When it comes to the Benghazi attacks, the evidence against Egypt and its former president Mohammed Mursi is overwhelming. Based on that newly discovered reality that the Obama administration must have known, the administration didn’t just cover up for Ansar al-Sharia; it covered for Mursi too. Not only did it cover up for Mursi but it pushed the lie that the Innocence of Muslims video was responsible. Therefore, if the Obama administration knowingly pushed a lie instead of what it knew to be true, shouldn’t we know why that lie was pushed?
Conventional wisdom has said that the administration pointed to the video because the truth didn’t jibe with its campaign rhetoric on the eve of an election, which said that al-Qaeda was on the run. The truth very well may be that the administration would much rather you believe that than what the real truth is.
Let’s go back to an article that appeared in the Washington Times on October 8, 2012, entitled ANTI-MUSLIM moviemaker may have jihadist ties by Jessica Chasmar:
The YouTube video that spawned a wave of violent protests across the Islamic world might be more than a crude exercise in anti-Muslim propaganda.
Walid Shoebat, a Middle East pundit and reformed terrorist, says there is reason to believe that the “Innocence of Muslims” video was a hoax designed to spark the huge outpouring of Muslim rage that it did.
Shoebat, who claims he is related to a man who was involved in criminal activities with one of the video’s producers, knows something about terrorists. He says he used to be one — a radicalized Muslim who, in his own words, was “willing to die for the cause of jihad.” He has since converted to Christianity and lives in the United States, where he writes and lectures widely on the Islamic terror threat.
Shoebat grew up in Beit Sahour near Bethlehem in the Palestinian Arab territories. So did Eiad Salameh, a man Shoebat says is his cousin. Shoebat says Salameh was a partner in crime with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of the YouTube video, which has acted as a fuse igniting an explosion of Muslim anger directed toward the West.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was first identified as Sam Bacile, the name he used to upload the video to YouTube. To the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 12, he claimed to be a real estate developer, an Israeli Jew who had raised “$5 million from 100 Jewish donors.” The Associated Press quickly reported he was not an Israeli, but in fact Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (that, too, may turn out to be a pseudonym, as he told a judgeSept. 27 that his real name was Mark Basseley Youssef). Taken in for questioning by L.A. sheriff’s deputies on Sept. 15, he at first denied any involvement with the film, but then said he was the writer and director. And he was not Jewish but an Egyptian Coptic Christian.
If Nakoula was willing to lie about being Jewish, would it not stand to reason that he was willing to lie about being a Copt? Chasmar writes the following a little bit later in the article:
The connection between Salameh and Nakoula is key to understanding the very real possibility that “Innocence of Muslims” was a Muslim project. Salameh, the Smoking Gun website reported Sept. 14, is “a notorious fraudster who has been tracked for more than a decade by state and federal investigators.”
The Justice Department apparently knew Salameh was a bad actor. In arguing for leniency for Nakoula in 2010, Justice Department lawyers said in court documents, “We all know what’s gonna happen. Salamay [Salameh] is gonna get arrested someday and based on the debriefing information turned over, he is gonna enter a guilty plea.” The Los Angeles Police Department had been investigating Salameh until 2008 but handed over the investigation to the FBI’s Santa Ana, Calif., office when it was informed of an ongoing federal investigation. Salameh was eventually arrested in Canada for presenting a stolen passport and deported to the Palestinian territories.
“He hates Copts with a passion and he would never deal with Copts, and here he’s dealing with Copts,” Shoebat said of his cousin’s involvement with Nakoula. “All my life he talked about how he hated the Copts. What was he doing in bed with a Copt? … It just doesn’t add up.”
The converse is also true. Why would an Islam-hating Copt (Nakoula said “Islam is a cancer” in his interview with the Wall Street Journal) partner with a Copt-hating Muslim?
What is not mentioned in that excerpt but what Walid will tell you is that Canadian officials made several attempts to get the Feds to take Salameh but the Feds refused, which is the reason Canadian officials sent Salameh to the Palestinian territories. This is another blatant inconsistency. Why would Eric Holder’s Justice Department refuse to take Salameh on a silver platter when the reason Nakoula was given leniency was to help them get Salameh?
We know the Obama administration knew within hours that Ansar al-Sharia was involved in the Benghazi attacks; we know that they intentionally pointed to a video as being responsible; we know they covered up Egypt’s involvement; we know the ginned up outrage over the video began in Egypt.
Based on all of the inconsistencies highlighted by Walid in Chesmar’s article, finding out more about who was really behind the anti-Muhammad video is long overdue.
Be sure to read Chasmar’s entire article.
Via Shoebat Blog.
Kerry: Israeli settlements not obstacle to peace
Tuesday, July 02, 2013 | Israel Today Staff
The Palestinian Authority and its supporters around the world regularly single out Jewish “settlements” on the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria as, if not the sole, then certainly the primary obstacle to peace.
But US Secretary of State John Kerry said before his departure from the region earlier this week that, in fact, Jewish settlements are not the primary obstacle to peace.
During a noisy press conference at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport on Sunday, Kerry was asked if Israel’s failure to fully impose a Jewish building freeze in compliance with Palestinian demands was the reason he had yet to succeed in getting the two sides back to the negotiating table.
"The answer is no," Kerry stated emphatically, adding that "there are any number of obstacles, but we are working through them."
In fact, the original “Oslo” accords never prohibited Jews from building homes in Judea and Samaria, though the Palestinians often claim otherwise. In later agreements, Israel committed to not building new Jewish communities, but always insisted on allowing natural growth of exiting towns.
‘Sharia permits us to have dealings with Israelites’
Tuesday, July 02, 2013 | Connie Fieraru
These were the words of Hammad Al-Dosari, one of Kuwait’s independent members of parliament, during an interview with Al-Adala TV last week. The legislator noted that “the Prophet Muhammad died while his shield was mortgaged with a Jew.”
Al-Dosari believes that it is justified purchasing military equipment from the “Zionists” in order to strengthen Kuwait’s security against her Arab-Muslim neighbors.
Al-Dosari’s colleague, MP Nabil al-Fadhl, added that “if the security of Kuwait requires the purchase of Israeli equipment, I will do so, and I will love the Israelis for it.”
It is important to note that Israel and Kuwait do not enjoy diplomatic relations.
One could wonder, if the shoe were on the other foot (and it often is), would these Arab lawmakers uphold Israel’s right to do whatever necessary for national security? Unfortunately, as has been seen time and time again, there tends to be a double standard.
The Kuwaiti lawmakers’ remarks can also be seen in light of the looming Iranian threat, which affects the Gulf states at least as much as Israel.
The advert features a hijab-clad woman – with just her eyes visible through the slits in her veil – one of which is blackened and bloodshot.
The slogan simply reads: “Some things can’t be covered – fighting women’s abuse together.”
Saudi Arabia’s first anti-domestic abuse advert
The campaign is backed by the King Khalid Charitable Foundation and aims to “provide legal protection for women and children from abuse in Saudi Arabia.”
In literature for the advert, it admits “the phenomenon of battered women in Saudi Arabia is much greater than apparent”, and encourages Saudis to report cases of violence at locations around the Kingdom including Madinah, Najran, Makkah and Riyadh.
The campaign is progress indeed for a country where women are not permitted to drive, and where religious police only recently lifted a ban on females riding motorbikes and bicycles – as long as they wear the full-length veil and are accompanied by a male relative.
The Gulf Kingdom is governed by Sharia law, and it is illegal for Saudi women to travel abroad without male accompaniment. They may only do so if their guardian agrees by signing a document know as a ‘yellow sheet’ at an airport or border crossing.
It was only in 2011 that women were given the right to vote and run for office in municipal elections in 2015.
The foundation backing the ad was established in 2001 by the family of the late King Khalid, who ruled from 1975 until his death in 1982.
It was, according to Blessed Islam, a “key player in the introduction to the “Women and Child Abuse Prevention Law”, making it the first time legislation developed and proposed by an NGO has been adopted by the Kingdom’s government.
Domestic violence statistics in the country are hazy at best, due to a societal system which accepts the right of the male to govern unconditionally.
The World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report in 2012 ranked Saudi Arabia 131st out of 134 countries for gender equality.
Back in 2008, Jeddah-based psychologist Samira Al-Ghamdi told Arab News: “Society clings to its ways and people refuse to change. Too many people view the efforts to stop abuse of women and children as defiance of social rules that have been established for centuries.”
Here’s hoping she’s wrong and that this campaign will smooth the way for positive change.
Sadly Samira Al-Ghamdi is far from wrong. No amount of campaigns made against domestic violence will end the systematic abuse of women and children in a society whose religion not only allows but demands the punishment of women who are deemed disobedient to Sharia law. Women are beated or abused for the most minor infractions or even simply being married to a man who takes pleasure in physically abusing his wife who is often married at the age of 15 or 16 and used simply as a sex toy only for her husbands sadistic pleasure. If a woman refuses to submit to such abuse she often locked away in a soundproof padded room for the rest of her life as a form of “merciful” punishment. In other cases she is drowned by her father with the supervision of a mutawa (saudi religious police). -ToT
An image of a conference in Saudi Arabia on the topic of “women in society” – with not a single female present - has gone viral.
The picture features row upon row of men in traditional headscarves and white thobes. A single Westerner in a flannel shirt is the only person breaking up an otherwise uniform sea of what appear to be Arab men.
The conference on the subject of ‘women in society’ was notable for its lack of women
The conference was reportedly held at the University of Qassim and was apparently attended by representatives of 15 countries.
Much is being made of absurdity and hypocrisy of the image, but when you consider Saudi Arabia is a country where women are not permitted to drive, it seems less so.
Religious police in the Gulf Kingdom which is governed by Sharia Law only recently lifted a ban on females riding motorbikes and bicycles – as long as they wear the full-length veil and are accompanied by a male relative.
It is illegal for Saudi women to travel abroad without male accompaniment. They may only do so if their guardian agrees by signing a document know as a ‘yellow sheet’ at an airport or border crossing.
In November 2012 it emerged women were being electronically monitored with authorities using SMS to track them and inform their husbands of their whereabouts.
And it was only in 2011 that women were given the right to vote and run for office in municipal elections in 2015.
Muslims attending the German Islam Conference were apparently offended by the insinuation that Islam could be radical or violent.
A major conference on German-Muslim relations has ended in failure after Muslims attending the event refused to acknowledge the government’s concerns about the threats to security posed by radical Islam.
German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich had wanted the eighth annual German Islam Conference, held in Berlin on May 7, to focus on finding ways the government could work together with “moderate” Muslims in Germany to combat Islamism and extremism.
But Muslims attending the gathering were apparently offended by the insinuation that Islam could be radical or violent, and demanded instead that the German government take steps to make “Islam equal to Christianity” in Germany.
The German Islam Conference was launched by former Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble in 2006, and has been billed as the “central forum for dialogue” between German politicians and representatives of the estimated 4.3 million Muslims now living in Germany.
The stated aim of the annual event — where Muslim organizations and individuals are invited to sit at the table with representatives from federal, state and local government — is to promote Muslim integration into German society.
This year’s event was focused around three main themes: institutional cooperation between Muslims and the German state; gender equality as a common value, and prevention of extremism, radicalization and social polarization.
Muslims attending the conference evidently wanted to focus only on the first theme, which included “promoting the introduction of comprehensive Islamic religious instruction in public schools, including through conferences and publications.” Although the government has already made many concessions in this regard, Muslims complained about German “interference” in selecting the teachers who provide Islam training in German schools.
In respect to the second theme — gender equality — the German government had hoped to find solutions to the problems of honor violence and forced marriage. But Muslims refused even to acknowledge any connection between Islam and forced marriage. Instead, they managed to turn the gender issue on its head by demanding that German employers promise not to discriminate against Muslim women who want to wear burkas to work.
The third theme — the prevention of Islamic extremism and radicalization — undoubtedly caused the most controversy at this year’s conference.
Interior Minister Friedrich had been hoping to enlist the support and cooperation of Muslims at the conference to help in the fight against the radicalization of young Muslims in Germany.
Since taking office in 2011, Friedrich has led Germany’s multifaceted response (here, here and here) to the rise of radical Islam there. Friedrich and other German security officials are increasingly concerned about the threat posed by home-grown terrorists inspired by Islamic extremists, who openly state that they want to establish Islamic Sharia law in Germany and across Europe. (A recent poll found that more than half of all Germans view Islam as a threat to their country and believe it does not belong in the Western world.)
But Muslims were perceptibly furious when Friedrich refused to give in to their demands to drop discussion of security-related aspects of Islam at this year’s conference.
The director of inter-religious dialogue at the Turkish-Islamic Union for Islamic Affairs [Türkisch-Islamische Union der Anstalt für Religion (DITIB)], Bekir Alboga, complained that Friedrich had rendered the conference “pointless” by bringing “security policy themes too far to the fore.” Alboga said the German Islam Conference “makes no more sense in its current form. I do not see any genuine partnership.” He added that “we [Muslims] do not want to be seen as being a security factor.”
In a speech he delivered at the conference, Alboga used logical gymnastics to blame Germany of promoting “extremism and radicalization” by not doing enough to stop “Islamophobia.”
Later, in an interview with the German news agency Deutsche Welle, Alboga said he was hoping that German Chancellor Angela Merkel would be defeated in federal elections in September 2013 so that the Muslim-German dialogue could continue in a more positive way with a new government led by the more Muslim-friendly Social Democrats. “I yearn for a real partnership,” he said.
It should be noted that Alboga’s DITIB is a branch of the Turkish government, which controls over 900 mosques in Germany. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long used DITIB to dissuade Turkish immigrants from integrating into German society.
Alboga’s complaints were echoed by the Secretary-General of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany [Zentralrats der Muslime in Deutschland (ZMD)], Aiman Mazyek, who said the Islam conference “urgently needs a general overhaul” because it is not a “dialogue among equals.”
The head of the Turkish Community in Germany [Türkische Gemeinde in Deutschland (TGD)], Kenan Kolat, called on the German government to create a new Integration Ministry that would take the responsibility for organizing the German Islam Conference away from the Interior Ministry.
The director of the Islamic Council of Germany [Islamrats für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (IR)], Ali Kizilkaya, described the German Islam Conference as “a train heading in the wrong direction” because the event is built on “security concerns and mistrust.”
The center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), eager to court disgruntled Muslim voters in a desperate bid to unseat Merkel this fall, has jumped on the anti-Friedrich bandwagon with enthusiasm.
The Interior Minister of Lower Saxony, the SPD’s Boris Pistorius, accused Friedrich of fomenting “Islamophobia” by making “insensitive comments.” Pistorius said the original goal of the German Islam Conference “was to talk about Islam” but Friedrich and his predecessor, Thomas de Maizière, changed the focus to “security and terrorism” and this shift has “alienated” Muslim participants. Pistorius said that after the federal elections, a victorious SPD would re-conceptualize the conference by “carefully separating the concepts of Islam and Islamism.”
The parliamentary secretary of the SPD, Thomas Oppermann, accused Friedrich of leading the Islam Conference to an impasse, and said, “We want to put the dialogue with Muslims on a new basis.” The Integration Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, SPD politician Guntram Schneider, hinted at what such a “reorientation of the conference” might entail when he complained that the event did not address “Islamophobia.”
Potential SPD coalition partners also joined the electioneering. Left Party politician Christine Friedrich Buchholz accused Friedrich of not being really interested in a genuine dialogue with Muslims. Green Party leader Renate Künast said the conference needed a “reset” because Friedrich had “smashed too many dishes.”
In any event, this is not the first time the German Islam Conference has ended in failure. The official focus of the conference in 2012 was to find ways to deal with the spiraling rates of forced marriages and domestic violence among Muslims in Germany.
But Muslim representatives attending that event were in no mood for compromise. Then, like now, they refused to accept responsibility for any of the innumerable irritants in German-Muslim relations. Instead, they insisted that the German government amend its “misguided” approach to Muslim integration.
The 2012 event ended without a joint press conference because of lingering Muslim pique at “offensive” comments that were allegedly uttered at the press conference that ended the 2011 event.