AP reported anti-Islam film that sparked protests was made to help Israel, but questions surround producer of the film

Update 2:40 pm:

Jeffery Goldberg has talked with Steve Klein and Klein now says Bacile is not Israeli, probably not Jewish and his name is a pseudonym:

Klein told me that Bacile, the producer of the film, is not Israeli, and most likely not Jewish, as has been reported, and that the name is, in fact, a pseudonym. He said he did not know “Bacile”‘s real name. He said Bacile contacted him because he leads anti-Islam protests outside of mosques and schools, and because, he said, he is a Vietnam veteran and an expert on uncovering al Qaeda cells in California. “After 9/11 I went out to look for terror cells in California and found them, piece of cake. Sam found out about me. The Middle East Christian and Jewish communities trust me.”

He said the man who identified himself as Bacile asked him to help make the anti-Muhammad film. When I asked him to describe Bacile, he said: “I don’t know that much about him. I met him, I spoke to him for an hour. He’s not Israeli, no. I can tell you this for sure, the State of Israel is not involved, Terry Jones (the radical Christian Quran-burning pastor) is not involved. His name is a pseudonym. All these Middle Eastern folks I work with have pseudonyms. I doubt he’s Jewish. I would suspect this is a disinformation campaign.”

I asked him who he thought Sam Bacile was. He said that there are about 15 people associated with the making of the film, “Nobody is anything but an active American citizen. They’re from Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, they’re some that are from Egypt. Some are Copts but the vast majority are Evangelical.”

Update 1:45 pm:

While questions have been raised about whether Sam Bacile actually exists, Max Blumenthal profiles Steve Klein, who has also been connected to the film:

Klein is a right-wing extremist who emerged from the same axis of Islamophobia that produced Anders Behring Breivik and which takes inspiration from the writings of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Daniel Pipes.

It appears Klein (or someone who shares his name and views) is an enthusiastic commenter on Geller’s website, Atlas Shrugged, where he recently complained about Mitt Romney’s “support for a Muslim state in Israel’s Heartland.” In July 2011, Spencer’s website, Jihad Watch, promoted a rally Klein organized alongside the anti-Muslim Coptic extremist Joseph Nasrallah to demand the firing of LA County Sheriff Lee Baca, whom they painted as a dupe for Hamas.

Klein is also closely affiliated with the Christian right in California, organizing resentment against all the usual targets — Muslims, homosexuals, feminists, and even Mormons. He is a board member and founder of a group called Courageous Christians United, which promotes anti-Mormon, anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim literature (including the work of Robert Spencer) on its website. In 2002, Klein ran for the California Insurance Commissioner under the American Independent Party, an extremist fringe party linked to the militia movement, garnering a piddling 2 percent of the vote.

Klein has been closely affiliated with the Church at Kaweah, an extreme evangelical church located 70 miles southeast of Fresno that serves as a nexus of neo-Confederate, Christian Reconstructionist, and militia movement elements. The Southern Poverty Law Center produced a report on Kaweah this spring that noted Klein’s long record of activist against Muslims

Original Post:

Yesterday, the US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed in an attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. Three other staff members of the consulate were also killed. The attack came as protests took place in Libya and Egypt over an American-made YouTube video that mocked Islam and the prophet Muhammad.

The video was financed and posted to YouTube by Sam Bacile, a 52-year old Israeli real estate developer based in California. There are reports that Bacile has gone into hiding since yesterday’s violence. This Associated Press report says Bacile made the film because he thought it would help Israel, and that he raised the $5 million to make the film from “more than 100 Jewish donors”. Thus Islamophobia comes from Israel to the U.S.:

Speaking by phone from an undisclosed location, writer and director Sam Bacile remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that the 56-year-old intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion.

Protesters angered over Bacile’s film opened fire on and burned down the U.S. consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, killing an American diplomat on Tuesday. In Egypt, protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo and replaced an American flag with an Islamic banner.

“This is a political movie,” said Bacile. “The U.S. lost a lot of money and a lot of people in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we’re fighting with ideas.”

Bacile, a California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam’s flaws to the world.

“Islam is a cancer, period,” he said repeatedly, his solemn voice thickly accented.

The two-hour movie, “Innocence of Muslims,” cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.

The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. An English-language 13-minute trailer on YouTube shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons. . .

Though Bacile was apologetic about the American who was killed as a result of the outrage over his film, he blamed lax embassy security and the perpetrators of the violence.

The NY Times also uses the phrase Jewish donors in this account by Robert Mackey and Liam Stack:

The trigger for the anti-American outbursts was the amateurish, American-made video opens with scenes of Egyptian security forces standing idle as Muslims pillage and burn the homes of Egyptian Christians. Then it cuts to cartoonish scenes depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a child of uncertain parentage, a buffoon, a womanizer, a homosexual, a child molester and a greedy, bloodthirsty thug.

The trailer was uploaded to YouTube by Sam Bacile, whom The Wall Street Journal Web site identified as a 52-year old Israeli-American real estate developer in California. He told the Web site he had raised $5 million from 100 Jewish donors to make the film. “Islam is a cancer,” Mr. Bacile was quoted as saying.

The video gained international attention after it was publicized in the Egyptian media and a Florida pastor began promoting it along with his own proclamation of Sept. 11 as “International Judge Muhammad Day.”

Is this the relationship America wants with the Islamic world? As Trita Parsi writes in his book, Treacherous Alliance:  

“There was a feeling in Israel that because of the end of the Cold War, relations with the U.S. were cooling and we needed some new glue for the alliance,” Efraim Inbar [now director of the Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies] said. “and the new glue… was radical Islam. And Iran was radical Islam.”

About Adam Horowitz and Phil Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 241 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. lysias says:

    So were the reports that Copts were behind the movie just disinformation?

    • fledermaus says:

      I heard it on CNN Europe early this morning. Perhaps it was disinformation with a purpose.

    • Tobias says:

      This from an editorial in today’s NY Post – ever a trustworthy source of disinformation.

      … The movie reportedly was produced by Coptic-Christian ex-pats and Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones — who’s nuts. …

    • Krauss says:

      My guess is: It was made by Jewish likudniks. It has had 100 Jewish donors, probably all of them far-right types like Adelson.
      If the director was Jewish or not doesn’t matter. The director is a guinea pig in this case.

      Now, with the blowback, the group wants to shift blame and the Copts are a good target.

      • seafoid says:

        The Copts are decent people who don’t deserve this. They have been practising Christianity in Egypt for almost 2 millennia and have survived everything.

        It is vomit inducing to think that Israel supporters would do this to them.

        • piotr says:

          I would avoid sweeping generalizations like “Jews that” and “Copts that”. We are talking about super-nutty fringes here.

          A legitimate question is what the non-fringe is doing, especially big poobahs of respective groops. Coptic hierarchy and leading figures are on record opposing the project. While it only proves that they are not suicidal, I think it is sincere, after all they are not nuts.

          Headline: SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
          6:55 AM
          California Copts and Muslims denounce controversial film, violence

          What leading Jewish figures condemn the “civilized man” ads? I would have to check. (Sorry Adam and Phil, I do not count you as a leading Jewish figures.)

  2. MRW says:

    More from the AP story:

    The 14-minute trailer of the movie that reportedly set off the protests, posted on the website YouTube in an original English version and another dubbed into Egyptian Arabic, shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons.

    An (Israeli) California real estate developer wrote and directed it? I can only imagine how bad it was as an artistic endeavor.

    Didn’t they learn anything from the cartoon debacle?

    Islam doesn’t have a priestcraft. It doesn’t have volumes of books called “Sharia Law” no matter what Pipes, Spencer, Gaffney, Horowitz, or Geller claim.

    Twenty-five percent of the world’s population asks only two things of people in respect of their religion: don’t visually depict the Prophet Mohammed, and don’t lie about what he said.

    The movie says that Mohammed tells his disciples to massacre and also, I hear, to screw kids like the Catholic priests and Brooklyn rabbis.
    “Ultra-Orthodox Shun Their Own for Reporting Child Sexual Abuse”
    link to nytimes.com
    “Brooklyn child-molest monster ‘got away with it’ after fleeing to Israel”
    link to nypost.com

    If Bacile wants to make movies to help “his country,” he should screen it in “his country” where his blood libel against Islam is condoned, and not in ours.

    • MRW says:

      I just watched it. ‘Amateur’ doesn’t begin to describe it. Filmmakers in LA will be coming after his head next, not to mention what it does to the idea that Israelis have any creative talent. The risible and tedious Heaven’s Gate is a 20th C century masterpiece compared to this grade school effort.

    • eljay says:

      >> Twenty-five percent of the world’s population asks only two things of people in respect of their religion: don’t visually depict the Prophet Mohammed, and don’t lie about what he said.

      All people have a right to freedom of religion.

      No religion – including Islam – has a right to freedom from mockery or disrespect.

      No religious adherents – including Muslims – have a right to kill or destroy should their religion be mocked or disrespected.

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        True, but this “filmmaker” (I hesitate to use that word for fear of insulting the noble artist by comparing him to this vile shit eater) anticipated and, in some accounts, intended this exact type of reaction.

        I might have a right to call your mother a whore, and you might have the right to be angered by me calling your mother a whore, and I might even say that you have no right to attack me if I call your mother a whore, but I certainly can’t claim to be innocent if my nose is broken after I call your mother a whore.

        • hophmi says:

          ” I certainly can’t claim to be innocent if my nose is broken after I call your mother a whore.”

          Actually, in point of fact, you can. You’ve committed no act justifying anyone breaking your nose by calling his mother a whore.

          It’s totally irrelevant whether the filmmaker “expected” a reaction.

        • Djinn says:

          This may be the one & only time I agree with Hophmi. Offending someone doesn’t make you complicit if they assault you. As a non married, non virgin women who works, eats beef & pork and believes in anarchy and is active in the union movement my very existence offends some people. They do not have any right to assault me, nor would my ‘offensive’ actions mean I could not claim innocence.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Actually, in point of fact, you can. You’ve committed no act justifying anyone breaking your nose by calling his mother a whore.”

          Well, the law disagrees. It’s called the fighting words doctrine.

          “It’s totally irrelevant whether the filmmaker ‘expected’ a reaction.”

          Nonsense. If I take an action intending it to cause someone to have a violent reaction, have a reasonable belief that the action will cause that reaction, that’s an incitement.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          Djinn,

          It’s not about offending someone, it’s about inciting someone. That’s the difference. And I doubt that hoppy’s position on this point is anything but results-driven. I doubt he agrees with the prinicple. Indeed, if he did, then he would have to call the execution of Julius Streicher a grave injustice. I won’t hold my breath waiting for him to call Streicher a great martyr to the cruelty of the Allied forces.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Have Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and other atheists been engaging in incitement? Thomas Paine? Salman Rushdie?

          I happen to be as close to a free speech absolutist as one can get. And I particularly despise religious totalitarians and self-appointed priesthoods who use violence or threats of violence to try to control the speech of others.

          The issue is important enough to go to war over, if war were required to protect free speech, which is the foundation of all democratic rights.

          Hate speech should be opposed with reasonable speech.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Have Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and other atheists been engaging in incitement? Thomas Paine? Salman Rushdie?”

          Some may have. It depends on what they intended.

          “I happen to be as close to a free speech absolutist as one can get. ”

          Oh? And what is your view on laws criminalizing incitement? libel? Possession of child porn? Relaying military secrets? Outlawing (as some Western states do) speech in favor of Nazi or neo-Nazi politics? If I should “fire” in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) just because I want to, and dozens of children die in the subsequent stampede, do you have a problem with a prosecution??

          “And I particularly despise religious totalitarians and self-appointed priesthoods who use violence or threats of violence to try to control the speech of others.”

          Fair enough. As do I. But, again, I’m not foolish enough to think that someone who exercises his free speech rights by wandering through Harlem screaming the “N-word” at everyone he sees is blameless if he gets socked in the chops.

          “The issue is important enough to go to war over, if war were required to protect free speech, which is the foundation of all democratic rights.”

          Hmmmm. It would be a clear exercise of free speech to stand before the Bundestag in Berlin, in full SS regalia, and perform the Hitler salute while singing the Horst-Wessel Lied. Should the US declare war on the Federal Republic of Germany because it would deny me this free speech?

          “Hate speech should be opposed with reasonable speech.”

          So do you think that Julius Streicher’s execution, even in light of the rule he undoubtedly and clearly played in inciting the death of 6 million Jews, was a travesty of justice?

        • hophmi says:

          “Some may have. It depends on what they intended.”

          It doesn’t work that way, Woody.

          “Oh? And what is your view on laws criminalizing incitement? libel? Possession of child porn? Relaying military secrets? Outlawing (as some Western states do) speech in favor of Nazi or neo-Nazi politics? If I should “fire” in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) just because I want to, and dozens of children die in the subsequent stampede, do you have a problem with a prosecution??”

          Libel is civil. Possession of child porn is in a special category because it necessarily involves the abuse of minors. Relaying military secrets is criminalized for the action, not for the speech. I’m against laws outlawing Nazi and neo-Nazi speech. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is illegal, again, because of the action, not because of the speech. If you yell fire in an empty room, it’s not a crime.

          “But, again, I’m not foolish enough to think that someone who exercises his free speech rights by wandering through Harlem screaming the “N-word” at everyone he sees is blameless if he gets socked in the chops.”

          He is not, no. But the guy who socks him is going to be prosecuted.

          “Hmmmm. It would be a clear exercise of free speech to stand before the Bundestag in Berlin, in full SS regalia, and perform the Hitler salute while singing the Horst-Wessel Lied.”

          It would, and I think Germany would be better off if it got rid of the speech laws because then, no one would speak in euphemisms, and the crazy people would come out of the woodwork.

          “So do you think that Julius Streicher’s execution, even in light of the rule he undoubtedly and clearly played in inciting the death of 6 million Jews, was a travesty of justice?”

          Who knows? It’s a stupid comparison.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Woody,

          Oh? And what is your view on laws criminalizing incitement? libel? Possession of child porn? Relaying military secrets? Outlawing (as some Western states do) speech in favor of Nazi or neo-Nazi politics? If I should “fire” in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) just because I want to, and dozens of children die in the subsequent stampede, do you have a problem with a prosecution??

          Libel, child porn and divulging classified information are separate issues from political speech — there are good reasons to impose limits on free speech in those domains.

          Political speech is an entirely different matter: defining the line between simple expression and incitement is very difficult and subjective. And the leaders of the American Revolution (like Thomas Paine) made deliberately inciting remarks against the political and religious establishments of their time which in some cases have survived as classic literature.

          I have no problem with people mocking or verbally attacking Islam, Judaism, Christianity or any other religion or religion in general. Bill Maher’s “Religulous” could be described as “incitement” by some religionists — tough sh*t — people can say whatever they like about anyone’s else’s belief system, and they are under no legal obligation to be polite in their manner of expression.

          Julius Streicher is a special case: he was a leading member of a regime that had just committed mass murder on a grand scale. He egged on this murder machine with systematic propaganda. He got what was coming to him.

          Speaking out against hate speech: that is very important to do. Bury the offenders with reasonable speech, intellectually take them apart.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “It doesn’t work that way, Woody.”

          Actually, it works exactly that way. The man who stands at the podium who persuades someone to do a crime (“incite” is the word we usually use) has done nothing but speak. So should the law respect that “free speech” right?

          “Libel is civil.”

          So what? So is the enforcement of a racially restrictive housing covenant. The government — if “free speech” was so absolute — could refuse to permit the court system to enforce libel laws out of a regard for free speech as it refuses to enforce restrictive covenants out of a regard for non-discrimination.

          “Possession of child porn is in a special category because it necessarily involves the abuse of minors.”

          That would be an argument against the production of said material, not the possession of it. What if child porn “community” agreed to merely access that which already exists, so that no more abuse would occur and agreed to prosecute those who produced that material, thus bringing justice for the abuse, would the “free speech” absolutist agree to that?

          “Shouting fire in a crowded theater is illegal, again, because of the action, not because of the speech.”

          But why? (here I’ll answer) Because the speaker knows or should know that the speech will result in a dangerous condition which the law deems him to intend, thus making him liable for the damage that occurs. How is that different than the situation here, if the person who make this movie intended to insult people with the knowledge that the insult would be so grave as to generate a violent reaction? How is that person less culpable than someone who causes a stampede?

          “He is not, no.”

          Hoppy, you should go talk to the poster named “hophmi” who took the exact opposite position only a few short days ago.

          “Who knows? It’s a stupid comparison.”

          Nonsense. It’s a perfect test of the degree to which one is a “free speech absolutist.” Streicher did nothing but exercise free speech, which incited violence. Either free speech shouldn’t be free or his death was an injustice.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Libel, child porn and divulging classified information are separate issues from political speech — there are good reasons to impose limits on free speech in those domains.”

          So why can’t “religious incitement” also be a “separate issue”? (And I disagree with your statement that divulging classified information is separate form political speech. In almost every circumstance I can think of, it is absolutely political speech.)

          “people can say whatever they like about anyone’s else’s belief system, and they are under no legal obligation to be polite in their manner of expression.”

          So if someone, say, makes the political point that those who insult another’s religion should be put to death and that it is the duty of all Muslims to do it, you fully support the speaker’s right in that case. (Or is such a limitation on “free speech” that you don’t like another special category.)

          “Julius Streicher is a special case: he was a leading member of a regime that had just committed mass murder on a grand scale. He egged on this murder machine with systematic propaganda. He got what was coming to him.”

          Streicher was not a leading member of the Nazi Government. He was merely a Gauleiter. But, beyond that, he was out of power in the beginning of of 1940, well before the Holocaust began. Even the indictment at Nuremberg was clear that he was being charged for no reason other than what he spoke and published — his political speeches and writings. How, then, is he a “special case”?

          So then, I say again, as all he did was political speech, was his prosecution and conviction a travesty of justice? And if you make him a “special case,” then why can’t you make a “special case” for those who deliberately insult the religious sensibilities of a billion people in the hope of inciting violence? Because you disagree with Streicher’s speech but agree with the anti-Muslim speech?

        • hophmi says:

          “Actually, it works exactly that way. The man who stands at the podium who persuades someone to do a crime (“incite” is the word we usually use) has done nothing but speak.”

          No, it doesn’t, and you should read up on the law before you make a fool of yourself. No one persuaded anyone to commit a crime here.

          “The government — if “free speech” was so absolute — could refuse to permit the court system to enforce libel laws out of a regard for free speech as it refuses to enforce restrictive covenants out of a regard for non-discrimination.”

          Neither one has anything to do with speech. It’s not a criminal offense to utter something libelous.

          “Because the speaker knows or should know that the speech will result in a dangerous condition which the law deems him to intend”

          Yes, and there’s something called attenuation. We don’t criminalize someone shouting fire in New Mexico because someone in New York might read about it and run out of a theater.

          You know, I think I’m going to stop there. It’s pretty much the same game with you. You’re incapable of seeing any shade of gray, whatsoever. Either that, or you simply enjoy making others spin their wheels. It’s a waste of time engaging you like this. Go be a free speech “absolutist,” and I hope you don’t get killed by a stampede.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Woody Tanaka wrote:

          Nonsense. It’s a perfect test of the degree to which one is a “free speech absolutist.” Streicher did nothing but exercise free speech, which incited violence. Either free speech shouldn’t be free or his death was an injustice.

          You are missing an important distinction here: Julius Streicher was an important leader of a political movement and machine which actually engaged in mass murder.

          If you are in fact arguing for the censorship of political speech on the basis of arbitrary definitions of “incitement,” you aren’t on the same page with the American Founding Visionaries. It would be easy with a bit of lawyerly rhetoric to define some of your own speech on Mondoweiss as falling under the category of “incitement.”

          But here is the current issue: some Muslim leaders are calling for the murder of Americans and Europeans who “insult” the cult of Islam. It sounds like they are itching for a major culture war, and perhaps a fighting war as well. They come across as disgusting and crazed fanatics who haven’t come close to moving into the modern world. As the Daily Show argued, they are still operating at the teenage level of Western monotheism. Americans and Europeans are under no obligation to humor them.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Woody Tanaka wrote:

          So if someone, say, makes the political point that those who insult another’s religion should be put to death and that it is the duty of all Muslims to do it, you fully support the speaker’s right in that case. (Or is such a limitation on “free speech” that you don’t like another special category.)

          Muslim religious fanatics should be punished for their deeds and crimes, not their words. But of course in the real world this kind of language will create major problems for all Muslims in the West — in the United States and Europe. Whether it is fair or not, Americans and Europeans will tend to shun and ostracize religionists who are associated with that kind of ignorance and hatred.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “You are missing an important distinction here: Julius Streicher was an important leader of a political movement and machine which actually engaged in mass murder.”

          No, he wasn’t. He was, at best, a marginal leader and held absolutely no power after Feb. 1940 (and very little before it) and did not engage in any mass murder at all. All he did was speak and publish a newspaper.

          But even if you were correct, what difference should that make to a free speech absolutist?? Again, to be clear here, he never took a single action other than exercise free speech. If other people acted badly after hearing his words as perhaps Streicher intended, and yet, as you say, his excution was right and proper, how would this “filmmaker” be distinguished if other people acted badly after seeing his film as perhaps this filmmaker intended, but taking any action against the filmmaker would be a great horror. What is the difference between the two that makes sense to you?

          “If you are in fact arguing for the censorship of political speech on the basis of arbitrary definitions of ‘incitement,’ you aren’t on the same page with the American Founding Visionaries.”

          Are you sure? By and large these same Founding Visionaires also passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, such was their devotion to freedom of speech.

          “But here is the current issue: some Muslim leaders are calling for the murder of Americans and Europeans who ‘insult’ the cult of Islam.”

          So what? All they’re doing is speaking. I thought you were a free speech absolutist? Why can’t they “call” for whatever they want?

          “It sounds like they are itching for a major culture war, and perhaps a fighting war as well.”

          Well, you said that you think we should go to war to fight for our cultural ideas of free speech (although I’m still waiting to see if you think the US should declare war on the Fed. Rep. of Germany for their violations of free speech), but you seem appalled that they would be willing to fight over their culture ideas. Why the difference?

          “They come across as disgusting and crazed fanatics who haven’t come close to moving into the modern world. As the Daily Show argued, they are still operating at the teenage level of Western monotheism. Americans and Europeans are under no obligation to humor them.”

          Oh, please. Naked self-agrandizement by a culture which has the desire to be better than it actually has been. You want to see disgusting and crazed fanatics who have a REAL negative effect on the world, just look at Western military deployments over the last 500 years. Hell, compared to the million-dead “modern world” the US brought to the people of Iraq, I’ll take some flag burning and acting out in Cairo any day.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “No, it doesn’t”

          Yes, it does. You are thinking too narrowly. I’m not talking about whether it’s a crime, I’m talking about whether it could be an incitement.

          “Neither one has anything to do with speech.”

          Libel has nothing to do with speech???? You’re crazy.

          “It’s not a criminal offense to utter something libelous.”

          Yes, we covered this before. Whether something is criminal or not is irrelevant to the issue.

          “Yes, and there’s something called attenuation. We don’t criminalize someone shouting fire in New Mexico because someone in New York might read about it and run out of a theater.”

          This is irrelevant. The intent here was to cause a reaction in the Muslim world. The fact that the coward did it from North America is irrelevant.

          “You know, I think I’m going to stop there.”

          Run, coward.

          “You’re incapable of seeing any shade of gray, whatsoever.”

          Nonsesnse. The problem is that to you, “gray” is the dogma and ideology you believe and “black and white” is the opinion of someone who disagrees with you.

      • American says:

        “No religion – including Islam – has a right to freedom from mockery or disrespect.”…eljay

        Well too bad he didn’t make and post the film in Germany where he could be arrested for hate speech.

        • eljay says:

          >> Well too bad he didn’t make and post the film in Germany where he could be arrested for hate speech.

          If that is the law in Germany then, yes, it is too bad.

      • bilal a says:

        eljay u may believe in the right to insult , mock, and slander a group’s religious or ethnic identity, but this is not a universally shared value, nor should it be. Go into baltimore or philly and shout the N word to test ur freedom of speech and see what happens 2 u.

        • eljay says:

          >> eljay u may believe in the right to insult , mock, and slander a group’s religious or ethnic identity, but this is not a universally shared value, nor should it be.

          I never said anything about slander – you did. And I never said I believe that “anyone has a right to insult , mock, and slander a group’s religious or ethnic identity”.

          What I do believe is what I wrote earlier: No religion – including Islam – has a right to freedom from mockery or disrespect.

          Insulting a person directly is, IMO, very different from mocking or disrespecting a religion.

        • RoHa says:

          Little bit puzzling here.

          Your “but this is not a universally shared value,” suggests that you think that the moral force of a value depends on it being universally shared.

          Your “nor should it be” suggests that even if the value were universally shared it still would have no moral force.

          Not a formal contradiction, but I do see some tension.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Insulting a person directly is, IMO, very different from mocking or disrespecting a religion.”

          Yes, because of your cultural bias. Should other cultures cast off their cultures in favor of Western culture in all respects or only this one?

        • hophmi says:

          “Yes, because of your cultural bias. Should other cultures cast off their cultures in favor of Western culture in all respects or only this one?”

          That’s odd. I don’t recall anyone asking Islamic culture to change, unless you’re a bigot and you believe Islamic culture means murdering those from the same country as people who criticize Islam. It is the other way around – Islamic fanatics have blackmailed Western states into restricting their culture of free speech by threatening to murder diplomats and Westerners every time a depiction of the Prophet appears in print or on the net.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “That’s odd. I don’t recall anyone asking Islamic culture to change,”

          Then you must be an idiot or a shut in, because the mouth breathers, warmongers and bigots on your end of the political spectrum have been painting Islam as needing to change (one of my favorites was when they called for an “Muslim Reformation.” I’m sure you would thrill to see a Muslim Martin Luther, am I right???) for years now.

          “It is the other way around – Islamic fanatics have blackmailed Western states into restricting their culture of free speech by threatening to murder diplomats and Westerners every time a depiction of the Prophet appears in print or on the net.”

          As I said, you believe this because of your cultural bias. (actually, I take that back. With you, hoppy, I’m just going to chalk it up to the fact that your a gutter-licking anti-Muslim bigot.) Because, you know, you could have simply painted this as a conflict between conflicting cultural norms — the norm of respect for “free” speech vs. the norm of respect for religious feelings. Instead, typically, for you its all “fanatics” “blackmailing” people. Bigot.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Woody Tanaka,

          With which Islamist ideological and policy positions do you disagree?

          Do you feel more sympathetic to Muslim fundamentalism than to Jewish and Christian fundamentalism?

          Do you think that Saudi Arabia is a more democratic nation than Israel?

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “With which Islamist ideological and policy positions do you disagree?”

          I would imagine most of them. I would say that to the extent that they are fighting oppressive forces, I favor that. Not so that they can be the new oppressors, though.

          “Do you feel more sympathetic to Muslim fundamentalism than to Jewish and Christian fundamentalism?”

          I feel equally unsympathetic to all of them. I find religious thinking, itself, to be wholly unworthy of sympathy.

          “Do you think that Saudi Arabia is a more democratic nation than Israel?

          No, I think that israel isn’t a true democracy at all, but it is moreso than Saudi Arabia; Saudi Arabia is a kingdom with democratic flourishes. It’s simply not a democratic country at its core. And even in the democratic aspect that the state does have, (municipal elections) women have been promised the vote, but don’t have it.

          But that does bring up the point that, if they follow through regarding female sufferage, you may soon have a situation where a larger % of the population governed by the KSA are permitted to vote in their elections (such as they are) than the population governed by the state of israel are permitted to vote in elections for that government.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Woody,

          Ok — that was a reasonable response — you didn’t fall into any traps. :)

          I am still trying to get a handle on what Islamism is all about. This is what I *think* it is about:

          # Islamist policy positions
          1. anti-abortion
          2. anti-American
          3. anti-civil liberties
          4. anti-Enlightenment
          5. anti-free speech
          6. anti-gay rights
          7. anti-individualism
          8. anti-liberal
          9. anti-separation of church and state
          10. anti-West
          11. anti-women’s rights
          12. anti-Zionist
          13. pro-assassinations
          14. pro-groupthink
          15. pro-Holocaust denial
          16. pro-patriarchy
          17. pro-theocracy

          Additions and corrections welcome from people who are more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, including from Islamists.

          I have no problem expressing strong disagreements with both Zionism and Islamism — in fact, this strikes me as an intellectually consistent mindset.

          I feel absolutely no cultural connection to the Muslim rioters who are screeching for the blood of the makers of that hideous Islamophobic movie — quite the contrary. I am very glad that I do not live in that neck of the woods.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          I think that Islamism is a reaction. There is a lot of problems in that neck of the woods caused or exacerbated by the West and its colony of israel. The people have tried things from socialism to communism, to nationalism to pan-Arabism, and at each step their progress has been stymied, often by the West and its proxies. I think that Islamism is simply the latest attempt to find a system that will be responsive.

          (For my part, I think that the best thing for the region would be an adoption of Kemalism by a state or two to see what happens.)

        • bilal a says:

          sean, from a rhetorical point of view it might be useful to communicate a Geller-Spencer definition of Islamism, and surely there are some ‘Islamists’, whatever that means, that support each of the GS planks you’ve listed, but the reality is quite different. Its perhaps better to understand Islamic political economy from the Shariah, and the limits the Shariah places on itself. And as far as I know the Shariah has no position on many of the planks youve listed, even on zionism. Indeed self determination of the Jewish people is a good thing, and Judaism flourished under Islamic state protection at the same time Christendom was conducting pogroms, forced conversions, torture, inquisitions, murder. And of course there is no Islamic geographuc antipathy, Islam historically and today is Western, Middle eastern, but mostly Asian by population density.

          Perhaps the most threatening planks to good liberals in the west are Islamic prohibitions on adultery, homosexuality, and abortion. Some scholars permit voluntary abortion, but all permit abortion when the life of the mother is at risk. There is no Ijma , consensus, on voluntary abortion, except for perhaps in the last trimester when the fetus is recognized as a viable baby, and here Islamic prohibition of infanticide applies, but not in the ‘West’.

          The moral code on adultery and homosexaulity is the same as the Old testament , orthodox christianity and Judaism. So to oppose these plansk you must oppose all three Abrahamaic faiths. But in practice, the shariah does nto extend to non-Muslims on these moral issues. Non-muslims have swinger and gay rights in an Islamicstate, as long as these are private acts, and it is not advocated in the public sphere. Even Muslims may not face any punishment under the Shariah unless there are four witnesses willing to testify with visual evidence. In other words, the prohibition in practice is against public lewd sexual behavior , not private behavior, a kind of ‘dont ask, dont tell, dont do it on the street’ policy. Of course like all Abrahamaic faiths, and others, it condemns these acts on moral grounds for the health of the individual and community.

          So if the focus is on public advocacy and display, I believe the Islamic perspective is identical to the Christian and Jewish positions. Orthodox Jewish schools resent the totalitarian liberal values hegemony which mandates exposition of the government’s anti-religious values. Students may be punished for publicly opposing gay identity as normative, and indeed some have gone to Jail for the same. So the orthodox Jews in this case, supported by the same Islamic position, want separation of church and state, they want the state out of the business of teaching anti-religion, antitheism. And of course this was the exact position of the foundign fathers in the American constitutional debates, freedom from government imposition of state religion was the human right cherished, not freedom from religion in schools.

          And of course Islamism has no anti-democratic foundations, it envisions core moral principles which have Abrahmaic roots and consensus, analgous to natural law, and then freedom from oppression and self determination, through votting or other mechanisms, is affirmative. Note that Shariah imposes a wealth tax on concentrated non utilized capital. and opposes income tax and usurious lending, immdiate advantages to progessively minded.

          Many of us see this type of family, community, self determination with a non sectarian religious foundation superior to modern liberal democracy, the religion of neoliberal multinational corporations, because it is better for human material and spiritual happiness.

          But thats only in theory, if the application is theocratic tyranny allied with the same multinational global elite infrastructure, basically the same GS planks youve listed, we should all oppose such. Until then, just gvie us freedom from the western totalitarian impulse of state religion imposition.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Woody,

          You know, this inclination by some supposedly progressive thinkers who boldly criticize Jewish and Christian fundamentalism, but who try to blame the ugly excesses of Muslim fundamentalists on Jews, Christians and Western imperialism, is beginning to sound more and more peculiar to me — thoroughly unconvincing. I think these Islamist zealots are not the passive victims of their environment and are fully responsible for their own behavior. They have been fired up by their Abrahamic holy book in the same way that Jewish and Christian fundamentalists have been fired up by theirs.

          So you agree with me that Islamists subscribe to all the anti-progressive beliefs I listed? Why bother making excuses for them, if one claims (or pretends) to be a progressive?

          I think there are some people out there whose anti-Zionism is so emotional and so wound up that they would easily make an alliance with Satan if Satan were sufficiently anti-Zionist. Their entire world has shrunk down to the single point of hating Israel and Israelis.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Perhaps the most threatening planks to good liberals in the west are Islamic prohibitions on adultery, homosexuality, and abortion.”

          LMAO. No. That’s called projection. You hate the fact that the west isn’t barbaric enough to follow your prohibition so you hate the West for it. The primary reason liberals oppose Islamic law (to the extent the hate isn’t simple bigotry, which does exist) is: oppression of women; oppression of homosexuals; violation of the right of free expression; violation of the right of freedom of religion; and the inability of it to deal with criticisms of it.

          “The moral code on adultery and homosexaulity is the same as the Old testament , orthodox christianity and Judaism. So to oppose these plansk you must oppose all three Abrahamaic faiths.”

          Yes, this immoral code in all three should be placed on the dung heap of the universe where it belongs.

          “…they want the state out of the business of teaching anti-religion, antitheism. And of course this was the exact position of the foundign fathers in the American constitutional debates, freedom from government imposition of state religion was the human right cherished, not freedom from religion in schools.”

          And thankfully we’ve progressed past that stage to recognize that any advancement of religion by the state is innately evil.

          “And of course Islamism has no anti-democratic foundations, it envisions core moral principles which have Abrahmaic roots and consensus…”

          … which are themselves anti-democratic.

          “Many of us see this type of family, community, self determination with a non sectarian religious foundation superior to modern liberal democracy”

          Yes, and progressives understand that this type of nonsense is a return to an age of barbarism.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          sean,

          If I didn’t believe some of the excesses of Muslim fundamentalism was not based on the hsitory of Western imperialism, I wouldn’t say it. I don’t do it to excuse anyone, but because I believe it is a reaction to a real problem actually caused by the west. (That being said, it’s obviously not all the west’s fault. As you say, they have been fired up by their Abrahamic holy book like the other fundamentalists. Like I have said, monotheism is one of the five worst ideas that humanity ever made up.)

          In some ways, it’s instructive to remember that during the Cold War, the “free” world would often prop up dictators so long as they weren’t Communists. The largest terrorist and dictator-training school in the history of the world was located at Ft. Benning — the School of the Americas — and the US didnt’ care about that non-progressive stuff because they had to beat the commies. When the commies got beat, the US support was removed and the countries were left to find their democracies. Contrast that with the Middle East. There, the US never stopped meddling, because of israel and because of the oil.

          “So you agree with me that Islamists subscribe to all the anti-progressive beliefs I listed? Why bother making excuses for them, if one claims (or pretends) to be a progressive?”

          I’m not making excuses; I’m trying to understand them. Why were a lot of good progressives allied with an un-progressive regime like Stalinist USSR? It’s not excusing them to explain that the great depression altered their view of Western capitalism, coupled with wishful thinking, fear of the rise of reactionary forces and a limitation on information skewed their vision to the point where Stalin, of all people, appeared to be a progressive. That’s not an excuse, but an explanation. Because if you want to deal with a situation in any way that really works, you have to actually understand it in the first place.

          “I think there are some people out there whose anti-Zionism is so emotional and so wound up that they would easily make an alliance with Satan if Satan were sufficiently anti-Zionist. Their entire world has shrunk down to the single point of hating Israel and Israelis.”

          I dont’ doubt it. Hell, half the stuff I say here is just my Id letting off steam. But the underlying basis is a fundamental distaste for what the zionists have wrought to the Palestinians. As the Islamists do the same, I’ll criticize them, too. (I’m already on record with my criticisms of the Iranians…)

        • RoHa says:

          @ bilal a
          “Indeed self determination of the Jewish people is a good thing”

          Not if it is at the expense of others.

          “Orthodox Jewish schools resent the totalitarian liberal values hegemony which mandates exposition of the government’s anti-religious values.”

          Which liberal government is pushing anti-religious values?

          “Students may be punished for publicly opposing gay identity as normative,”

          Do you mean “for denying gays the right to admit their sexuality”?

          ” they want the state out of the business of teaching anti-religion, antitheism.”

          Again, which liberal state is in this business? (If you mean the USA, from an outsider’s point of view it is a hotbed of religious fanaticism, with only the constitution standing in the way of theocracy.)

          “And of course this was the exact position of the foundign fathers in the American constitutional debates, freedom from government imposition of state religion was the human right cherished, not freedom from religion in schools.”

          If the schools are state schools, any religion espoused or practiced by the school is being impossed on the students.

          You cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from all the other religions.

      • MRW says:

        After the Danish cartoon incident, for Smith to say that they were expecting something like this is irresponsible. It’s like calling fire in a crowded theatre when there is none, which in this country is illegal.

        This has nothing to do with the right to freedom of religion and expectations. It is incitement. The fact that this ball-less filmmaker won’t even make himself known, even via youtube, shows what this is about, results and consequences be damned.

        • MRW says:

          Smith? Where did my autocorrect get this? Should be Steve, as in Steve Klein.

          for Smith to say that they were expecting

        • Kathleen says:

          intention to incite… wonder if the Dept of Justice will investigate this hate crime?

        • hophmi says:

          I promise you, Kathleen, that they won’t, because it is, without any question, covered under the First Amendment.

        • hophmi says:

          “It is incitement.”

          It is not, sorry. And it is simply incorrect for you to say that it is, unless you’re not interested in the right of freedom of expression.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “It is not, sorry. And it is simply incorrect for you to say that it is, unless you’re not interested in the right of freedom of expression.”

          Yes, it is. And the right to freedom of expression is a separate issue. There is nothing inconsistent with an instance of speech being both an incitement and being protected.

        • hophmi says:

          “Yes, it is.”

          No, it isn’t. It is not incitement under the legal definition of that term. And no, we do not protect incitement not because of the speech, but because, in very limited circumstances, the speech is tantamount to a physical act (telling an angry mob to attack passerby, for instance).

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “No, it isn’t. It is not incitement under the legal definition of that term.”

          If he intended it to spur criminal action, it absolutely is. Criminal incitement is not limited to telling angry mobs to attack passersby.

          “And no, we do not protect incitement not because of the speech, but because, in very limited circumstances, the speech is tantamount to a physical act (telling an angry mob to attack passerby, for instance).”

          Not all incitement is criminal. If the act being incited isn’t criminal, it’s still an incitement, but not a criminal incitement and it’s fully protected under the law.

        • hophmi says:

          “If he intended it to spur criminal action, it absolutely is.”

          No Woody, it is not, because it is far too attenuated. If the KKK makes an anti-Jewish video, and a KKK members says publicly, “That’ll rile up those JDL fanatics” and a JDL fanatic beats up the first KKK member he sees, the JDL member is going to jail, and the KKK guy is not.

          “Not all incitement is criminal. If the act being incited isn’t criminal, it’s still an incitement, but not a criminal incitement and it’s fully protected under the law.”

          Yes, and you’re confusing the criminal definition with the dictionary definition.

  3. Joe Catron says:

    Note that this guy may or may not be 52 years old, Israeli, a real estate developer, or based in California.

    “But before the July 2012 upload of the film trailer to YouTube, under the user name Sam Bacile, you’d be hard pressed to find evidence of the existence a California real estate developer online. What’s more, if whoever made the film actually spent $5 million on it, the expenditure hardly shows in the content, acting, or production values. Amateurish doesn’t even begin to describe the 13-minute trailer on YouTube …

    “Consider all the contradictions: small ones, true, like in one account he is 52 and in another he is 56. To the AP he is ‘a California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew’ and to the Times of Israel he is ‘Jewish and familiar with the region.’ And what about that bit at the end of the statement to the Times of Israel–that ‘even Jesus’ should be ‘in front of the judge’? That sounds like someone who is trying to provoke more than just Muslims. A lot of things don’t add up here about the claimed identity of the filmmaker.”

    link to religiondispatches.org

    • Something doesn’t smell right. Back when “Obsession” came out, it took some time and investigation before its Jewish roots were discovered. Now Bacile is openly describing his backers as “100 Jewish donors” and bragging that his intention is help Israel? Why would he do that?

      • seanmcbride says:

        PeaceThroughJustice wrote:

        “Something doesn’t smell right. Back when “Obsession” came out, it took some time and investigation before its Jewish roots were discovered. Now Bacile is openly describing his backers as “100 Jewish donors” and bragging that his intention is help Israel? Why would he do that?”

        Because he is a moron, like Pamela Geller or Orly Taitz? Haven’t you noticed that many pro-Israel militants aren’t the brightest bulbs on the chandelier?

        Contemporary Zionism is a dog whistle for mentally challenged fanatics.

      • Denis says:

        So right.

        Could anyone seriously entertain for a microsecond that it is just a coincidence that the Egypt/Libya riots were timed for 9-11, the day of the calendar when Americans’ Islamophobia is pulled taut as a (war) drum-head?

        There is a lot more going on here than a dumbass land developer plopping down $5M to attack Muslims.

        link to something-stinks.com

      • American says:

        @ peacethroughjustice

        Why did the Jewish Atlanta publisher openly hypothesize about a Israeli assassination of Obama?
        Because they think they can get away with it…and they do because of the laws in the US.
        If you want to incite something the US is the best place to do it because of our freedom of speech.

  4. hophmi says:

    WHO CARES? There are Israelis that fund movies about Jews. There are Israelis who fund movies criticizing Jews. There are Israeli that fund media expressing views across the political spectrum.

    The story is not that some Israeli financed a movie. The story is that because someone expressed himself, tens of thousands of people rioted, and three people, including the US Ambassador to Libya, were killed.

    There are cartoons in Muslim newspapers EVERY DAY that cast aspersions on Israel and Jews. Never have Jews responded to them to killing Muslim diplomats and by rioting in the street in protest.

    THIS IS NOT ISRAEL’S PROBLEM. THIS IS AN ISLAMIC MILITANT PROBLEM.

    • So anti-semitism is a crime and is to be denounced and those who express it attacked, but anti-islamism is just someone ‘expressing himself’ (islam is a cancer). So you’ll be fine with people making films saying judaism is a cancer.

      Israel is promoting and encouraging this hatred and division, these are the consequences. What is the difference between this and ‘price tag’ attacks by zio wackos?

      • hophmi says:

        “So you’ll be fine with people making films saying judaism is a cancer.”

        Yes, they have a right under the First Amendment, and such sentiments are common in the media in the Arab world. Maybe you can point out the last time in response to an anti-Jewish cartoon, Jews in the United States killed a Muslim diplomat.

        • ColinWright says:

          hophmi says: ‘Maybe you can point out the last time…Jews in the United States killed a Muslim diplomat.’

          Maybe you can point out your evidence as to just who killed the American diplomats?

        • hophmi says:

          “Maybe you can point out your evidence as to just who killed the American diplomats?”

          Seriously?

          It was a big pink bunny rabbit that did it.

    • seanmcbride says:

      Hophmi,

      So you don’t think that the hate-filled bigotry being systematically whipped up against Islam on behalf of Israel by Jewish Zionists isn’t a big problem for Americans?

      Some of the inciters in question:

      1. Andrew Bostom
      2. Caroline Glick
      3. Cluff May
      4. Daniel Pipes
      5. David Horowitz
      6. David Yerushalmi
      7. Debbie Schlussel
      8. Dore Gold
      9. Jamie Glazov
      10. John Podhoretz
      11. Mark Levin
      12. Martin Peretz
      13. Melanie Phillips
      14. Meyrav Wurmser
      15. Michael Ledeen
      16. Michael Savage
      17. Orly Taitz
      18. Pamela Geller
      19. Rachel Abrams
      20. Raphael Short
      21. Richard Perle
      22. Sam Bacile
      23. Sheldon Adelson
      24. Steven Emerson
      25. William Kristol

      And who were the 100+ donors who funded this piece of hate propaganda? This material is precisely like Nazi hate propaganda against Jews and Judaism from the 1930s and 1940s.

      • seanmcbride says:

        Who is pumping out the hate: some key Islamophobic media outlets (nearly all of them neoconservative or Christian Zionist, and all of them militantly pro-Israel):

        1. 700 Club
        2. American Thinker
        3. Atlas Shrugs
        4. Commentary
        5. Fox News
        6. Frontpage Magazine
        7. Israel National News
        8. Jewish Press
        9. Jewish World Review
        10. Jihad Watch
        11. MEMRI
        12. Middle East Forum
        13. National Review
        14. New York Post
        15. Newsmax
        16. Townhall.com
        17. Wall Street Journal
        18. Weekly Standard
        19. Worldnetdaily

      • Kathleen says:

        Rep Berkly, Gohmert, Ros Lehtion,

      • seanmcbride says:

        The current face of Zionism: “Sam Bacile,” Steve Klein, Sheldon Adelson, Pamela Geller, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ovadia Yosef, John Hagee, Mitt Romney, Danny Danon, Pat Robertson, Eric Cantor, Michele Bachmann, David Yerushalmi, Frank Gaffney, etc.

        None for me, thanks. What would be the appeal? The opportunity to be incinerated in Armageddon?

      • hophmi says:

        “So you don’t think that the hate-filled bigotry being systematically whipped up against Islam on behalf of Israel by Jewish Zionists isn’t a big problem for Americans?”

        Please point out a single instance where there was a violent attack organized by Jews in response to an anti-Jewish film or anti-Jewish piece of media created by Muslims, of which there have been many.

        You’re just an apologist for murder.

        • American says:

          “You’re just an apologist for murder.”…hoppie

          Who do you think you are kidding with this simple stuff….you don’t have to be the one pulling the trigger to be a murder.

        • chinese box says:

          You’re just an apologist for murder.

          It takes one to know one.

        • seanmcbride says:

          hophmi,

          1. How do you feel about the flood of anti-Jewish hate speech and propaganda that inundated Nazi Germany in the years leading up to the Holocaust? — books, documentaries, magazine articles, movies, newspaper articles, posters, radio broadcasts, speeches, etc.?

          2. Do you think there were any significant connections between that hate propaganda and the mass expulsion and murder of Jews from much of Europe during the 1930s and 1940s?

          3. What role did the hate propaganda of Daniel Pipes, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have in helping to motivate Anders Breivik to commit the mass murder of his fellow Norwegian “leftists” at a summer camp?

          4. What role did the hate propaganda of Meir Kahane have in helping to motivate Baruch Goldstein to commit the mass murder of Muslims in their house of worship?

          5. How many Arabs and Muslims, including women and children, have Zionists murdered since the beginning of their project to the present day? How have those murders helped motivate Arab and Muslim hostility, hatred and violence towards the United States, which has been the main financial, political and military backer of Zionism?

          6. Why is it the case that every leading anti-Muslim hate propagandist in the United States and Europe is also an ardent Zionist and pro-Israel militant?

          For once I would like to see you provide a civil and thoughtful reply and not rely solely on flippant and shallow verbal abuse.

        • Kathleen says:

          Hop could you link to the “anti Jewish pieces of media created by Muslims, of which there have been many” Can you link?

        • hophmi says:

          “For once I would like to see you provide a civil and thoughtful reply and not rely solely on flippant and shallow verbal abuse.”

          LOL. Nearly everything I post here is civil and thoughtful, and go beyond Google search and conspiracy theories. Your questions are, as usual, presumptive and obnoxious.

          1. “How do you feel about the flood of anti-Jewish hate speech and propaganda that inundated Nazi Germany in the years leading up to the Holocaust? ”

          How do you feel about it? I assume we agree that bigoted propaganda is bad. There were about half a million Jews in Germany at the time of the Holocaust and tens of millions of Christian Germans. It means something different when the targetted party count 1.5 billion followers. But mostly, your question is complete red herring. Islamic fanatics reacted exactly the same way to inoffensive Danish cartoon as they did here. So it isn’t about bigotry.

          “2. Do you think there were any significant connections between that hate propaganda and the mass expulsion and murder of Jews from much of Europe during the 1930s and 1940s?”

          Not worth a response. No one talking about expelling Muslims from anywhere.

          “3. What role did the hate propaganda of Daniel Pipes, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have in helping to motivate Anders Breivik to commit the mass murder of his fellow Norwegian “leftists” at a summer camp?”

          My guess? Probably not very much. Breivik is nuts. And of course, as you know, I deeply detest Pipes, Geller, and Spencer. There are millions who share Geller’s views. They’re not all going out and murdering people.

          “4. What role did the hate propaganda of Meir Kahane have in helping to motivate Baruch Goldstein to commit the mass murder of Muslims in their house of worship?”

          Probably very little. Goldstein was a doctor who dealt with a number of terror victims, and he snapped. He’s a bad guy, but he didn’t just up and kill Arabs because he read a Kahane book.

          I’m curious as to what role you think the hate propaganda in the Islamic world plays in the murders of Israeli civilians, American civilians, Somali civilians, Sudanese civilians, Yemeni civilians, Pakistani civilians, Libyan civilians, Iraqi civilians, etc.

          “5. How many Arabs and Muslims, including women and children, have Zionists murdered since the beginning of their project to the present day? ”

          I have no idea. But I do know that it’s a land conflict, and your presumption that the Arabs and Muslims who have died during that conflict have been killed because they were Arabs and Muslims and not because it’s a land conflict is silly. How many Jews have been murdered by Islamic radicals since Israel’s founding for being Jewish?

          “How have those murders helped motivate Arab and Muslim hostility, hatred and violence towards the United States, which has been the main financial, political and military backer of Zionism?”

          I think it’s played a relatively small role, unless you buy the koolaid of Arabist propagandists. Arabs are upset because they mostly live in backward, authoritarian societies, and the US has mostly been the guarantor of the dictators in those societies. It’s for that reason that they are recruited to engaged in terrorism, not because of Israel.

          “6. Why is it the case that every leading anti-Muslim hate propagandist in the United States and Europe is also an ardent Zionist and pro-Israel militant?”

          It isn’t remotely the case; large swaths of right-wing Europeans do not have much love for Muslims or Israel. But even assuming that it is the case, it’s an old game to try and define a movement by a few extremists who identify with it. Why is the case that most of those who commit terrorist acts in this world are also ardent antisemites and ardent followers of Islam?

        • hophmi says:

          “Hop could you link to the “anti Jewish pieces of media created by Muslims, of which there have been many” Can you link?”

          Do you deny their existence? There are anti-Jewish cartoons in Muslim media all the time. You can read about some of it here:

          link to adl.org

        • Mooser says:

          “For once I would like to see you provide a civil and thoughtful reply and not rely solely on flippant and shallow verbal abuse.”

          Hophmi is awful that way, isn’t he? I’ve tried to provide a model of restrained, balanced and non-offensive speech, but he will not take the hint, or follow my example. I think he’s a poopy-head, frankly.

        • hophmi says:

          “I think he’s a poopy-head, frankly.”

          Another great example of civil discourse here at Mondoweiss. I’ll add that to Cliff’s magisterial argument that I should “shut the *** up.”

          Of course, I’ve provided Sean with many, many civil and thoughtful replies to presumptive questions that are of the when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife quality. He usually gives us google lists. It does get frustrating after awhile dealing with a conspiracy theorist.

        • wes says:

          kathleen
          the way it works is the arabs pay the goys to do their anti jew media for them this from wikipedia

          The affair of the LSE Libya Links refers to the various connections that existed between the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and the Libyan government and its leader Muammar Gaddafi and his son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. The NGO Gaddafi Foundation pledged to donate £1.5 million over five years to a research centre, LSE Global Governance, of which £300k were paid. In addition, LSE Enterprise established a contract worth £2.2 million to train Libyan officials. In 2008, the LSE granted a PhD degree[1] to Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of the Libyan leader, for a dissertation. Currently, allegations circulate that Gaddafi’s thesis was ghost-written and/or plagiarised. In December 2010, Muammar Gaddafi addressed members of the School in a video link-up where he was addressed as “Brother Leader” and received an LSE cap previously given to Nelson Mandela.

          the ones you do not hear about involve larger sums of money

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “WHO CARES? ”

      I would imagine the families of the people who died because of this toad’s acts probably care a bit.

      “Never have Jews responded to them to killing Muslim diplomats and by rioting in the street in protest.”

      LMAO. Part of the excuses given by zionist sword-rattlers in their lust to attack Iran is the fact that Iran held a contest in which it invited people to express themselves concerning the Holocaust.

      “THIS IS NOT ISRAEL’S PROBLEM. THIS IS AN ISLAMIC MILITANT PROBLEM.”

      BS. That is the equivalent of me producing a movie whose theme is “hoppy’s grandmothers were whores” and defending myself against your anger by saying “hey, this isn’t MY problem, this is YOUR problem for reacting that way.”

      • hophmi says:

        “I would imagine the families of the people who died because of this toad’s acts probably care a bit.”

        I would imagine they would care about the murderers above all.

        “LMAO. Part of the excuses given by zionist sword-rattlers in their lust to attack Iran is the fact that Iran held a contest in which it invited people to express themselves concerning the Holocaust.”

        Oh PLEASE. Those who favor attacking Iran favor doing so because of the nuclear issue, not the Holocaust denial conference. If Iran had no program and just engaged in Holocaust denial, no one would attack it.

        “BS. That is the equivalent of me producing a movie whose theme is “hoppy’s grandmothers were whores” and defending myself against your anger by saying “hey, this isn’t MY problem, this is YOUR problem for reacting that way.””

        If I murdered you because you made that movie, it would indeed be my problem, not yours. Your work is protected under the First Amendment. My murdering you for it is not.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “I would imagine they would care about the murderers above all. ”

          Yup. And if they were killed as a result of this film, then this guy caused their murders.

          “If Iran had no program and just engaged in Holocaust denial, no one would attack it.”

          LMAO. Nonsense. There isn’t a state in the region that israel hasn’t either attacked or committed acts of war against.

          “If I murdered you because you made that movie, it would indeed be my problem, not yours. Your work is protected under the First Amendment. My murdering you for it is not.”

          The point which you simply ignore is the fact that the fighting words doctrine is a limitation on the First Amendment. There is some evidence that this film was produced specifically to incite.

        • hophmi says:

          “The point which you simply ignore is the fact that the fighting words doctrine is a limitation on the First Amendment. ”

          What you ignore is that you know little about the First Amendment, becuase if you did, you would not make a silly argument that a movie falls under the fighting words doctrine.

    • NickJOCW says:

      Too late, Hophmi. The box is opened and the demons are loose.

      • hophmi says:

        “Too late, Hophmi. The box is opened and the demons are loose.”

        Uh, no Nick, outside the extreme left fringe, no one is going to blame Israel and Zionism for the crimes of fanatical Muslims in Libya.

    • Koshiro says:

      THIS IS NOT ISRAEL’S PROBLEM. THIS IS AN ISLAMIC MILITANT PROBLEM.

      First of all: Stop yelling.
      Now that this is out of the way: You are wrong. This is a “lack of stability” problem. Libya, thanks in no small part to the US’ efforts, is an unstable country with a considerable lack of state control. People are killed daily for belonging to the wrong ethnic group or other trivialities, and now the US ambassador and his subordinates have been killed in a similar fashion.
      I can guarantee you that under a stable, strong Libyan regime (like Gaddafi’s) this would not have happened. I can likewise assure you that, for example in Israel – which has no shortage of religiously fanatic Jews – something like this could easily happen if there was no strong state control.

      • ColinWright says:

        “…I can likewise assure you that, for example in Israel – which has no shortage of religiously fanatic Jews – something like this could easily happen if there was no strong state control…”

        I’d quibble with ‘could.’ There was Bernadotte’s assassination, Goldstein’s Hebron rampage.

        Israel isn’t like Libya. She makes the perpetrators of these things prime ministers and saints.

        link to texemarrs.com

        The site this is at looks pretty entertaining, by the way. Share with your Zionist friends.

      • I agree with you except for one point: the US embassy in Tripoli was burned to the ground in 1979.

        • Koshiro says:

          I was referring to late-period, post-sanctions Gaddafi. You know the time when he basically was the West’s darling (or so he thought) in the late 90s and the 2000s. Not the early “revolutionary leader” period.

      • hophmi says:

        “First of all: Stop yelling.”

        I see no reason to. The reasoning applied here is highly obscene.

        “Libya, thanks in no small part to the US’ efforts, is an unstable country with a considerable lack of state control. People are killed daily for belonging to the wrong ethnic group or other trivialities, and now the US ambassador and his subordinates have been killed in a similar fashion.”

        So are you arguing that repression in Libya is necessary to keep people in order?

        “I can guarantee you that under a stable, strong Libyan regime (like Gaddafi’s) this would not have happened.”

        I guess so. Qaddafi was stable?

        “I can likewise assure you that, for example in Israel – which has no shortage of religiously fanatic Jews – something like this could easily happen if there was no strong state control.”

        If grandma was a baby carriage, she would have wheels. The same thing happened with the Danish cartoons. Was that Israel’s fault too?

        • Koshiro says:

          So are you arguing that repression in Libya is necessary to keep people in order?

          No.
          I’m arguing that destabilization results in things like we just witnessed. Repression actually results in violence as well, but in the other direction.

          I guess so. Qaddafi was stable?

          Until he was not, yes.

          The same thing happened with the Danish cartoons.

          Hmmm… no? The people who died in the protests against these cartoons were protesters. Certainly no Western embassy personnel.

    • Joe Catron says:

      Question: Can you produce one shred of evidence linking the Benghazi attacks to this film, as opposed to – I don’t know – that civil war the US blundered into last year?

      Maybe it’s out there. But if so, it certainly hasn’t been widely publicized.

      • ColinWright says:

        Joe Catron says: “Question: Can you produce one shred of evidence linking the Benghazi attacks to this film, as opposed to – I don’t know – that civil war the US blundered into last year?”

        There’s this from The New York Times:

        The protesters in Cairo appeared to be a genuinely spontaneous unarmed mob angered by an anti-Islam video said to have been produced in the United States. By contrast, it appeared the attackers in Benghazi were armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. Intelligence reports are inconclusive at this point, officials said, but indications suggest the possibility that an organized group had either been waiting for an opportunity to exploit like the protests over the video or perhaps even generated the protests as a cover for their attack. ..”

        I’d say somebody (a) knew these clips were about to appear, and (b) intended to exploit the reaction. Now, who could have known the clips were about to appear?

        • American says:

          “I’d say somebody (a) knew these clips were about to appear, and (b) intended to exploit the reaction. Now, who could have known the clips were about to appear?”

          That’s the question. And evidently the Egypt protest was a lot different from the one in Benghazi that appears planned or at least prepared for and awaiting an opportunity like this.
          Who gains from Muslims attacking the US targets to get the US to react or take some retaliatory action? Nothing for Iran in this tactic. Israel is the number one suspect for this mo, ALQ would be next.

        • ColinWright says:

          American says: “Israel is the number one suspect for this mo, ALQ would be next…”

          As I noted elsewhere, the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

          A group could think of itself as ‘al Qaeda’ but actually be financed and discreetly steered by Mossad. Think about those guys Homeland Security regularly entraps to earn its keep.

    • Ellen says:

      hophmi,

      Good try, but you cannot minimize the murder of anyone. Four Americans including a US Ambassador were just murdered.

      Fueling this murder was a film made by Islamophobes and Israeli, who said he was motivated to help his country. The intent and result was an incitement of violence against Americans. It succeeded in that.

      It may succeed in the other intent — to flame anti Islamic fear and move the US into disastrous action yet again in the ME. Will this help Israel? Hardly.

      It is of note and following a pattern that the actions in Benghazi and Egypt appeared coordinated. That the film was made in July, but the protest was yesterday, a day after 9-11. A day after Bibi desperately beat the drums of war, demanding the Americans draw a red line. A day after Bibi attempted to humiliate a sitting US President for not taking time to meet him in NY. (Attempts that seem to have backfired.)

      Mob actions like the one resulting the the murder of a US Ambassador and aids, do not happen without agent provocateurs. This has all the marks of it.

      This is much more than simply a primitive uneducated, unwashed mob leashed onto violence by extremists tribal passions.

      And if you want to go ahead and adopt the meme….it was only free speech at work, go ahead. It will not fly.

      With free speech comes responsibility for the consequences of your words. And when one group works to motivate and incite another group into violent action against a third party (the US Government) both groups are equal parties in the outrageous crime.

      There is a real reason Sam Bacilie, creator of the film is now in hiding and it is not because of an “Islamic Militant Problem.”

      BTW, and just for the record. Reports are that is he not a US citizen, but was working in the US.

      • hophmi says:

        “Good try, but you cannot minimize the murder of anyone. Four Americans including a US Ambassador were just murdered.”

        And Mondoweiss’s response was to talk about (incorrectly, as it turns out) that the film was produced by an Israeli and that some of the donors were Jews.

        “Fueling this murder was a film made by Islamophobes and Israeli, who said he was motivated to help his country. The intent and result was an incitement of violence against Americans.”

        Oh PLEASE. You’re obviously an Islamophobe, then, because you believe that a movie is tantamount to incitement in the Muslim community, which means that you believe Muslims are irrational.

        ” A day after Bibi desperately beat the drums of war, demanding the Americans draw a red line. A day after Bibi attempted to humiliate a sitting US President for not taking time to meet him in NY. (Attempts that seem to have backfired.)”

        Yes, some crazy Muslims in Libya launch an attack, and it’s Bibi’s fault.

        “With free speech comes responsibility for the consequences of your words. ”

        Sorry, no. It doesn’t work that way. This is not someone yelling fire in a crowded theater. This is people who cannot tolerate the dissenting views of others, and take it out collectively on Westerners. Like you inciting me and me killing the person in the house next to yours. But the same people threaten dissenter in the Muslim world as well. So let’s stop apologizing for these crazy people.

        “There is a real reason Sam Bacilie, creator of the film is now in hiding and it is not because of an “Islamic Militant Problem.” ”

        Yes, it’s because there are fanatics who do not understand the concept of free speech.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “And Mondoweiss’s response was to talk about (incorrectly, as it turns out) that the film was produced by an Israeli and that some of the donors were Jews.”

          LMAO. According to who I”d”F Corporal Goldberg?

        • Ellen says:

          Not “as it turns out.” That is the new spin by discredited sources. We still really do not know the sources.

          A number of news sources cited that the donors were Zionist and Chistian Zionists organizations or groups. We will see.

          Your projections about my beliefs need no comment.

          Never said it was Bibi’s fault. You projected that. I pointed out timing of events. It is interesting.

          Not apologizing for crazy people, but why incite and use them?

          And yes, there are fanatics who cannot understand live and let live.

          It is not really a legalistic free speech thing, but something more simple:

          Ignore the rantings of hate and insanity. Live and let live.

        • MRW says:

          “And Mondoweiss’s response was to talk about (incorrectly, as it turns out) that the film was produced by an Israeli and that some of the donors were Jews.”

          So did Haaretz. It said it spoke to Mr. Bacile, if I remember correctly.

        • ColinWright says:

          hophmi: “Oh PLEASE. You’re obviously an Islamophobe, then, because you believe that a movie is tantamount to incitement in the Muslim community…”

          Everything I’ve heard about this movie suggests it was incitement — sort of a low-budget Der Ewige Jude.

          How else would you describe it? The sole apparent purpose was to incite. It’s even uncertain if anything beyond the trailer exists.

          In fact, along with the other elements, the very shadowyness of the whole production suggests that the film, the posting of it on the internet, and the attack in Benghazi were all of a piece.

          The idea was to get Americans killed by Muslims…and not leave any usable footprints behind. Now, who would want to orchestrate that, and why?

        • hophmi says:

          “How else would you describe it? The sole apparent purpose was to incite. It’s even uncertain if anything beyond the trailer exists.”

          I can’t seriously people here continue to call this incitement; you are simply taking a view that is completely offensive to the First Amendment. It simply is not the case that a movie constitutes legal incitement. The argument is simply incorrect. Under cases like Brandenburg and Skokie (Nazi march through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors), the expression of speech, no matter how awful, does not constitute incitement. Incitement more or less requires a crowd of angry people, and a person who says something to the crowd with the intent of causing them to riot. This is not that.

          And even then, who is it inciting? Anti-Muslim propaganda would presumably incite anti-Muslim fanatics to attack Muslims, not Muslim fanatics to attack US diplomats.

    • American says:

      Well I tell you what hoppie–lets do a film in Israel made by some christian whackos about the G-D of the settlers as a whore monger, pedophile and etc.–and watch how fast the crazy settlers starting killing and burning things down.
      Your Israel settlers already do things like that even without being provoked by films like this.
      And whats more—Israel let’s them and protects them in doing it.

      • hophmi says:

        “lets do a film in Israel made by some christian whackos about the G-D of the settlers as a whore monger, pedophile and etc.–and watch how fast the crazy settlers starting killing and burning things down.”

        There have been films made in the Arab world based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. There was no Jewish rioting as a result of them. Syria made a TV drama based the blood libel. No Jewish rioting. You are simply wrong. And I do not believe settlers would riot in the case you describe either.

  5. NickJOCW says:

    There is worse to come. Evil cannot be contained.

  6. MLE says:

    He should go back to Israel.

    • Ellen says:

      If they find him, he will. But good luck to him getting out of the country.

      • bilal a says:

        If this was an Israeli funded MOssad operation to put american lives at risk, a DOJ congressional investigation of all such Israeli activities in the USA should be initiated, and given the loss of life, and future costs of this behavioir, all Israeli dual citizens engaged in political activity should be deported and stripped of their us citizenship. Indeed all military security clearances should be stripped from dual citizens of any nationality to prevent foreign infilitration of our national security establishment. No more Chertoffs profiting from spilled american blood and honor.

        • Ellen says:

          That would be a good start, but truth is the DOJ and Congress are not always working in the interstate of the public, but their own self interests. And sometimes that conflicts with doing what is right.

          Such is the nature of states and institutions.

  7. Frankie P says:

    “Is this the relationship America wants with the Islamic world?”

    Indeed. And how long will Joe Six-pack be oblivious to these clowns who are instigating this? How long will it be before he gets fed up with having “Sam Bacile and the Jewish Donors” headlining as the band representing him?

  8. doug says:

    It’s a sad day. This will be leveraged. Reinforcing the “iirrational Islamist” meme will butress support for attacking Iran. As will the idea in the ME that most Americans want to destroy Islam.

    That neither is generally true is of little interest to zealots.

  9. amigo says:

    Will this bigot and racist Israel Firster be arrested and tried for incitement or does Obama need the thumbs up from Israel.

  10. Woody Tanaka says:

    This is shameful that this Bacile has caused these deaths. Obviously, there should not have been this reaction, but what does this idiot expect?

    • ColinWright says:

      Woody Tanaka says: “This is shameful that this Bacile has caused these deaths. Obviously, there should not have been this reaction, but what does this idiot expect?”

      I’ll insist. There may have been nothing unintended here at all. There’s perfectly good reason to suspect that the same people who made the movie also posted the clips and were also ready and waiting in Benghazi.

  11. Diane Mason says:

    Certain Zionists writers in the London press have recently been making a most unfair use of the words ‘Arab’ and ‘Bedouin.’ In an article published recently it was stated that ‘the Bedouin’ question will in course of time settle itself, either by equitable purchase or by the Bedouin’s desire for the nomadic life which he will find over the border in the Arab state.’ If by these words the writer means the 50,000 nomadic Bedouins, no harm would be done and all parties would be pleased; for these Bedouins steal alike from Mohammedan, Christian, and Jew cultivators, and, except as breeders of camels and sheep, are of little use to the country [sic]. But he does not mean this. He hopes to buy out ‘equitably’ the half-million Mohammedan and sixty thousand Christian Arabs, who own and cultivate the soil — a stable population living, not in Bedouin tents, but in permanent villages.

    Should these landlords and farmers refuse this ‘equitable’ bargain, it is to be presumed that our Zionist writer, by forceful arguments to be applied by the protecting power, will arouse in them a desire for the nomadic life across the border. If the Zionists honestly believe that the land is occupied and worked by nomadic Bedouins without right of ownership, they should be informed that the Arab landowners possess title-deeds as good as, and much older than, those by which the American or English millionaire owns his palace in Fifth Avenue or Park Lane.

    The theory that the Jews are to come into Palestine and oust the Moslem cultivators by ‘equitable purchase’ or other means is in violation of principles of sound policy, and would, if accepted, arouse violent outbreaks against the Jewish minority. It would, moreover, arouse fierce Moslem hostility and fanaticism against the Western powers that permitted it. The effect of this hostility would be felt all through the Middle East, and would cause trouble in Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and India. To this might be ascribed by future historians the outbreak of a great war between the white and the brown races, a war into which America would without doubt be drawn.

    – Zionist Aspirations in Palestine, by H. Anstruther Mackay; The Atlantic Monthly, July 1920.

    link to theatlantic.com

    • Interesting article, Diane. Thanks. Reminds me of another historical document from back when it was still possible for Americans to discuss the Z-word in the mass media. King Abdullah’s article of 1947 ran in The American Magazine, a hugely popular middle-brow periodical of the time (kind of a cross between the Saturday Evening Post and the New Yorker)–
      “AS THE ARABS SEE THE JEWS”
      His Majesty King Abdullah, The American Magazine, November, 1947
      link to kinghussein.gov.jo

      • Diane Mason says:

        Yes, that one is a classic.

        When I read those old articles, I am always taken aback by the fact that things you couldn’t possibly say in polite company in the U.S. today – e.g. that imposing a Jewish state on a place as un-Jewish as Palestine will be a nightmare that never ends – were understood to be self-evident back then.

        • Ellen says:

          They were understood then. But some Americans paid for that with their lives if they said that in positions of influence. It was deemed a threat to the Israeli nation. And like all nations, threats needed to snuffed out.

        • seafoid says:

          It is still very obvious that it was a stupid idea. Israel needs permanent war to survive. That’s insane.

        • seafoid says:

          Diane

          This is another must-read

          link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

          From 1944 . I think it is worth reading in full now that the US may be about to begin the process that ends with it parting company with Zionism.
          The last 70 years have been hell.

          It was all predicted in this .

          -What US mid East diplomats were saying to DC – it is unjust to impose Zionism on the Arab people of Palestine

          -What Arab diplomats were saying – it is unjust to punish the Palestinians for what the Germans are doing to European Jews

          -How the people of Palestine had to be consulted before anything happened

          -How US policy was in danger of being written by private groups

          -How the plan would lead to untold bloodshed

          The extent of Arab support for the Palestinians is clear. As is the fact that Israel was born in sin and subterfuge and backroom pressure.

        • seanmcbride says:

          seafoid,

          All the darkest predictions and prophecies made by anti-Zionists during the era of the founding of Israel have come to pass — but they may have underestimated just how disastrous the entire Zionist project would turn out for Jews, the United States and the world at large.

          The early Zionists failed to envision an outcome in which ethnic and religious extremists would come to dominate Zionism and in which an Israeli prime minister would be publicly bashing a sitting American president with the aid of a powerful fifth column in American politics.

  12. pipistro says:

    One could argue that any religion, as well as ignorance, superstition and misinformation, are cancer.
    And here are the results.
    In this respect, the clown who made this film has to carry the blame more than his sloppy video, worth 5 cents, and surely not any life.

  13. Les says:

    Will those donors kindly step forward so we know who to pin the rewards on for their triumph.

    “Mr. Bacile said he raised $5 million from about 100 Jewish donors, whom he declined to identify.”

    link to moonofalabama.org

  14. Kathleen says:

    Sounds like Bacile’s clear intention was to fan the flames of hatred. I thought people could be arrested and jailed for purposely inciting riots. Accomplice to the crimes committed.

    • hophmi says:

      ” I thought people could be arrested and jailed for purposely inciting riots. ”

      Making a film is not inciting a riot. We haven’t outlawed free speech yet, Kathleen.

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “Making a film is not inciting a riot.”

        It would be if he intended to incite a riot by making the film (which some versions of the stories claim was the case.)

      • lysias says:

        Nazi anti-Jewish films like Jud Süss and Der ewige Jude can surely accurately be described as inciting violence, inciting genocide, in fact.

      • ColinWright says:

        Oh he can make his movie. I just want to learn all about him. I also want to know all about how the trailer came to be posted, who carried out the attack in Benghazi, etc.

        If this was a matter of another ‘Fitna’ I’d sigh and display a decided lack of sympathy if someone kicked your teeth in. However, I think this was something else entirely.

  15. radii says:

    just the facts ma’am:
    film made by an israeli who hates islam … funded by 100 jewish donors
    … tell us again, Bibi, why America should fight another war for you

    • radii says:

      facts are facts but stuff reported in the press these days may not be … now it appears quite a double-game (or triple-game) is going on here … the latest info has it that a Coptic Christian with a criminal record is instrumental to the film and that israelis, zionists and jews generally got false-flagged in this one … more twists to come, no doubt link to huffingtonpost.com

      • ColinWright says:

        radii says: “… the latest info has it that a Coptic Christian with a criminal record is instrumental to the film and that israelis, zionists and jews generally got false-flagged in this one …”

        …and we can expect that line to get pushed very hard in the next few days. Did this Copt also organize the Benghazi hit?

  16. Kathleen says:

    Watching the film. Are you sure Sasha Cohen (Borat) did not produce?

    • Kathleen says:

      this is so Sasha Baren Cohen’s style or someone copying his style. Wonder when the names of those 100 donors will surface

      • kalithea says:

        Hmmm…will Adelson be at the top of the list?

        • marc b. says:

          will Adelson be at the top of the list?

          i think team adelson is busy in spain trying to exploit the depressed economy and shove a ‘megacasino’ down the throat of the spanish. (not to say that some enterprising beneficiary of sheldon’s philanthropic efforts didn’t shunt some funds into the film.) those protesting the development argue that a casino is actually a drain on the local economy, and a death knell for small, local businesses, and a natural magnet for other ‘victimless’ crimes . . . er, businesses, like the sale of illicit drugs and prostitution. where do they come up with such ideas, those wacky spaniards?

  17. kalithea says:

    So if this film is so good for Israel, why didn’t he produce it IN ISRAEL???

    • MLE says:

      You know the thing struck me as something that would come out of Israel. Remember their blackface video? It’s Israeli humor or something

  18. Kathleen says:

    Who are these actors and why did they choose to appear in this piece of trash?
    Child molester, gay “is the messenger of God gay” “Is the master dominant or submissive” “I have not seen as murderous a thug as Mohammad”

    This is a piece of absolute trash.

  19. Kathleen says:

    ” God remembers the Jews and brings them together in the holy land”

  20. Mndwss says:

    “Israeli producer of anti-Islam movie that sparked attacks says he made it to help his country”

    He did not help America.

    Sam Bacile is more dangerous than Julian Assange and Bradley Manning who is accused of endangering American troops.

    If Obama was serious about killing people that put Americans at risk he would give Sam Bacile the “Anwar Al-Awlaki”-treatment.

    Booom..

    And then kill his children before they could put Obama on trial for the murder. Maybe Sam Bacile has a 16 year old son who can also be killed, when he is eating lunch with his younger cousin?

    Booom..

    • hophmi says:

      “If Obama was serious about killing people that put Americans at risk he would give Sam Bacile the “Anwar Al-Awlaki”-treatment. ”

      Here at Mondoweiss, terrorists who kill Americans, American soldiers, and fellow Muslims, are equated with yahoos who make anti-Islam films.

      You people are truly mad, and truly disgusting.

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “Here at Mondoweiss, terrorists who kill Americans, American soldiers, and fellow Muslims, are equated with yahoos who make anti-Islam films.”

        Who, exactly, did Anwar Al-Awlaki kill, hopper?

      • And you are truly pompous, and truly ridiculous.

      • Donald says:

        Scrape away the spittle and hophmi has a point. People who incite hatred aren’t the same as people who carry it out. Of course do we really know that Anwar Al-Awlaki actually planned or carried out terror attacks? Our government says so, it killed him, and maybe that’s good enough for hophmi.

      • American says:

        “You people are truly mad, and truly disgusting.”…hoppie

        Oh, but you’re making us ‘cry and shoot’!…it’s not our fault, we’re victims, we’re traumatized, the trauma, the horror of it all….see what you make us do!….LOL

      • ColinWright says:

        Hophmi says: “Here at Mondoweiss, terrorists who kill Americans, American soldiers, and fellow Muslims, are equated with yahoos who make anti-Islam films. “

        In this case, the available evidence suggests that the two groups were one and the same, so equating them seems pretty reasonable to me.

      • Mooser says:

        “You people are truly mad, and truly disgusting.”

        And you are ruining your digestion, and normally sanguine outlook trying to help us see the light. How noble of you, Hophmi. No greater love, you know, all that crap.
        But seriously, if I was Jesus, I’d be looking nervously over my shoulder about now. You’re gaining on Him, Hophmi, and might cross the finish line first.

        • hophmi says:

          You guys made your own bed when you were only too willing to believe ridiculous and transparent nonsense about 100 Jewish donors funding an anti-Islamic film. You all got caught with your pants down on that one.

        • hophmi, can you cut with the ‘you guys’ generalizations. this ’100 jewish donors’ allegation of yours has previously been refuted by several readers (including myself) so quit using it like an automatic scorecard for one free point. not everyone here jumped on that bandwagon.

        • hophmi says:

          “hophmi, can you cut with the ‘you guys’ generalizations.”

          Oh, you don’t like generalizations? THEN DON’T MAKE THEM ABOUT MY COMMUNITY.

          I didn’t see anybody here refuting anything when the original report came out. You were all happy to believe it.

        • You were all happy to believe it.

          me? got link?

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “THEN DON’T MAKE THEM ABOUT MY COMMUNITY.”

          LMAO. And what, pray tell, is “your community”? And please demonstrate that generalizations regarding such a community have ever been made… (Unless, of course, you’re doing this sob-sister routine because people said bad things about zionists, as that is not a community.)

        • me thinks hophmi is part of the ‘one shoe’ brigade.

        • bilal a says:

          annie/hop, nothing has been refuted on the funding sources of this film:

          We dont know where the estimated 250K budget came from, or even how it was chaneled to the paramount set , blue screen rooms, or cash pay to staff. Most likely it was chaneled through a Sam Basil checking account , as one participant reported cashing such a check which didnt bounce. Of course it is possible that the funds came from Nakoula, a member of the Israeli led Eiad Salameh shoebat crime ring.

          But the fact that an angel investor in an identical film project had already been secured by Ali Sina, of the Geller-Spencer Stockholm hate network, and that the network had discussed how to shield the fund raising sources and cast/crew from reprisal and criticism; implies that the Stockholm film project merely reappeared through the Geller linked Media for Christ front company(as MW first identified), with appropriate claims of deniability.

          If thesame set of Geller Spencer film angel investors funded ‘Innocence’ then the donors would reflect the geller spencer donor demographics, which most likely includes ‘over 100 Jewish donors’ as the panicked Sam Basil claimed to AP, possible foreign or Israeli funds, and grass roots extremist evangelical sources. But this is interpretive , the money was transferred possibly through layers of front companies, but Media for Christ funding is available to the Department of Justice, as are cash flows in and out of the Sam Basil account. Note the US State dept has gagged the LA film permit document and details of funding sources, probably for reasons of diplomatic sensitivities.

          Raimondo at antiwar.com suggests the same.

          link to original.antiwar.com

    • ColinWright says:

      Mndwss: “…Sam Bacile is more dangerous than Julian Assange…”

      Sam Bacile doesn’t frigging exist. You’re not going to get a good paper trail on any part of this.

  21. bobsmith says:

    I didn’t find a Sam Bacile in LinkedIn or on the web anywhere. Laura Posner’s article suggests that his Jewish/Israeli identity may be fabricated. Let’s see who really did it. It rather smacks of Christian propaganda IMO.

  22. And now the right wing bloggers are going mad attacking Obama, as if it is somehow his fault. How very convenient for Israel. It will give them more ideas.

  23. Kathleen says:

    Professor Juan Cole has a good one up about this piece of trash, intentions, riots protest. Over at Informed Comment

  24. Henry Norr says:

    One note of interest: On Democracy Now this morning, Amy Goodman explicitly cited that AP article and read extensive excerpts from it, including the description of Bacile as an “Israeli filmmaker” – but she left out the bit about the 100 Jewish donors. This is not the first time we’ve seen her reluctance to deal with the realities of the wealth, power, and politics of American Jews.

    I’m with Joe Catron, though – I don’t think we really know who this “Bacile” guy is. It’s quite striking that there seems to be nothing about him online before this incident.

    • Kathleen says:

      Too bad she omitted the “100 Jewish donors” part. odd on Amy’s part.

      • hophmi says:

        “Too bad she omitted the “100 Jewish donors” part. odd on Amy’s part.”

        Exhibit A, Annie.

        • oh please hophmi. it’s part of the story because the person who made the video made the allegation. i’m probably not the only person who thought “hmm, not 103?” “not 79?” exactly 100 jews? but the allegation has been made so it’s part of the coverage, it doesn’t mean reporting it agrees with it, supports it or empowers it.

          as i said upthread:

          link to mondoweiss.net

    • bilal a says:

      Maybe Amy Goodman has no reason to believe 5 million was spent on this film, and this nutter , who is using a pseudonym no doubt (no previous records seem to come up for this real estate developer), most likely invented this round number of 100 jewish backers. And the Jeish philanthropic community is not this stupid, they would have used a Christian pastor out front. Alternat5ively, th enutter is Israeli organized crime and placed out front to goad Obama.

      Plus the Benghazii riot was not a riot, these guys had missile lauhcners, rpgs, machine guns; it was an organized military raid that defeated 30 odd marine defenders.

      The most likely scenario is that Mossad in Libya gave the order for the Benghazi raid and blamed it on the opportunity of the nutters video. Opportunistic rebuttal to Obams rebuff of Bibi.

      But the raid has backfired, energizing the Islamaphobe base, yes, but also providing mofe of a spotlight on zionist, israeli funded, hate speech and incitement threatneing american lives.

      ps did they use Muslim actors ? they would be in hiding as well I would suspect.

    • ColinWright says:

      Henry Norr says: “…the 100 Jewish donors. This is not the first time we’ve seen her reluctance to deal with the realities of the wealth, power, and politics of American Jews…”

      Well, the ‘one hundred donors’ were either very small donors, or (more likely) the statement is simply an outright fabrication.

      There doesn’t even seem to be a movie — just a trailer, and a remarkably shoddy one at that. So $100,000.00 seems a generous figure for the production costs. Either each donor only gave $1000.00, or there was only one donor.

      Either way, it doesn’t say much at all about ‘the wealth, power, and politics of American Jews.’

      This was an exercise with exactly one purpose. It fulfilled that purpose.

  25. kalithea says:

    Who is more evil and therefore hates America more?: An irrational mob trying to defend their faith/religion/territory OR Israeli “Americans” who produce a film in the U.S. deliberately destined to incite that mob and create hatred against Muslims and vice-versa Americans in order to benefit their native land ISRAEL knowing full well the consequences of producing it in the U.S. rather than in Israel?

    And add to that the fact that Netanyahu also stated that 911 was good for Israel. Israel an ally, my ass! And while they, Israelis, set the Middle East on fire with all fingers pointing to America, he wants to drag the world towards the brink by attacking Iran.

    Netanyahu is the most dangerous man on the planet in our time.

  26. bobsmith says:

    The other name associated with the production of this movie is a person named Steve Klein, who has been mis-identified as Jewish. However, he calls himself a “born again” in a fluffed-up biography:
    link to xlibrispublishing.co.uk

    • doug says:

      bobsmith:
      I agree. The story doesn’t really hold together. 5M?? For that pos? Any of those “wealthy jews” claiming to help out? No records in CA license databases? Could well be a fundie nutjob trying to speed along the end times. WSJ owes us info on how much they verified this dude’s bona fides. If any.

  27. chinese box says:

    This guy is a dual American-Israeli citizen and he makes a movie to help “his country”, which ends up getting American citizens killed…

    What is he doing living in the US? Honestly I feel he should be deported for deliberately inciting this incident.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “It may be covered by the first amendment but it sounds like treason in every other sense.”

      It’s not.

    • ColinWright says:

      chines box says: “…This guy is a dual American-Israeli citizen and he makes a movie to help “his country”, which ends up getting American citizens killed…”

      Ends up? The Lord helps those who help themselves. I say the same people who made the movie also arranged for the Americans to get killed. I’ve been speculating something like this was going to happen.

  28. kalithea says:

    What do Israelis dancing around a white van in NYC have in common with an Israeli producer/real-estate developer and the 100 Zionists who helped finance the trashy piece of celuloid that incited the mob to commit this tragedy?

    No doubt they’re all comrades in arms for the ideology/entity/country that stands to benefit most.

  29. eGuard says:

    Haven’t heard anything from Tony Blair yet. How tasteless to be silent when your personel died in action.

    • seanmcbride says:

      How credible or honest is Steve Klein? What are the real names and backgrounds of everyone associated with this project — including, especially, the funders? Surely the US government (especially the intel community and DHS) has the ability to answer all these questions very quickly.

    • MLE says:

      I don’t buy it… The guy interviewed and said he was Israeli, i get why he would give a pseudonym but why on earth would he lie about his nationality unless he was trying to stir up more trouble…

  30. American says:

    Listen we all know what is behind the Israeli and US zionist constant attack on Islam and Muslims .
    The same crew has been trying and has created situations like this Embassy attack
    and it’s been going on for years. They stir hatred of Muslims in the US and Europe and stir Muslims to react and attack American or European targets. It’s their version of mini 9/11′s on America for Israel.

    I am thinking of a movie called “PriceTag” . The plot or theme might be the son of the dead Ambassador comes home from his military duty in Afghanistan. He blames those behind the film as the instigators of his father’s murder and is
    determined to hunt them down for revenge and justice. Along the way in his research he meets a USS Liberty survivor and accumulates other similar contacts of victims of Israel on his journey and they evolve into a Price Tag Swat Team.
    They set out to do a V for Vengeance on the zionist nest in the USA.
    Wonder how the Israelis and their minions would react that film?
    Might be excellent to show that American made film around the Muslim world to counteract the Israeli propaganda.
    Might be good for Americans to see it to.
    And if it provokes someone to go out and kill some Israeli zionist, well then there is no law against ficiton is there? Not the film makers fault. Isn’t that what the Hoppy’s always say?
    Wonder if Mel Gibson is available? The media outrage would guarantee record breaking sales.

    • @American

      You really are a sicko.

      Change your name. There is nothing american about you.

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “Change your name. There is nothing american about you.”

        LMAO, says the snake who slithered off, showing his ass to America…

      • American says:

        proudzionist777 says:
        September 12, 2012 at 3:51 pm

        @American

        You really are a sicko.
        Change your name. There is nothing american about you>>>>>>

        I’m the sicko?…what’s wrong, my film idea scare you? Afraid the tactics the zionist instigators use on everyone else will be turned back on them? Well, they should consider that.
        Be very afraid….LOL

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “You really are a sicko”

        Nothing sick at all. Sounds like a good and fun movie.

      • kalithea says:

        Oh and there’s something American about Bacile, your Zionist comrade, who produced the trash that caused the riots that got Americans killed??? Come to think about it, Zionism is the antithesis of American, and your moniker makes me want to loose my lunch!

      • Mooser says:

        “Change your name. There is nothing american about you.”

        Well, at least he is patriotic enough to push the damn “shift” key when he types the “A” in “American”

        Anyway, folks, here is another sad case of Ziocaine amnesia. Press “proudzionist777″ above his comments, and you will be directed to his archive. You won’t have to search very far before you find the comments in which “proudzionist777″ announced his intention to go live in Israel, and offered his opinion of America. He may have forgotten them, but I haven’t, and neither has his archive.

    • Walid says:

      “Wonder if Mel Gibson is available? The media outrage would guarantee record breaking sales.”

      Wouldn’t it be the very first anti-Jewish religion film? So far all the anti this and anti that films have involved Christians or Muslims.

      • American says:

        @ woody

        Well what I described wouldn’t be a anti Jewish ‘religion’ film…it would be more a thriller with the zionist cabal and Israel as the bad guys for a change. There are zillions of fictional books and movies with Russia-Russians, Arabs, Secret Cabals, etc.,etc. as the evil doers— not to mention all the Jewish movies and books on the Nazi hunters, Munich massacre avengers and so forth. Ever wonder why Israel and the zionist haven’t been the subject of a film? There’s plenty of material there…..spy thriller on Pollard….USS Liberty…death of US peace activist. An espionage thriller on how zionist stole and smuggled nuclear material out of the US.
        We see movies all the time about some secret cabal within the government plotting to take over the WH or gov usually for their agenda to start a war and nuke the all the US enemies but we’ve never seen one on for instance the zionist cabal of the 40′ and Truman and all the secret and shiffy doing of the zios, impersonating US officals in other countries to intimidate them into supporting recongizing Israel and etc…lots of good stuff in that one.

  31. American says:

    link to dailymail.co.uk

    ‘It’s not our fault’: Defiance of Californian consultant behind ‘blasphemous’ internet film which accuses Mohammed of being ‘a fraud, a pedophile and a womanizer’
    Going into this we knew something was going to happen”>>>>>

    Yes they knew something was going to happen, that’s why they dubbed in Arabic, so something would happen. Every time these pieces of trash have done their insulting cartoons and other provocations they gotten the riots and reactions they wanted. They are just as guity of murder as the Muslims who did react with violence.

  32. bilal a says:

    Klein the Islamphobe activist associated with the film, now claims , conveniently at Goldblog’s atlantic, that the nutter who made the film is not israeli and not Jewish. Shame on all those anti semites who took him at his word.

    So is the nutter a coptic who pretended to be a Jew to protect copts and get Jews killed?

    The AP reported a heavy foreign accent, Maybe the modus operandus was to state the truth out front that it was israeli Jewish funded, set up the anti zionists for a fall once it is announced that he was not a Jewish Israeli. Then he disappears into ‘hiding’ fearful for his life and no one knows the better, and no one knows the 100 Jewish funders, if they actually exist.

    starts to look more profesional as foreing intelligence operation. Especially since the US gov now says the Bengazzi killings were a planned hand grenade , rpg attack using protestors as cover. A small kill team in place at the scene when the ambassador drives out was all that was needed. Also explains the low death count, only those in the ambssadors car were killed. The protestors didnt hurt any Americans inside ?, meaning the rpg attack was separate from the riot.

    No confirmation of the details but most likely not injuries inside the building as so few were killed and only the protected ambssador is harmed. The Itlain photo of the ambssador looks staged , no blurriness, and the heads of onlookers are cropped, ine appearing to kick the ambssador but there is no movement. anoterh holds a cell phone in his mouth, as he holds up the unconcious amb. who does this amdist a gun battle with the libyan security forces?

    But how did the shooters know which car had the ambassador, or was there one car ? How did the shooters get the ambssador and his three aides to leave the embassey on signal? Who advised him to leave, and survived That is the identify of the Israeli mole.

    an inside job.

    • bilal a says:

      next news cycle release by goldblog atlantic, the producer of the crude anti muslim bigotry film was in fact an IRANIAN agent posing as an Israeli Jew to get both Americans and Jews killed and sabotage the special relationship.

      • MLE says:

        If this guy is a fake, then I think this might have been an attempt to get the Egyptians attacking the Israeli embassy as well, in which it just gets exponentially more disgusting…

        Also, the references to Islam and Mohammad were dubbed over- even in English, so the actors claim they thought they were just making some stupid low budget adventure movie and not anything directly offending a religion.

        There is something really fishy about all of this.

      • American says:

        There is something fishy about this whole thing….and it’s fishy to me how Goldberg talked to Bacile –did Bacile call him or did he know how to get in touch with Bacile?…same goes for all the other news outlets that say they spoke to him.

        Sometimes these kind of operations are set to have such convoluted threads and contridictions, statements and then contridicting statements, and disinformation on purpose ….so that there isn’t any logical trail anyone can follow or too many trails to follow so you run off in all directions and can’t get a clear picture out of it.

        • Sometimes these kind of operations are set to have such convoluted threads and contridictions, statements and then contridicting statements, and disinformation on purpose

          yeah, there was definitely a pile on over this original disinformation. my hunch is someone expected a longer disinformation period before the other news broke (which WAS originally released by a blogger, a blogger who is heavily monitored by govs/intel). it was onky after several hrs of the news getting out there cnn released it. but the ‘logic’ of b is rather obvious once you consider it. the kind of info that hardly requires a london think tank to come up with.

          so let’s ask ourselves what the repercussions might have been had the ’100 jewish donors israeli filmaker’ info had saturated the press for 3 days? would there be a much louder blood libel / anti semitism scream sucking up space competing with the actual facts that come out?

          just a thought.

        • ColinWright says:

          American says: “…Sometimes these kind of operations are set to have such convoluted threads and contridictions, statements and then contridicting statements, and disinformation on purpose ….so that there isn’t any logical trail anyone can follow or too many trails to follow so you run off in all directions and can’t get a clear picture out of it…”

          This is one of the reasons I suspect the trailer was made with a higher purpose in mind. It’s not even clear they bothered to finish the movie.

          If you’re just going to make an anti-Islamic movie, why would you hide? Look up ‘Fitna’: people don’t hide their involvement with that — they’re proud of what they’re doing.

          So why are the principals here so assiduously scurrying off into the dark? What would explain that?

    • ColinWright says:

      bilal a says: “Klein the Islamphobe activist associated with the film, now claims , conveniently at Goldblog’s atlantic, that the nutter who made the film is not israeli and not Jewish. Shame on all those anti semites who took him at his word…”

      Klein is the front man whose willing to take the heat for the American end of this. He probably doesn’t even realize who killed the Americans.

  33. kalithea says:

    Blitzer is peddling the distraction that AQ planned this and he’s now in the throes of a bullshet-induced orgasm.

    But why isn’t he asking how this would benefit AQ at a time when it would welcome the prospect of military intervention in Syria like happened in Libya?

    WHO BENEFITS MOST? The only plausible answer is ISRAEL.

    • ColinWright says:

      As so often, Mossad fails to impress all that much. Surely some hitherto unheard-of group should have promptly claimed credit?

      Maybe the idea is that everyone just sort of fades into the confusion while the hacks get going blaming anyone but Israel.

  34. cogit8 says:

    Good post Ellen. The ‘more to the story’ you mention should include YouTube for allowing this incitement garbage to be posted under the guise of freedom of speech. YouTube enabled the hatred and abetted the violence (which was entirely predictable) at the same time as their ‘internet police’ are busy taking down clip after clip which ‘violate their posting guidelines’.

    I think a lot of people are connecting the dots about these types of incidents which have occurred with regularity since PNAC called for ‘a new Pearl Harbor’ and lo, the WTC attacks occurred. One wonders whether a third party is pushing a war on Islam because it sure looks like it.

    Likewise, if an American naval ship in the Persian Gulf happens to blow up under mysterious circumstances, you can predict the outcome which causes Zionist wet-dreams; the scary thing is how easy “war by deception” has become of late.

    Andrew Bacevich’s current article in The Atlantic says it all: The United States Became Israel.

    • MLE says:

      The thing is YouTube has to manually check every video that’s been flagged for removal. If there’s a lot of videos, it takes time.

  35. American says:

    So Klein has changed his story on Bacile and Bacile isn’t a Israeli Jew even though Bacile said he was a Israeli Jew? Then why did he say he was in the beginning?
    I find it hard to believe first of all that Klein and Bacile worked together for a year and Klein didn’t know what or who he was.
    I find it even funnier that now the story has changed on Bacile.
    Oh well, some enterprising journo out there will find the real identity.

    Who would want to do this film to incite Muslims?
    Christian fundementalist
    Jewish Israeli Zionist
    Some cell of European right wing seperatist.
    ALQ….who I think we can rule out. They don’t bother with movies.

    Looks like the typical Geller, Emerson, Pipes operation, possibily raising funds from their European right wing comrades…..or a individual(s) copying them…BUT, those individuals had to have the contacts to raise the money for it. So I would think there were some interconnecting relationships in this effort and silent partners perhaps in the venture.

    • Denis says:

      @American: Oh well, some enterprising journo out there will find the real identity.

      That’s 95% of the problem here, isn’t it. The reporters.

      It is not clear how many “interviews” there were with this “Bacile”. Both the AP article [reporter not identified] and the WSJ [Matt Bradley and Dion Nissenbaum] shopped the story of the interview. But we don’t know if it was one or two interviews — both reports said virtually the same thing. All we know is that at some point some idiot reporter(s) had this goof-ball on the phone.

      Who initiated the call?
      Reporters don’t say.

      So where did he come from?
      Don’t say.

      Did the reporters verify who they were talking to?
      Apparently not, don’t say, and now we know he doesn’t even exist.

      How much background on this “Bacile” did they collect?
      Absolutely none, b/c there is none. It’s a phony.

      OK, so who gets the “2012 Dan Rather Duped Again Award”?
      Bradley and Nissenbaum. AP was smart enough to pander its incompetence anonymously.

      • American says:

        The FBI could find this guy, if he exist, if they wanted to.
        His phone number or at least his contact phone number was traced to a some guy’s address.
        Unless everything related to this film was done in cash, including funneling it thru Klein, receiving the backers money in cash, paying the actors in cash, buying their costumes with cash, renting whatever facilities he used in cash, renting the move house he used for the screening, if he did rent it and the theater owner wasn’t a friend in on it—then there’s a way to track him.
        Did anyone ask the actors how they were paid?
        Doesn’t look like the msm reporters are really interested in tracking this down….but occasionally some enterprizing net activist reporters do get bugged and do it. I forget who it was but when the Jewish American guy was arrested in Cuba and the tale was he was working for a USAID, it was uncovered that he had a net site for his own private foundation and fund raising org for Jewish agendas and activism abroad and that he wasn’t a direct employee of a US agency but a employess of a private contractor. Details like that matter in trying to asess what really went down.

  36. piotr says:

    I guess that the true creator is Im Bacile, not Sam Bacile.

  37. The timing seems awfully suspicious.

    “There are no accidents in politics.” ~ JFK Remark to a reporter, 1960.

  38. optimax says:

    It looks like this movie was made by Evangelical Christians who, knowing how easy it is to inflame Muslim fundies, want to jump start the Apocolypse. Copts and the Jewish group that was connected to the making the anti-Islam movie “Obssesion”, which came out in 2008, were also involved.

    OR

    it could be Carl Rove trying to make Obam look bad.

    • bilal a says:

      Now Mondoweiss is joining Blitzer in saying the RPG assasination was AQ, but AQ is fighting for NATO in syria, I dont get it. Most likely it was a small killer team sent in from abroad and left AQ tracks, or even better, Iranian complicity. They must be laughing in Tel aviv .

    • Denis says:

      Karl. As in Marx.

  39. optimax says:

    You know you’re a Jewish-Redneck when your yamika is a ’56 Chevy hubcap.

  40. piotr says:

    To me, the makers of the film exercised the right to free expression to which the best response is free expression.

    Implicating Coptic figures in this affair is a murderous type of irresponsibility. Various religious and civic figures in Egypt urged to keep protest as strictly peaceful, with religious figures condemning violence in protests as “un-Islamic”, including vandalism. In Libya it is known that some militias have al-Qaeda connections and such people probably were ready to blow a fuse for any occasion.

    Someone remarked that the first poet who compared a woman to a rose was a genius, and the second was an idiot. Personally, I bought Satanic Verses as soon as they were on the market, I liked it and I have no objection to labeling creators of juvenile follow-ups as idiots. Beside very low score on the originality of ideas, Rushdie had a story that included a person loosing his faith (and sanity, and having dream scenes that I liked but people like rulers of Islamic Republic of Iran did not). If I understand correctly, the movie basically propagates the claim that Muhammad (PBUH), unlike John of Patmos, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard etc. was not a genuine prophet. In other words, fanatics of one religion bashing another.

    It is a zero-information message. Of course if you are a fervent follower of one religion you disbelieve the validity of the prophets of other religions.

  41. Henry Norr says:

    If you haven’t seen it, check out the latest exciting installment in the Associated Press’s efforts to track down “Sam Bacile.” link to hosted.ap.org

    They got to a California Coptic Christian named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who copped (sorry!) to federal bank fraud charges in 2010. He denied that he’s “Sam Bacile,” but he acknowledged a role in making the movie, and the story presents several suggestive bits of evidence that he may be the person who posed as “Sam Bacile” – starting with his middle name, which he tried to conceal, and the fact that the cellphone number on which they reached “Bacile” is linked to the address where they found Nakoula.

    Even if “Bacile” is really Nakoula , we obviously don’t know the whole story here…

  42. RoHa says:

    “He said Bacile contacted him because he leads anti-Islam protests outside of mosques and schools, and because, he said, he is a Vietnam veteran and an expert on uncovering al Qaeda cells in California.”

    Bad writing. Is the “he” Klein all the way through, or is it Bacile some of the time. I’m guessing it’s Klein, but I shouldn’t have to.

    • bilal a says:

      Klein’s prominence in the christian militia movement in cali, his leadership of the anti mosque effort in temucla, and his appearance on the SPLC site, together with no fed interference over his 20 year hate career, suggests he is protected, a likely Fed informant and Most likely the petty criminal coptic under threat of probation is also compromised. Lets see if the AP WSJ shows photos of the coptic to the movie cast to prove its the same person, or leaves it as such. If no more reporting, then the coptic is a patsy for the Israeli nutter who made the film, to the delight of the weisenthal center which describes the israeli link accusation as ‘blood libel’.

  43. talknic says:

    Radio ABC National Australia has been calling the film anti Israel. Bizarre.

  44. wes says:

    this is how it starts
    missiles next

  45. When Americans come to understand that things have gone very bad from some clandestine activities,negligence,or omission on the part of the powerful people who should have been in the know or been more forthright and honest,or aware of the consequences, that is the time to watch who is denying any involvement.
    After promoting movie like “obsession.The Radical Islam”[Raphael Shore, a Canadian-Israeli, co-wrote and produced the film, and is the founder of The Clarion Fund, ],distributing the video on 70 news papers and showing on CNN and FOX and College Campuses, those personalities of despicable kind went to produce and feature more movies like that .Prior to that peace -envoy like Pipes cautioned the Americans that Obama could be muslim and could be assassinated for apostasy.His tribal counterpart lawyer from Califorina even mounted leagl rows connected to these issues .Park 51 Mosque controvery suddenly out of nowhere was driven by these very mind set with axes to grind :i.e demonize muslim and increase the chances of Israeli centric legislators in the election,and enlarge the blind spot on Israel. Even the worst comment that would not be allowed to describe a dog has been used by washington-DC lawyer and by other through the major media . King the horrible Islamophobe from Long Island did not just drop from the sky, he was created by this enviorment and was allowed to survive the political career by the same media who continued to wink and nod at the growing manufactured rage against muslim Since these kind of activities produced large scale backlash against mulsims in US and also in Europe and remained confined to an accecpted level of violence against the minority without disrupting the economy and the genral peace thus benefitting the violent segemnts of Israeli centric Republican and Israeli centric Democrats , the activities went unchallenged and unexplored and unpunished . The graet succees s of American freedom of expression interpreted by the Israeli-centric academics,media,and poltiicans were totued to contrast the absence of the concept in ME and Pakistan. It worked fine until Norway massacre came and then the Libyan debacle. If these killings were confined to the muslims leaders affliated with the West, the same neocons would not have even bothered to notice or issue condemnations against any insinuation or challenge the facts that these activities by figures with tribal and religious affliations to Isreal could be endangering the safety of the Western interest. For them -more the better.
    Iraq war can be viewed same way .If it went to the satifaction of the State Departmnet and the Iraqi public despite the wishes of Ledeen/Wolfowitz and his ilk ( of craetive destruction ) , these rats would have come out of the holes with the rest of the neocons to claim that the whole project from start to finish was their brainchild.

  46. Walid says:

    from al-Manar:

    “Staff and Crew of Film that Ridiculed Muslims Say They were Grossly Misled”

    The 80 cast and crew members involved in the making of the movie that has roiled much of the Islamic world said Wednesday they were “grossly misled” about its intent and expressed sorrow over the resulting violence.

    “The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer,” they said in a statement to CNN about the movie, “Innocence of Muslims.”

    “We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose,” continued the statement, which was sent to CNN by a member of the production staff who asked not to be identified for security reasons. “We are shocked by the drastic rewrites of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred.”

    Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed Tuesday in Libya amid a regional furor over the film, which mocks Islam’s prophet.

    A casting call published in July 2011 in Backstage magazine and in other publications for actors identifies the working title of the movie as “Desert Warrior” and describes it as a “historical Arabian Desert adventure film.”

    An actress in the film who asked not to be identified said the original script did not include a Prophet Muhammed character. She added that she and other actors complained that their lines had been changed.

    The actress said she spoke Wednesday with the producer, who is identified in the advertisement as Sam Bassiel. “He said he wrote the script because he wants the Muslims to quit killing,” she said. “I had no idea he was doing all this.”

    “I would never be involved in a film to ever hurt or bring harm to anybody,” she told CNN. “This makes me sick to my stomach to think that I was involved in that movie that brought death to somebody else.”

    The actress said the character of Muhammed in the movie was identified as George when it was shot, and that she returned afterward and read other lines that may have been dubbed into the piece.

    A member of the production staff who worked directly on the film and has a copy of the original script corroborated the actor’s account, adding that it mentions neither Muhammed nor Islam.

    link to almanar.com.lb

  47. MRW says:

    Watch Dr. Brzezinski on Morning Joe this AM. First time I got the sense that Andrea Mitchell is backing Romney:
    link to msnbc.msn.com

    • seanmcbride says:

      MRW,

      Brzezinski’s remarks were cogent as usual — and focused like a laser beam on the American interest. The consensus view in this discussion: Romney needs to rid himself of the neocon advisers who wrecked the Bush/Cheney administration and who are destroying his candidacy.

    • Kathleen says:

      Mitchell is so pro Israel no matter what they do she can barely see straight.

      Just wondering if the Dept of Justice will open up a deep investigation into this piece of trash which is essentially a hate crime. Will they investigate? Who produced, who funded, and who are these actors?

    • Ellen says:

      That was a fascinating exchange on many levels. Brzezinski stating — in so many words – that the Israeli PM has a history of bullying and intimidating the POTUS, which means the US and all Americans. Joe asking the critical questions for once. It was serious stuff for morning TV. Never would have happend just a few months ago.

      And somethingnimread this morning ever ever could had been said a few short years ago, let alone received so much support in the NY Times. One of the most popular reader pics and even and editor’s pic. It stated:
      link to nytimes.com

      From Bill in Bejing:

      ….we are at war with the Islamic word, despite our complete lack of reason for that conflict other than to help Israel in its own most likely futile struggle.

      And yet Israel complains. And yet Bibi criticizes the US for being soft. And yet Adelson talks of his $100 million to finance an electoral defeat of President Obama, who has been a good friend to Israel, as all Presidents are, as all Presidents have to be.

      It is time that the US realizes that this is madness to follow Israel down its path toward destruction.

      Lights are going off in the mind of the public very fast.

      Will Israel be ready for the transition, to be a real country on its own? Or will it lash out and complain that it is a victim of others as it continues on its path of destruction?

  48. seafoid says:

    Who is Bacile? It all sounds like a Tarantino movie crossed with Die Hard.

    • seanmcbride says:

      seafoid,

      I am betting that Sam Bacile is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. The big question now is this: what are Nakoula’s political and financial connections? The mainstream media should be all over that issue.

      • Walid says:

        Nakoula is Arabic for Nicholas. There’s a Nick Basile on the net that produces and directs short films but he too appears to be as mysterious as Nakoula Bacile.

      • seafoid says:

        Sean

        I think Basseley is a basil plant beside a window and that is as credible as your theory.

        • seanmcbride says:

          seafoid,

          In support of my theory:

          link to newsfeed.time.com

          According to law enforcement officials on Thursday, Nakoula has been confirmed as the writer and director of Innocence of Muslims. Tracked down Wednesday at his Los Angeles-area home by the Associated Press, the man identified himself as “Nakoula Nakoula.” When the AP asked to see his driver’s license for confirmation, Nakoula held his thumb over his middle name, “Basseley” — phonetically similar to the “Bacile” pseudonym.

          During the interview, Nakoula denied having any connection to or even knowing Bacile, explaining instead that he only managed logistics for the film. But the Associated Press discovered that the cell phone number used by the man who identified himself as Bacile to the press is registered to the same address where a reporter found Nakoula. His other aliases, according to federal court papers, include Nicola Bacily and Erwin Salameh.

          Also see this:

          link to bostonglobe.com

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      Please don’t insult Tarantino or Die Hard by comparing them to this garbage.

      • Walid says:

        I saw 5 minutes of it and it was one insult after another to the Muslim religion. I can see why the rioters went crazy and I’m not religious. This is much much worse than the cartoons controversy. I can’t help thinking that only Israel could be behind this.

        • ColinWright says:

          Walid says: “…I can’t help thinking that only Israel could be behind this.”

          I’m beginning to veer towards two alternate but related theories.

          1. This trailer was produced and held until the time was right: then dubbed into Arabic and released to set up the hits.

          2. This trailer was authentically made independently — somebody’s little ‘Islam hate’ project that just never got off the ground. Mossad noticed it and put it to good use: had it dubbed into Arabic and posted to set up their attack.

          Either way, following the ‘money trail’ in the US is more likely to be a red herring than not. If (1), you can bet the trail goes cold somewhere. If (2), then all you find out is that yes, there are a lot of Islamophobes in the US. In fact, even if the trailer was purpose-made, you could probably drum up the funds by passing the hat around the Islam-hate circle. You’d never have to say exactly what use was going to be made of it.

        • seafoid says:

          Why would anyone want to rile one sixth of humanity ?

          What would be the point of making a film denigrating Shiva and Parvathi ?

          If Israel wants a jihad against Islam there will be one winner and it won’t be the side with the kippot.

        • ritzl says:

          Speaking of 1/6 of humanity and Hindu gods, here’s what happened when the show Xena merely “fictionalized” (not denigrated or blasphemed) the gods of a living religion:

          link to lisatsering.tripod.com

          Protests, threatened boycotts, and, omg, an actual thoughtful (albeit balanced by commerce…) and maybe meaningful response to them.

          None of this “suck it, savages” that seems to be par in the Islamophobe world.

          Politics/power and commerce, to be sure, serve different [immediate] masters, but the angry response to even the Xena story arc suggests, to me anyway, that the anger is commensurate with the level of intentional antagonism involved – and that that function is not at all limited to Islam. It’s just that Islam gets by far the most unrepentantly repeated, nasty (and therefore if you’re watching from afar, acceptable) treatment in the US.

          Since exposure to US culture is near universal, at some point the repetitiousness of the slights/denigration of Islam probably hits a very big popular nerve. A “storm/burn the embassy” nerve (Egypt), NOT a “kill those inside” nerve (Libya). Libya seems to have been planned.

  49. Steve Klein, the consultant on the film does business with someone he met for an hour and apparently the only things he knows about him is that he is not Israeli and not Jewish.
    Where did they meet, the restroom on the interstate?

    Certainly the film’s intent was to provoke a backlash and Klein points the finger at the Coptic Christians who would only bear the brunt of the retaliation in Egypt. Steve isn’t telling the truth.

  50. bilal a says:

    Sam Basile is not Coptic. Recall that an actress described the director as having white hair. This director , Sam Basile, may be Jimmy Israel, not a coptic, who works in the film industry and in real estate , as the AP/WSJ first described hime; any followup from AP yet? as reported here:

    “When Nakoula’s anti-Muslim movie was filmed, the script did not mention Muhammed and bore the title “Desert Warrior.” An actress involved with the production, Cindy Lee Garcia, has come forward to denounce the thirteen minute segment of the film that appeared on YouTube. She also provided a copy of the original casting call, which offers a clue as to another shady individual involved with this bizarre production. Interested parties were directed to contact this email address: [email protected].

    Believe it or not, there really is a person in Hollywood who calls himself Jimmy Israel. You can write to him at [email protected] and [email protected]. Here’s his webpage.

    Even though he’s trolling for screenplays, he advertises himself as running — you guessed it — a real estate company. Actually, he refers to his company as a group of “financer/investors.”

    As you may recall, “Sam Bacile” originally claimed to be in the real estate business. So now I’m wondering: Is “Sam Bacile” a pseudonym for Nakoula Nakoula or Jimmy Israel — or both? Perhaps Nakoula worked with Jimmy in the same office…”

    link to cannonfire.blogspot.com

    • bilal a says:

      Egyptian journalist on the mossad angle, any news on Sam Basile, Jimmy Israel yet ?

      link to english.ahram.org.eg

    • bilal a says:

      Jimmy Israel denies he is Sam Basile , and refuses to name his friend who organized the film originally, and the Buzzfeed reporter wonders if its an intelligence operation. Jimmy ISRAEL does not describe himself as Jewish or anti-Muslim, but attended seminars on the Muslim threat :

      Israel, who identifies as a “pacifist” liberal with no affiliation to organized religions, and who claims to have no strong opinions about Islam, despite having heard some “alarming” things about the Quran at “seminars,” says he supports freedom of religion and expression. “You don’t want to go too far,” he told me, “and maybe this did.”

      link to buzzfeed.com

    • seanmcbride says:

      Do you have any hard evidence connecting Jimmy Israel to Israel and Mossad?

      I wouldn’t even begin to start spinning conspiracy theories about this incident before nailing that down.

      Has it been nailed down?

      (Oh, wait: his surname is Israel! :))

      My reaction when I took the trouble to view the video was that it was much too crude, inept and childish to be the handiwork of Mossad or Jews, who are very competent and skilled at producing propaganda. This looks like the shoddy crap typically produced by Christian fundamentalists and extremists — cretinous stuff. Ugh. It makes Pamela Geller’s rants almost look halfway smart.

    • Mooser says:

      Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t fewer people, less than half, die in this “riot” than died (and all women, too) in the latest drone attacks?

  51. cogit8 says:

    A general observation concerning relative sensitivity: Everyone on the planet is aware of the oversensitivity of Jews towards goy ‘outside’ criticism, mocking, insinuating, etc. Of course, their mental state reduces to ‘you goys owe us special treatment because of how we were treated in the middle ages’ (with it’s unspoken accusation that it was you guys ancestors that did it).

    So what we have today as a result of the above is not a level playing field: the Jews (and their simpleton (Coptic) agents) can make whatever outrageous statements they wish about Muslims in the name of “freedom of speech”, whereas any entity making equal statements about Jews can expect to be accused of breaking multiple laws, being a racist Jew-hater, and being fair game for the attack dog Dersh’s of the world.

    As I’ve said before, YouTube is a prime example of sophistry regarding freedom of speech. Clearly, the Islamic world is telling us that this film and these cartoons are hateful and disrespectful of their religion. That alone should be sufficient to get the material removed; hopefully the world will become more understanding of one another.