^{thanks to Beltaine Fox}


It's increasingly apparent that the Libyan attack actually involved no public protest against the film at all, rather what happened was that about 125 armed men arrived at 9.30 at night and attacked with weapons, while shouting Islamist slogans, this was a terrorist attack rather than a violent protest, in fact in Libya the public protest was afterwards against the attack!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Consulate_attack_in_Benghazi

Whether the Libyan attack was pre-planned in relation to 9/11 (which seems more likely) or a spontanious action by an armed militia provoked by the film it cannot be said to represent a public protest at all.

Excepting the peaceful organised Hezbullah march (which was more a show of force by Lebanon's Shiite community in the light of Syria and the Popes visit). The Egyptian protests seemed the largest and they involved only 3000 people in a city of 16 million with high youth unemployment, with a dual protest (including the campaign to release the blind sheik organised earlier and the film) publicised by Islamist TV stations and supported by Salafi political parties.

mikey mikey wrote:
Thanks for your research and the stuff about the movie being dubbed etc mikey.
I guess it all confirms our suspicions, just a shame more people don't take a harder look at it.

andyh wrote:
I'll second that.

mikey mikey wrote:

You must know me very well are you sure your not my uncle?

...Yes, Mikey - more hidden details slowly start to emerge...

Ex-Gitmo Detainee Blamed in Libyan Consulate Attack
Benghazi a 'Terror Attack,' Officials Admit

by Jason Ditz, September 19, 2012

The Obama Administration’s claims that last week’s attack on the Benghazi Consulate was spontaneous seems to be falling apart tonight, as officials are now openly calling it a terrorist attack.

The attack, which ended with the death of the US Ambassador and several others, has been spun by the administration as a protest that got out of hand, despite witness reports that there was no protest at the site in the first place. Now the US also believes that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee may have been involved in the attack.

The suspect is Sufyan Ben Qumu, a former driver for Osama bin Laden who is now reportedly in a position of leadership for the Ansar al-Sharia Benghazi (ASB), the group blamed for the attack by the Libyan government. He was accused of working for a charity that was a front for al-Qaeda fundraising in the lead-up to 9/11, and was captured after the invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001. In 2007 he was transferred by US officials to the Gadhafi regime, but was eventually released.

The administration has been juggling the narrative on Benghazi carefully for over a week now, trying to dismiss evidence of advanced notice and claims that the attack was pre-planned as rumors, while trying to defend the idea that Libya is stable in the wake of the US-imposed regime change last summer.

Officials have been desperate to protect this idea, because President Obama is emphasizing the “success” of the Libyan War as part of his reelection campaign. Even with the new evidence, officials say they can’t really say if the attack was “pre-planned” or if they just randomly took advantage of the “opportunity presented as the events unfolded.”


news.antiwar.com/2012/09/19/ex-gitmo-det...+From+Antiwar.com%29

Still an easy get-out for the authorities, when they can refer to people as 'terrorists', i.e. a 'valid enemy'. They might even be exactly that. Or, they could be dissenters, who were illegally and unforgivably tortured - now 'manufactured' terrorists. The whole thing is rancid. So many lies told that nobody can pick out the truth.

What type of religion would make someone wan't to behead a person?

What type of religion stones girls to death in front of cheering crowds?

What type of religion kills people over comedy & cartoons?

hmm.. trying to think of any kind of historical records of people being killed because of religions. coming up blank.

batou wrote:

RealAmerican wrote:
After all of the evidence to the contrary, are you still insisting that cartoons and movies are the root cause of this violence?

mikey mikey wrote:
He's insisting WAY more than that and beginning to get right on my tits if I'm totally honest.

Or perhaps religion is just an excuse.

mikey mikey wrote:
What type of evidence is needed to execute girls in the street in front of cheering crowds?

RealAmerican wrote:
Ask a Texan Governer.

mikey mikey wrote:
Did she forget to wear her veil or a hijab and accidently look at another guy?

its a cult mentality man. religious extremist vice like grip over peoples thoughts and actions. execute those who do not conform as an example. a cheering crowd carrying out justice because they believe the lies of their masters. not every muslim is a terrorist. not every german was a nazi. not every russian is a commie. not every american is stupid. do you get it now?

I'm gonna guess that will be a no.

batou wrote:
Yes, Im well aware of that.

Did France really need to shut down schools because of a cartoon, is that not outrageous?

it was their own reaction to their own cartoons lol.
after muslim groups plead for muslims not to react to them.

RealAmerican wrote:
I oppose the death penalty. Do you?

Violent people will squeeze justification for their actions from any source they can twist to fit.
Religion, politics, patriotism, football, law ............ anything to hide behind.