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