama look bad.  Think that's a believable scenario but Obama's complicity isn't? 


-Mustang Sends


34 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Mustang,
First, let me thank you for the hat tips. I appreciate them!

what did Mr. Obama know about the attack before it actually happened?

As a rule, I despise conspiracy theories.

HOWEVER,

it just might be that Obama thought that a mess at the consulate could his chances to win in November.

I put nothing -- nothing -- past the man.

I read somewhere that Stevens had voiced objections to the White House's connections with the Muslim Brotherhood. Could that be true? Yes. Is it true? I don't know. Probably not according to what I've read about Ambassador Stevens.

I got up too early this morning. So, I'm headed back to bed for a nap.

Before I go, I am going to mention THIS: Two sources in Chicago diplomatic circles identify Ambassador Chris Stevens as gay (meaning State Department sent gay man to be ambassador to Libya)


Read more http://hillbuzz.org/breaking-news-two-sources-in-chicago-diplomatic-circles-identify-ambassador-chris-stevens-as-gay-meaning-state-department-sent-gay-man-to-be-ambassador-to-libya-64291
. Maybe it means nothing, but there it is.

---------

As for the whitewash of Islam, the beat goes on.

Always On Watch said...

TYpo alert.

could his chances should read "could assist his chances."

Silverfiddle said...

It's all about the Mullahs keeping the masses stupid, suspicious and angry at the west.

Their government allow it to happen because it diverts the anger from their own failed policies.

The Democrat party seems to be employing the same techniques, don't they?

Aries said...

Mustang , let me also thank you for the Hat Tip.
.Let me say that this “scandal” by Obama himself as well as his entire administration that was intentional made to to cover up their failure to provide the necessary security for our Libyan Ambassador, Christopher Stevens and the embassy in Libya was as scandalous as the cover up in the Nixon era, if not even more so because of the lives that were lost. . And for the President of the united States to not only attempt to cover this up, but to enlist his help for his Secretary of State and the Ambassador to the United Nations was adding fuel to the fire. For all of them to hide the fact that this was a successful pre-planned terrorist attack made on September the 11th, and that cost four American lives, should be reason enough for ousting Obama. Obama has been on the Campaign trail since he was inaugurated. A bit of research shows that he has been on a personal spending spree throughout the presidency, and has spent an obscene $150 million dollars on his inauguration, held 124 fund-raises and that amounts to about one every three days which means that we really do not have a President at all, we have a professional fund-raiser and a campaign artist.. Obamas seems to be to busy with his Hollywood and TV buddies to even do th job that he was elected to do. And whenever he even tries to do his job, he fails miserably at it.
Now not only has the scandal picked up steam in the mainstream press but this has even effected the support of his own party. Everybody is now demanding answers especially John Kerry!
I think that nobody really believed his lame excuse blaming the mob-riot and the murders on a protest over a little hardly ever seen YouTube video! Not when even the President of Lybia didn’t buy it himself. After all what protester brings mortars, rocket launchers and so many other heavy weapons to a protest!
And the Secretary of Lying Hillary Clinton was a guilty as he was (is) with her Lies, and Cover ups. She stood in front of the TV cameras looking like the Cat that just ate the Mouse, the look on her face that day said it all.. And our dear president stood in front of the UN and the world lying through his teeth. Shame of them ALL to cover this up because of their lack of security for the ambassador especially after we had a warning about the possibility that this might happen. But sure as hell the coverup came right from the president. It could have only come from the President himself to protect his reelection and now the Cat is out of the bag. .

leepermax said...

NOBAMA NOVEMBER

no more hope
no more change
no more Obamacare
no more chains

bye bye Biden
bye bye Hillary....
bye bye Barack.

bye bye Ducky
bye bye Shaw.

Robert Sinclair said...

Obama is a clear and present danger to the United States of America.

Z said...

AOW...got to get going as I need to be at work at 6:30 this morning, So I can't respond to others till later, but I have mentioned that many sources say Chris Stevens was gay. Which in and of itself is "so what?" but when put into context of what islam thinks of 'gay', is horrifying.
This feels to me like when we first started ramping up in IRaq and we found out that our top language CIA types were learning "High Arabic" which might as well put a red A on their heads which stands for "American spy trying to pass for an Arab"...VERY few use high Arabic with no vernacular. That tone-deaf American language training probably got some killed but we'll never know.

SO, rather like the language tone-deafness, we throw a probably gay man into an area of gay-haters........

Forgive me for saying this, but rumors are also that he was raped....it doesn't take a big leap to know why. It sounds just like what some islamists would to do a gay man. (and killed, of course)

I have to add that I do believe Libyans also tried to help him and are trying to find his killer. And that other areas, too, are stepping up to stop al-qaeda. I"ve heard some muslims are FINALLY saying "Not in OUR NAME"..to the terror of islam.

We can only hope.

FrogBurger said...

This whole story is getting weirder and weirder.

I read Shoebat's post and did research on him. I'm not comfortable trusting him to be honest.

But the fact that the guy is now in jail is a bit odd. You can't put someone in jail for making a video. And I don't think making a video is likely a parole violation. And if it were, why would the FBI pe involved vs local police?

Very odd.

Jack Whyte said...

Yours is an excellent point, Z. No one here cares about Stevens’ sexual orientation, but it is nothing shy of extraordinary arrogance on the part of our government to send a homosexual to a high profile position in the Middle East. And idiotic. And criminally negligent.

FrogBurger said...

Probation, not parole. But it looks like he did b/c:

"Included in his probation terms were prohibitions on his use of the Internet, unless he secured prior approval from his probation officer. Additionally, he was not to “use, for any purpose or in any manner, any name other than his/her true legal name or names without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer.”

While producing “Innocence of Muslims,” Nakoula repeatedly used the alias “Sam Bacile” (and other variants) in communications, online postings, and dealings with cast and crew working on the film. "

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/feds-arrest-nakoula-578341

Z said...

FB...where do you see Shoebat's biggest issues you don't trust?
It would be worthy of discussion, particularly if we can get his friend AOW back to comment.

CnC said...

Guess we all know conservatives don't have to do a damned thing to make President Gumby look bad.
He is doing a fine job on his own.

conservativesonfire said...

Well, Nakoula has been arrested. I suggest tha tMr. Obama reconsider his position on water-boarding and find out what Nakoula knows.

Anonymous said...

From Shoebat's article: "The evidence mounted. However, Eiad was not immune in Canada and was finally caught and locked up there in January 2011. We have emails from the Intelligence Bureau in Canada (IBC) who wrote us. The Canadians wanted to keep Eiad in custody as long as it took to extradite him to the United States. Yet, the U.S. refused for seven months to take him and preferred to fly him to Palestine."

Why should the US refuse to indict Eiad? Oh wait ... Eric Holder is our American-hating AG. What was I thinking?

JonBerg said...

What I'm about to say is [conjecture] at this point. I've heard some comparisons made to this situation and "Watergate", however, this is potentially far more serious. Now if memory serves me correctly Watergate was festering prior to the re-election of Nixon but didn't erupt until he retained office. Nixon was forced to resign and was replaced by the then V.P. Gerald Ford, a decent and worthy man. OK, in the event that B.O. gets re-elected and subsequently this situation assumes the magnitude that calls into question his ability to remain in office (which , of course, he dosen't have to begin with): 1) He won't resign, 2) Even if he did look where we would be then. On just this issue, alone, I pray that America wakes up before we are caught-up in a worse mess than we already are in!

Always On Watch said...

About Walid Shoebat....

Debbie Schlussel claimed to have had a confrontation with Walid Shoebat. I don't know if her claims are true.

I have read some claims that Shoebat is a fraud.

You can read about both of the above HERE.

Anderson Cooper has also tried to take to task Walid Shoebat (video).

Of course, Islamophiles will attack Walid Shoebat himself. But how many have truly debunked what he says specifically about the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed?

I have personally met Walid Shoebat and have spoken with him by phone several times. He seems like the real deal to me. His Christian testimony also seems like the real deal to me; I'm not sure that I agree with his theology, but that is a different topic for a different day.

Also, Walid Shoebat has answered many of the "charges" against him. At his web site, see the tab toward the top left of the page.

I have also co-blogged with Ted Shoebat, Walid Shoebat's son. Ted also appears to be the real deal.

Always On Watch said...

Oh, and one more thing....

"Walid Shoebat" may be an alias or some other kind of changed name. By "changed name," I am referring to the fact that Arabic and like languages have multiple spellings for transliterations -- this applies to a lot of names, not just to Walid Shoebat's name.

FreeThinke said...

Frankly, I think we'd be better if if we adopted a firm policy to regard EVERYONE of Semitic origin with extreme wariness. Take EVERYTHING they say with a whole shaker full of salt.

Remember DECEIT is considered a VIRTUE by these people and they have developed it to a fine art over many many centuries.

I'd be inclined to trust them LEAST when they are acting PLEASANT, and APPEAR to be on "OUR" side.

~ FreeThinke

Sam Huntington said...

I heard a lib on Michael Medved's show screeching (literally) and whining about how Conservatives produced that video just to make Obama look bad.

Sheesh! Reminds me of the nitwit who proclaimed on the radio that Katrina was the result of Bush's hurricane machine —you know, the one he kept in the basement of the White House. Idiots.

Believe me, Obama doesn't need the help of conservatives to look bad.

Darth Bacon said...

Excellent

DaBlade said...

Let Impeachment proceedings commence.

Truth and Justice said...

Lies on top of lies on top of lies turns out to be the 0bama regime story of what took place. They were totally unprepared for an attack despite the warnings. This seemed to be less important than 0bama's celebrity fundraisers..
The Obama administration had prior warning from Libya about an attack three days prior to the attack..

This is dereliction at the highest level. Obama and Hillary sent the ambassador to his death. The House must bring Obama up on charges and vote to impeach,he will get by this regardless, but justice must be served.

Aries said...

So,my friends. let's get this clear the only way that anything is going to change is at the ballot box. Lets get out there and vote, lets not give this election away.

Aries said...

Isn't it sad when we have to trust the word of the Libyan President over our own to tell us the truth!!!

Jack Whyte said...

We should question Shoebat, but should not dismiss out of hand what he is saying. We may not want to believe an American president is capable of “high treason,” just as we do not want to think Obama would work so tirelessly bankrupting our country. Shoebat provides unique insight to Islamic extremism, and we should try to remember that if Obama is not a Muslim, he is certainly an enabler of Islamic aspirations for America. Let us first recall that immoral American voters gave us Obama to begin with, but if it is difficult for anyone to believe Obama would not knowingly harm America, they should take a closer look at what Obama has already done to this nation.

Liberalmann said...

'Muzzies?' Really? Another hypocritical Christan, eh?

Impertinent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Impertinent said...

@Libturd....

" Another hypocritical Christan, eh?"...

Just like when you call Jews "hymie, kikes or heebs..." or Christians, "Jesus freaks" piss Christ, dung Madonna...or wackos.

Personally...I prefer mudslimes...no hypocrisy there...spidey man.

Kid said...

There's no doubt he's a muslim activist. And I favor the idea that the film was made by muslims. Becaue it's pathetic and cartoonish.

Z said...

can someone tell me how MUZZIES is a pejorative?
Is JEWS for JEWISH PEOPLE?
Hmmm

Z said...

Libjerk: Pejorative means 'having negative connotations'...

Mustang said...

I think "Liberal man" is pejorative.

Impertinent said...

Obimbo...screwing the electorate..

"Electing someone president of the United States should be a decision that we make as a nation. The outcome shouldn’t be affected by one, or even several, extraordinarily wealthy men.” Unless of course the extraordinarily wealthy men are Democrats. Then all is forgiven."

And this is why Mitt will go down. One would think with the money he's raised...he'd attack the lying sack of sheet....poor Mitt.

Then there's the outright and undeniable complicity of the media.

Mitt...cannot overcome the fraud....the lies and the ignorance of the press.


Say hello to Pravda...US style.

beamish said...

Impertinent,

One of the main reasons you can tell Obama is not a conservative is that Mitt Romney is not spending nearly $2 Million a day smearing him.