A new blood libel?


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.

Advertisements

4 responses to “A new blood libel?

  1. This is a VERY GOOD example of why to be WORRIED!

    Things are VERY WEIRD right now – and having a President that we cannot trust (hell, we don’t even know who he really is, nor where his major loyalties lie), is making matters MUCH WORSE. If nothing else, it muddies the waters significantly.

    I think you are way out on a limb with these theories. But that does not make them wrong. You are right to ask these questions. These days, NOTHING IS AS IT SEEMS. We cannot even count on the ‘independent’ mainstream media to ask any hard questions or conduct any investigations. Even the conservatives seem paralyzed – for reasons unknown. Perhaps it is as simple as being afraid of Race Riots, but it is likely something (unknown to we mere mortals) else entirely.

    That too is obviously way out on a limb – but nobody has yet come forward with a good explanation of why EVERYBODY (democrat leaders, republicans, MSM, conservative press and radio, everybody!) just rolled over, spread their cheeks, and said, “insert it here. PLEASE”.

    Something as yet totally unexplained is happening. I know not what. But I do KNOW it is happening.

    Like

  2. I managed to read one of the daily newspapers today and I do think that there is something to my own suspicions. The newspaper report pointed the most likely links to Al Qaeda and that this was a planned operation. Yes I am very worried because this gives the people of Benghazi a very bad name. On top of that I saw a very minute portion of the documentary in question. It is an extremely poorly produced documentary and it is quite obvious that there is a dubbed voice over. In fact what the actors are saying bears no relationship to what the dubbed voice states. This has me feeling very suspicious that the whole thing was a plant. The mere fact that they had the heavier weapons handy is evidence that they attempted to stir up the protest as a pretext to invade the US Embassy. I have no doubt that they had cased the Embassy and considered that it would be easy to breach and to capture the Ambassador and his staff.

    Like I have tried to indicate, I think that Terry Jones was used because of his naivety over Islam. The fact that he has a particular attitude has made him a target for blood libel. He fell for the trap. The documentary is poorly acted. The film itself is shoddy. The actors are mouthing the word George, and one woman who played a role said that she was acting in something about George which happened 2000 years ago. In other words the Egyptian producer lied to the actors, but it does not matter because Mohammed did not exist until the 7th century so that the whole thing is a lie. Then there was the rumour that the producer was a Jew and that he got money from other Jews to produce the documentary. This is yet another blood libel that was meant to hurt Israel. It is simply too obvious, espcially after the Palliwood blood libel which has now been aired: The Palestinian boy who was the subject of a claim that he was killed in the crossfire very likely did not die. It was a set up by the Palestinians to lay blame on the Israeli soldiers. The boy and his father were crouching in a position when they could have gotten away. The case was a big one in France and eventually the person who noted that it was a hoax won his case on the matter. I am suggesting that this is precisely what has taken place with this documentary. The whole thing is nothing more than a hoax.

    I saw a news report that showed the women of Benghazi displaying signs, saying that they were sorry. I believe them to be very sincere. However, that does not make me feel any easier.

    I agree with you that the man in the White House has to be removed. I have not felt this worried since Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan. Carter was an absolute fool during his Presidency, and it was thanks to him that Khomenei was able to seize power in Iran. Carter has a lot to answer for when he betrayed the people of Iran in that way.

    In fact there is a lot of similarity to the things that happened in 1979 when the Shah of Iran was removed from Iran. By this I mean that the people had good reason to want to get rid of the Shah. He was brutal and many of them had suffered at his hands. Their protests were very real at the time, and they gathered momentum. In 2009 the people failed in their objectives because muggins refused to condemn the violence against the people as well as the obvious voter fraud.

    Then last year was the beginning of what is known as the Arab Spring. Tunisia was the first. I do not know if the people there understood what they were doing, but they wanted to get rid of the dictator. Who are we to object to their desires. The Tunisian Ennhada Party is quite mild in comparison to the Egyptian group. However, in both cases the Salafists have been held back to some degree. The problem is that in Egypt the Salafists polled very well when they had elections. The left did not fare very well in those elections and of course Muslim Brotherhood did better. The problem with the Muslim Brotherhood happens to be their aims which are similar to those of Khamenei in Iran. Since both are Shia in origin, there is a very real danger from what would happen if they unite.

    Libya was always a different story. Gadhafi was always a very evil man. I was not fooled by his pretence of being reformed. He was not, and the proof is the fact that he was funding terrorism in Africa, and he was supply guns and other equipment to groups that are also linked to Al Qaeda. Yes, it was Gadhafi who was doing all of that supplying. From everything I read about the NTC I saw that there was a very real effort to keep Al Qaeda out of Libya and out of their business. This is why they were adamant that there were to be no NATO boots on the ground. What they could not control happened to be the minority Salafist groups with whom they made an alliance in the effort to get rid of Gadhafi. It was like an unholy alliance. The real problems occurred when the various militias refused to disband. It remains a problem in Libya and I try to keep an eye out for news stories relating to their activities. What is important to note is that the people did in fact vote against the Salafists and Muslim Brotherhood. It is not true to say that Libya is run by Muslim Brotherhood. The party that got the most votes in that election is a moderate form of Islam with links to neither Muslim Brotherhood or the Salafists.

    What took place was not sanctioned by the Libyan government. The Libyan government has not declared war on the USA. However, think about this: who would want to create a situation where Libya ended up having a ruptured relationship with the rest? The answer is Al Qaeda, and yes perhaps even Iran. The Libyans are not friends with Iran.

    I continue to worry about both Syria and Yemen. Neither state has been able to come to a proper conclusion. The Yemen civil war continues to grind on with no resolution. Once again, this is a situation where Al Qaeda have tried to gain control of the state, but have so far failed in the objectives. The same is true with Syria. What I fear about Syria happens to be the fact that it has been simmering too long, and this has given Al Qaeda an unexpected opportunity to try and seize control. Not everyone fighting against Assad are Salafist. That is why I have been at pains to point out that Assad is up against members of the Ba’ath Party. For all intents and purposes Syria is in the midst of a civil war, and it is a civil war that could have been avoided except that Doofus gave them the green light to oust Assad. If the Syrians are finally successful in their attempt to oust Assad then that is not my business. However, I will worry about their allegiances, especially if they shift from Iran and ally themselves with Al Qaeda.

    The world needs as President a man who will stand up to these people, not someone who bends over and does a lot of arse licking… actually from what I have heard he likes to have a lot of cock sucking by old white men.

    Like

  3. Oh YEAH, THAT will happen!

    Check out this video.

    In it he says he traveled all over during college. Official records seem to indicate that he only traveled ONCE, to Pakistan. Also, the details have been hidden because it is suspected he traveled with a foreign passport.

    He also said, recently, at a campaign rally that he was born to a single mother. Michelle has also said that before during formal interviews. His official narrative (putatively written by himself) says his mother was married to BHO Sr. (And, if not before, it certainly did not happen later). This again casts doubt as to his actual father.

    Can we trust ANYTHING this fraud says???????

    Regardless of all the “conspiracy theories”, “birthers”, etc. etc. It is becoming more and more apparent that:

    Barrack Hussein Obama does not exist.
    That Cartoon Character is totally manufactured.
    And some flash-talkin’ street hustler is acting that part.

    Are we OK with that??????????????????

    Like

  4. Carlye we cannot trust him. To me, the critical thing had been his stand on partial birth abortion. Then I learned other things about the man, and I always saw that he was not fit to be the President.

    At the same time, Hillary Clinton has proved that she is not fit to be President either. Her role as Secretary of State has proved that she does not have he ability for the job.

    Obama constantly changes his story. He did not write that book. It was ghost written by William Ayers the man behind the Weather Underground. Both you and I know all about the Weather Underground and their terrorism.

    Like