I am putting this question out there, because of information that I have seen regarding the film that caused the protest that has ended in the death of the US Ambassador to Libya. I am by no means certain that this is a blood libel but I am smelling a very big set-up meaning that this could have been an Al Qaeda plot. Here are my reasons for thinking that way:
1. “Pastor” Terry Jones, is the type of person who is ripe to be used by Al Qaeda as a means to cause a situation that could blow up into a full blown war. This probably sounds like a very harsh assessment of Jones, but please hear me out. Jones has been getting his 15 minutes of fame by doing things like burning a Koran. This has the fundamentalist Salafist Muslims very angry. I have no doubt that they would be looking for the means of a “pay-back”. Like a fool, Jones associated himself with the making of this documentary.
2. The film producer is Egyptian. The question that needs to be asked is whether or not the man is a Coptic Christian Egyptian or is in fact a Muslim. The first information that I heard about the documentary happened to be that it was the work of Coptic Christians in the USA. However, wait there is more, I then heard that the producer was a Jew and that he got his funding from other Jews, but this has been denied.
3. This brings me to the next point which is why I am beginning to think that this was a blood libel. The point here is that it has been rumoured that the producer is a Jew and that he got funding from Jews in the USA for his documentary.
Can you see the set-up that is going on here? First the documentary is made in the USA which immediately implicates the USA for its production. Second, it is claimed to be the work of Coptic Christian Egyptians thus the Copts are maligned yet again. Third, is the involvement of Terry Jones of Florida, thus further implicating Christian Americans in the production of the documentary. Fourth, there is the implication that in fact the film producer is a Jew, which in turn implicates the Jews in what is seen to be a blasphemous movie.
One source that I have read pointed out that the documentary looks like it has been dubbed. The “actors” are saying something entirely different from what is being stated by the voice over. The actors appeared to be mouthing something like “George” and instead the people viewing the documentary are hearing “the prophet Mohammed” etc. etc. This is the kind of information that has me thinking that this was a well planned set up that was meant to be a blood libel against both the Coptic Christians and Jews. It is an attempt to kill two birds with the one stone.
Who then could be behind this documentary? I am going out on a very big limb to state that I actually think that Al Qaeda is behind the documentary. I have my reasons for thinking this is the case:
1. The release date and the protest in Cairo and in Benghazi coincides with a very important date, September 11, which is the anniversary of the declaration of war by Al Qaeda against America as the twin towers of the World Trade Centre were brought down. I do not think that this was merely coincidental. I think it was deliberate.
2. My second reason is based upon the fact that the protesters, especially in Benghazi are Salafists, and these are the group that are aligned to Al Qaeda. The leaders of Libya have distanced themselves from the Salafists, and I must add here that the people of Libya also distanced themselves when they voted to not give them a representative voice in the determination of their move towards self-government after the reign of the dictator Moammar Gadhafi. I will also point out that the people who killed Gadhafi and his son were also Salafists.
I base my second point here on information that I saw from a third party in Benghazi at the time that the whole shebang erupted last year. The people of Benghazi got involved at the point when those who were protesting were being mowed down by Gadhafi’s goons. The protestors were being killed during their funeral processions, and as more were killed, more people joined in. Even the man who breached the wall of the fort by blowing up his car that he was driving, was motivated less by jihad as he was motivated against those who were killing fellow citizens (it was his private jihad because he had rejected the other kind of jihad). That source had shown pictures of elderly people in Benghazi and its surrounds who were extremely grateful that NATO enforced the No Fly Zone. They were not out to hurt anybody at all, and in fact even the pilots who crash landed had nothing to worry about because the people who came to rescue them were very thankful for what they were doing. HOWEVER, even though the majority were like that, there remained a sub-group who were Salafists, and they had other ideas.
One of the reasons that the civil war in Libya lasted so many months was the fact that there was this disparity between the way that people think, and there was a disparity in the purpose for the fighting. In some ways the people were forced to accept the Salafists. The outcome was he death of General Yousef (although I actually think that he was going to end up being killed as a spy anyway), since it appeared that he had been summarily executed. The Salafists were the ones who were videoing their own hideous crimes. There had always been noises that there were some atrocities, and you can be sure that those committing those crimes were Al Qaeda link. What I do not know is whether or not Qatar was involved with the Salafists, and the reason that I bring this up is that Qatar, despite backing the rebels, was a loser when the people rejected the Salafist party during the elections. They also rejected the Muslim Brotherhood Party which was called something like Peace and Justice. This is just a thought about possible motivation and where it might have originated.
After Gadhafi had been captured, and I have to add here that the leadership moved themselves to Tripoli, the Salafists became bold in Benghazi and actually flew the Al Qaeda flag from the Court House. I cannot say for certain that the leadership ever approved of such a thing. Somehow I doubt that they did approve of this action.
If as I am thinking, Al Qaeda was involved in the production of the documentary, then it is possible that Al Qaeda planned this to the point that the US embassy in either Cairo or Benghazi would be invaded. The Salafists in Egypt did in fact breach the embassy in Cairo. From what I have read, the Libyan security detail had moved Stephens and his staff out of the Embassy but someone pointed out where they had been taken. The crowd used a hand-grenade and other weapons during the attack. Ambassador Stephens and his staff were overcome by smoke during the attack… and the rest is history.
This whole action has been performed by what I call very hardcore people, and that is why I suspect to the point of claiming that those who protested at the embassy were Salafists and that they are associated via their ideological bent to Al Qaeda. I am almost ready to believe that the attack was so well planned that it was an Al Qaeda operation that was disguised as a protest using that blood libel documentary as the pretext.
This action is not a declaration of war by Libya as some people such as Pamela Geller have been claiming. I am prepared to make this bold statement because the man who is the interim President in Libya has already stepped forward to make a proper apology for what has taken place. I really do believe in the sincerity of the people who have formed government in Libya. They are not to blame for what took place. I do, however, blame the members of the security detail who failed to protect the American Ambassador and his staff.