Did Anti-Muslim Film Cross Legal Line?

The makers of an anti-Islamic propaganda video achieved what they apparently intended, inciting a violent reaction among Muslim and creating new tensions between Islam and the West. But the killing of four U.S. diplomatic personnel raises questions about whether legal lines were crossed, maintains Lawrence Davidson.

By Lawrence Davidson

When I finish one of my analyses, I usually look forward to a week to 10-day hiatus and sometimes even wonder if I will have to hunt around for the next topic. It rarely works out that way. Usually, within three or four days, something happens which strikes me as worthy of attention. Often other commentators have moved more quickly than I to report on the event. However, there are always more questions to be asked and different perspectives to be offered.

So it is with the death of four American diplomats, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Libya on Sept. 12. There are two mutually reinforcing parts to this tragedy: one takes place here in the U.S., and the other in Libya, Egypt and several other places in the Middle East. Let’s take them in sequence based on the currently available evidence:

U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, who was killed in Benghazi on Sept. 12, 2012. (State Department photo)

In summer 2011, a convicted felon by the name of Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, aka Sam Bacile (whose crime was bank fraud) decided to make a movie about the religion of Islam. Nakoula is an Islamophobe of Egyptian Coptic Christian background who lives in California. The movie was to be one of those propaganda pieces like the film “Obsession” back in 2005, but cruder and with more “shock value.”

Nakoula went about contacting other Islamophobes to raise the money and otherwise promote the project. Among those he recruited were Morris Sadek, a fellow Copt who also resided in the U.S. and whose long-term goal was to undermine the new Islamic government in Cairo.

Another was a Christian fundamentalist extremist by the name of Steve Klein who also seems to have an obsessive hatred of Muslims. Hovering around the margins of the project was the extremist “pastor” Terry Jones from Gainesville, Florida, who is an expert at inciting riots, having publicly burnt a Quran in 2011 sparking violence in Afghanistan that resulted in the death of 30 people.

Eventually, Nakoula put together a cast and crew by setting up what can only be described as a confidence game. He told the actors and stage technicians that the movie was about a “desert warrior” living in the remote past, ”a benign biblical epic” about past life in the Middle East. The initial working title was “Desert Warrior.”

Later, the film was reedited and new dialogue was dubbed over the original script thereby transforming it into an anti-Muslim diatribe with a new, supposedly ironic, title “Innocence of Muslims.” Among other things, the film depicts Mohammad as a fraud and a lecher. Subsequently, CNN received a statement from those who worked on the project indicating that “the entire cast and crew are extremely upset. We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose.”

Of particular import is the strong suspicion that the real purpose of the film was to incite a violent reaction in the Muslim world. According to Steve Klein, interviewed after the eruption of protests in the Muslim world,  “we went into this knowing this was probably going to happen.”

Klein told Nakoula, “you are going to be the next Theo van Gogh,” the Dutch film maker who was murdered in 2004 after making a film that defamed Islam. Subsequently, Nakoula’s accomplice, Morris Sadek, contacted an Egyptian newspaper reporter, Gamel Girgis, and told him he had an exclusive story about a American who made an anti-Muslim video. Sadek’s obvious intention was to make the video known to the Egyptian public.

The Story in the Middle East

In July 2012, soon after “Desert Warrior” was morphed into “Innocence of Muslims,” a “trailer” for the film was posted on YouTube. It is still there (except in Egypt where it’s been blocked) and to date has garnered hundreds of thousands of hits. Just this month (September 2012), the video was dubbed in Arabic and posted on the Internet. That posting sparked anger in Egypt and elsewhere in the Muslim world.

Someone at the U.S. embassy in Cairo immediately sensed the danger that the film created. In an effort to defuse tensions, the embassy staffer posted a statement on the local Egyptian Internet that said in part, “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims as we condemn the efforts to offend believers of all religions. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

However, the statement failed to prevent an assault on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, the fatal attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and other protests around the Muslim world.

Though too late to stop the Cairo and Benghazi assaults, most Muslim governments moved to quell or contain the public anger. The Libyan government, which is beholden to the U.S. for its support in the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime, issued an apology for the Benghazi attack and began an immediate investigation. The militant group that stormed the consulate and killed Ambassador Stevens was readily identified, in part, because most of the violence was captured on film.

In Egypt, the newly elected president, Mohammed Morsi, himself a member of the Society of Muslim Brothers, was more nuanced in his reaction. He noted that Egyptians had guaranteed rights to “expressing opinion, freedom to protest and announcing positions but without assaulting private or public property, diplomatic missions or embassies.”

In a telephone conversation with President Barack Obama, Morsi “pledged to protect foreigners in Egypt.” But he also told Obama that there was a need for “deterrent legal measures against those who want to damage relations between peoples, and particularly between the people of Egypt and the people of America.” It is a need that Americans should take seriously.

Besides the immediate death and destruction, this incident has exposed a deep vein of anger against the United States that runs through the Muslim world. This anger is nothing new and we continue to ignore it at our peril.

After the 9/11 terror attacks, U.S. politicians refused to consider the context from which those attacks came, asserting simply that the violence against the United States was absolutely wrong and so there was no need to examine what had caused it. Well, that might be good politics stateside, but it guaranteed that the policies and behavior that led up to the 9/11 attacks would carry on into the future, such as imposing sanctions that ruin the lives of countless innocents, intervening militarily in Muslim countries, the arming and protection of dictators, and the carte blanche support of Israeli policies against the Palestinian people.

In other words, between 9/11/01 and 9/11/12 nothing substantial about U.S. behavior has changed. That means the Muslim world continues to be a tinder box that someone living in the West, someone like Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, can throw a match into and spark more violence.

At this point, many will argue that Nakoula’s perverse film is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the abridgment of speech and press. But this may not be entirely true. Free speech does not excuse purposeful efforts to incite a riot.

An enterprising prosecutor might be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire enterprise that created “Innocence of Muslims” was a premeditated effort to produce exactly the type of violence that we have seen. If that’s the case, Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, Steve Klein and Morris Sadek could be potential targets of a criminal investigation into the promotion of hate speech that contributed to murder.

The governments of the Muslim world, and indeed all governments, have the legal and moral obligation to protect foreign diplomats, embassies and consulates. And, the U.S. government has the responsibility to do all that is reasonable and practicable to protect its citizens. That includes the prevention of another 9/11-style attack or any variant on that theme.

Moving to prosecute those here in the United States who would purposely incite such attacks seems an obvious step and, in the long run, a step that is more useful than filling the skies with drones in search of alleged enemies.

Yet, as obvious and warranted as such a prosecution might be, will it be pursued? Do not look to Mitt Romney to propose such a preventative action. His sole concern is taking political advantage of the crisis by claiming that the State Department statement cited above proved that the Obama administration had more sympathy for the Muslims than for our own dead diplomats.

That is, of course, cynical nonsense. Yet, one cannot look to President Obama for much preventative action either. He is afraid of the political shadow to his right and will not move against even the most psychopathic actors, especially at election time.

So the most likely scenario is that, just as in 2001, our leaders will do nothing to address our own behavioral and policy shortcomings. Thus, the dangerous likelihood of more provocations igniting the deep anti-American anger in the Muslim lands will go on and on.

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest; America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism.

27 comments for “Did Anti-Muslim Film Cross Legal Line?

  1. geoph
    September 21, 2012 at 00:35

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  2. Hillary
    September 20, 2012 at 12:37

    It’s fine to be suspicious, but until there’s some concrete evidence, wishful thinking is all there is to your argument.

    F. G. Sanford on September 19, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    You still believes Muslims did 9/11 ?


    • F. G. Sanford
      September 20, 2012 at 15:56

      It doesn’t really matter what I believe. “Expert” opinion doesn’t prove anything. There is something the 9/11 truthers have in common with UFO experts: they sell books, get paid speaking engagements and make documentaries. Stanton Friedman, the self-proclaimed “nuclear physicist”, is one such example. He’s made a living off the so-called “Roswell Incident” for years. It’s impossible to prove he’s wrong, because there’s no evidence one way or the other. But it’s also impossible to prove he’s right, because there’s no evidence, one way or the other. Until a majority of Americans reach a different conclusion, the whole issue is a way to get yourself the “crackpot” label. You should check out the Piers Morgan interview of Jesse Ventura. Jesse tells Piers about the BBC reporter claiming that WTC 7 had fallen a half hour before it fell. Piers tells Jesse, “That’s ridiculous”. Of course, Jesse is right, but it doesn’t matter. The fact that the BBC was wrong doesn’t prove anything. What matters is what people believe. This is the paradox of religious thinking. Does the whole thing look suspicious? Sure does. Does “virgin birth” or “resurrection” sound suspicious? Sure does. People believe in resurrection and they believe in virgin birth. They majority of them don’t believe that the Mossad or their own government did 9/11. In a few more years, it will be like the Kennedy assassination. The evidence will be stale, the witnesses will be dead, and there will be no one left to prosecute even if there is some dramatic revelation. It just isn’t going to change things one way or the other. But plenty of people will get paid to write books and give interviews and make documentaries.

      • Hillary
        September 21, 2012 at 22:19

        Uninterested people like F. G. Sanford who obviously have not taken the interest or time to research the glaring unanswered questions and coincidences in the Official 9/11 Report , believe that 19 random “crazed” Arab hijackers , 7 of whom are presently alive and well, allegedly ,commandeered four American commercial jets with nothing more than their cunning, wit, resolve, hatred of America, & some box cutters and then proceeded to fly these aircraft around US airspace unfettered for a total lapsed time of over an hour.

        Then on three of the planes, they pulled stunning flight maneuvers beyond the capability of expert pilots and managed to cause damage to their targets, so extreme as to be in clear violation of several well understood laws of Physics, Chemistry, and Thermodynamics.

        Over 1,700 well respected Architects & Engineers ,materials scientists, chemists, physicists, fire safety experts and explosive experts have signed a petition calling for a scientific investigation of this crime of the century..

        Read more


        • F. G. Sanford
          September 21, 2012 at 22:50

          These are amazing revelations. I’m shocked! Why hasn’t 60 Minutes or Bill O’Reilly mentioned any of this? Or Fox and Friends? Or CNN? Why, Walter Kronkite must be spinning in his grave! Oh, the humanity! Maybe you should write to your congressman…I’m sure he could help you more than I could. You must really dedicate yourself to getting this story to the mainstream media, so everybody gets a chance to formulate an opinion. I’m sure there would be a Grand Jury investigation as soon as someone in a position of public trust hears this story. But I am kind of bewildered: all this happened eleven years ago, and it still hasn’t made prime-time news. I wonder why? Utterly baffling! There MUST be some hungry young journalist out there somewhere who would report this in order to launch himself on a stellar career. Your job, Hillary, should you decide to accept it, is to find that young journalist, tell him this story, and help him get it on the Six O’clock News. Godspeed!

          • Hillary
            September 22, 2012 at 13:53

            Seems ignorance is strength for F. G. Sanford.

            Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.


  3. Aaron Beauchamp
    September 19, 2012 at 17:24

    Well, take this into consideration. None of the freedoms we have as Americans come from Islam. Our judicial system, our criminal justice system and the free enterprise system all stem from the Bible. So, go ahead and mock Israel, malign them and in the meanwhile, cut yourself off from any blessing. Do any of our freedoms come from Mohammed? Nope. From Islam? Nope. Buddha? Nope.

  4. Aaron Beauchamp
    September 18, 2012 at 17:52

    This article shows how mentally challenged the creators of this site are. Seriously, you’re going to restrict people’s rights to express their disdain for a religion that for the most part has proven itself to be a bloody, violent religion based on intolerance, oppression and false doctrine? I can’t believe you people. Your liberal ( and you are an insult to liberals ) extremism and hatred for the Right has left your ability to even think clearly seriously impaired.

    Do you express as much outrage when Christians and Jews are attacked, criticized and even murdered? These people murdered 4 Americans in cold blood, and you’re advocating change on behalf of America? How exactly is it America’s responsibility to not “hurt” the feelings of other people? You know what? Israel, for the most part, can’t stand Obama. There is such an intensive dislike for that man from the Jews that it’s palpable. Yet you continue to worship this pseudo-president with empty rhetoric and an obvious disdain for Israel and the freedom of America?

    Go ahead and continue to protect the rights of the Muslim Brotherhood. Go ahead and protect your communist agenda. Go ahead and continue to bash Reagan, George W. and Romney. Meanwhile, your leader with clay feet continues to shirk his responsibility as a president ( refusing to meet with Netanayu and appears on the DAvid Letterman show? Talk about clueless. Sheesh….) and looks down his intellectual nose at the American people ( his attitude towards 9/11 and how America clings to its religion and guns). Your brainless hubris and effete intellectualism is repulsive. Dear Lord….

  5. Mr. Moore
    September 18, 2012 at 17:35

    Just wondering what if this film was about Dr. Martin Luther King and the rioting in U.S cities?

  6. Terry Washington
    September 18, 2012 at 13:53

    At the very least Klein, Jones, and “Bacile” bear moral responsibility for the violence, although strictly speaking the rioters were legally responsible. As US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wisely observed “Nobody has the right to falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre.”

    • Paul
      September 18, 2012 at 15:10

      Suddenly the internet in the U.S. is a “crowded theater”…and of course, surprise, surprise, this administration is seeking to “regulate” it…i.e., censor.

    September 18, 2012 at 11:42


    Published on Sep 12, 2012 by TheAlexJonesChannel

    While the establishment media has engaged in a concerted effort to bury the fact that today’s attack on a U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was carried out by the same extremists the U.S. armed during the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi, Libya’s Ambassador to Washington Ali Aujali launched his own lame attempt to shift the blame, ludicrously pointing the finger at Gaddafi loyalists.

    “We know that Qaddafi’s associates are in Libya. Of course, they took this chance to infiltrate among the people,” Aujali said in today in an interview.

    “His claim contradicts most reports, which place the blame on radical Islamist groups that claimed to be reacting to an obscure American film they viewed as insulting to Islam. Aujali said that the Libyan government has intelligence that unspecified Qaddafi forces were involved,” reports Foreign Policy.

    For Aujiali to claim that the attack, which took place in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, was the work of Gaddafi loyalists, is a plainly absurd trick to manipulate the narrative behind the incident in a desperate bid to save face.

    As Tony Cartalucci points out, the media’s failure to admit that the terrorists behind the attack are the same gangs of thugs armed and empowered by NATO represents “an attempt by the West to reestablish the perception that the US and Israel are at war with sectarian extremists, not partnered with them.”

  8. eddie
    September 18, 2012 at 10:41

    The missing peace of the puzzle by most is not fully recognized, that of the Arab psyche in general. Insulting an Arab or Muslim for that matter and expecting severe harm, maybe even killing innocent humans is completely unacceptable. Arabs for the must part and maybe some Muslims have to put their pride a side and resolve issues in a civilized manner.

    Is this justifiable behavior? One should ponder the notion of civilized behavior and governments on both sides should have come together amicably to resolve the issue. We have assisted and added the Arab nations far too long to standby and allow senseless killings to occur.

    A televised broadcast should have been given to show disapproval in a joint effort from Libya and America, indicating we don’t endorse killing innocent people because of insults and for America the same with regards to degrading a nations religious identity.

    There will be repeats of voicing or depicting derogatory images of Arabs and Muslims. We should take heed to the serious mind set of these people and let this be a learning lesson to the extremist nature of their psyche. Americans must prepare themselves for the next extremist behavior by Arabs and some Muslims nations and consequences have to follow for their actions.

  9. kevin
    September 18, 2012 at 10:09

    I think the point here is not to take away our right to free speech, but only to prosecute for inciting a riot. The making of this hate piece was wrong at every level, well beyond criminal.

  10. Brian F. Wood
    September 18, 2012 at 05:55

    So our freedom of speech, of parody, of satire, of offensive speech is contingent upon the reactions of religio-tards in foreign lands? Wow!

    • Paul
      September 18, 2012 at 15:09

      Yep. And its also apparently contingent on progressives in our academia and MSM and of course in Eric Holder’s political DOJ. They never believe in freedom of speech. They hate it…because it allows dissent against their world views.

  11. wizeanne
    September 18, 2012 at 03:54

    F.G. Thanks for your excellent post! Could see what Americans would do if China, who is second to the USA, for their use of fossil fuels/OIL/GAS, and who now control both sides of the Panama Canal and the Chinese are funding the widening of the Panama canal to import more OIL from Mexico, US and Canada to China. What “IF” they decided they want to put their 1999 plans, “Unstricted Warfare,” in play and instead of the Chinese controlling the massive (former military) port in Los Angeles, they wanted to utilize a few ports into military bases? After all, look at all the real estate the Chinese bought up of foreclosures after the housing bubble in 2008. They were flying in plane loads of Chinese buying up foreclosed properties in California, Las Vegas and Easter coast line of the USA. Americans would be rioting in the streets if ANY country wanted to put military bases in the USA and dictate to the US who gets the OIL/GAS contracts and pipeline contracts. Before the Middle East, it was Latin America and Asian and African countries…coup de tats, invasions and all out attacks. Look at the US attacking the soverign country of Panama in Dec. 1989. Even the UN Council reprimanded the US for that unprovoked attack….to set up bases and make INC’s happy (US Fruit) It is the “Monetary Corporatocracy” who has taken over our Government, with their millions financing the politicians in OUR “House of Congressional Corruption” in D.C. You have to take a look at WHO is known to finance and support terrorist groups OBLiden/Al Queda/Hamas AND this SALAFIS radical group in Libya. It was in mid 1990’s the two Chicago FBI Agents/Counter Terrorism Unit, Robert Wright and John Vincent’s “Vulgar Betrayal” investigation that tracked the foreign millionares who set up their foreign Inc.’s (Ptech and BMI”) and Charities (Holy Land) IN the USA. who were funneling millions through bank(s)(recall the BCCI money laundering scandal?) to support and finance OBLiden/Al Queda. Agent Wrights & Vincent’s investigation was shut down and they were gagged and NOT allowed to testify at the 911 Congressional Hearings nor at the 9/11 Commission Hearings. WHY? Search “National Corruption Index / Robert Wright” and read “House of Bush, House of Saud.” Look up “Salafis” and see what country supports the “Salafists” also are the Sonni/Whabbists! Saudi Arabia! Our friend and ally?! NO THEY ARE NOT! Follow the money…the motive, timing of this film dubbed in Arabic and released…but also Rev. Terry Jones and his followers and supporters in the COPTIC AND other Christian Judeo groups. This Salafist Islamic group armed with weapons/missiles, etc. was well planned to attack US Embassy in Libya and the timeing coinsides with the release of this film dubbed in Arabic. More to this attack in Libya and this protests. Some of the protesters have been paid! SO follow the money sources of both, who finances the Salafist and who financed this Coptic Christian Group. Then look at who stands to benefit? That is the answer….those sitting quitely hiding in the back ground. Watch next for Mali, and Myanmar (Burma)You’re 100% correct our so called ME experts are clueless fools, cowing to their “Monetary Corporatocracy” masters, who are not loyal to either party, just to themselves and their own self centered “Agenda.” to benefit only them selves. Sorry so long….it is just discusting OUR Republic of the USA, has sunk to. The hypocrisy and lies have caught up with these self rightous wolves, in sheep clothing. We’d better wake up, stop meddling in the ME and other countries politics, and atop lying about “spreading freedom and democracy,” this is about OIL/GAS/PIPELINES and making sure OIL/GAS rich ME countries do not use any other currency/petro dollars….other than the “dollar”…case in point, Saddam Hussein in 2000 started excepting the Euro for his oil payments instead of the dollar. THAT destablized the “dollar” so it was unacceptable…same as Quadaffi, Libya, started accepting the “dinar” for payment of oil, not the “dollar,” again Unacceptable, so he’s gone too. Iran is accepting other currency other than the dollar! Hence..they are next! Look at Afghanistan mess….but got those US bases built around their pipelines and recent signing of the TAPI pipeline in March, 2012. Yet not a word about Saudi’s…the bribery, corruption, hypocrisy and lies are deeper than pond scum.

  12. F. G. Sanford
    September 18, 2012 at 01:10

    As distasteful as it may be in some cases, the Constitutional wording, if I am not mistaken, is, “No law shall infringe”. No law means no law. Please don’t tell me that in addition to all the other rights we have forfeited since 2001, this one is on the chopping block too? Irresponsible foreign policy and imperialistic hubris fomented this tragedy. Our leadership should have considered the consequences of regime change implemented by supporting mercenaries and thugs. We sowed the wind, now reap the whirlwind, and lay the blame on Constitutional freedom? This is ludicrous. Had there not already been so many affronts to the Middle East, this cheesy film would not have raised an eyebrow. The provenance of this tawdry spectacle also would seem, based on alternative sources, to be much less certain than the article seems to purport. I would suggest that readers view the latest videos of brutal arrests in New York, and ask yourselves: “Are my Constitutional rights in danger?” The abrogation of freedom of expression spells the end of democracy, and we certainly seem to be one step closer to that slippery slope. I am dismayed to read an article on Consortium News suggesting that, like on Animal Farm, we are all “equal”, but some of us may be more “equal” than others. Ambassador Stevens is dead because our Middle East “experts” are a bunch of clueless fools and our foreign policy is a recipe for disaster. Any other explanation is just delusional, deceptive and exculpatory rhetoric.

    • Hillary
      September 18, 2012 at 07:38

      Ambassador Stevens is dead because our Middle East “experts” are a bunch of clueless fools and our foreign policy is a recipe for disaster.

      F. G. Sanford on September 18, 2012 at 1:10 am

      Correction for F.G.Sanford — one must realize that our ” Middle East experts” are NOT bunch of clueless fools.

      Successfully and subtly these “fools”y have guided the US into a clash of civilizations,Christianity against Islam.

      The departments of U.S.foreign policy in respect to Islam particularly is over represented by, dare I say it , Jews.

      These US neocons mainly Jewish became “Middle East” experts promoting their P.N.A.C agenda helped by a MSM.

      Invading those countries “that hate our freedom” with “rag heads” comments etc. along with all the other MSM derogatory insults helped form American Public Opinion against those “fanatical” Islamists while supporting “our ally” Israel in print and dollars in their Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Cui bono ?.

      “our Middle East experts” are NOT bunch of clueless fools.they have successfully achieved their goals.

      “Any other explanation is just delusional, deceptive and exculpatory rhetoric.”

      • Paul
        September 18, 2012 at 15:06

        Actually, the “press” could also just call them what they are…truth-telling refugees and VICTIMS who are escaped from a murderous Islamist culture which frequently kills christians in their country and burns down their churches. And you call these victims….”Islamaphobes”.
        Your uncaring and unfair smearing without any accurate depictions of these victims, is extremist progressive propaganda. As also is the liberal “history” professor Lawrence Davidson’s article. Just look at his insanely tyrannical anti free speech position: “Moving to prosecute those here in the United States who would purposely incite such attacks seems an obvious step” That comedic short video was issued 3 months ago. It never incited anything. The attack was all orchestrated by the Islamists. So, what was “Obvious” and to who? Mao Tse Tung? Joseph Stalin?

      • F. G. Sanford
        September 18, 2012 at 18:54

        Well, if you call enhancement of Iranian influence in the region, the meltdown of the American economy due to an unfunded war, and destabilization of nuclear armed Pakistan a successful outcome, you’ll have to explain how any of that achieves anything beneficial for those you call, “US neocons mainly Jewish”. In the long run, these policies have galvanized Russia’s position as the most rational peace broker, have made China and India more attractive trade partners for oil resources, and have created a perhaps dim, but nevertheless undeniable intuition that the Western world’s dominance is vulnerable, tenuous and defeatable with patience and persistence. They are using the strategy of heavyweight boxing champion, Mohamed Ali: it’s called “Rope-a-Dope”, and it’s working quite effectively.

        • Hillary
          September 19, 2012 at 12:41

          “to explain how any of that achieves anything beneficial for those you call, “US neocons mainly Jewish”.

          F. G. Sanford on September 18, 2012 at 6:54 pm

          “US neocons mainly Jewish” together with Jewish American Billionaires have an understandable (but misplaced) loyalty to Likud Israel with many holding dual citizenship with Israel.

          Has F. G. Sanford somehow missed the MSM revelation that a $100,000,000 pledge has been made by just one (Sheldon Adelson)to Romney mainly to promote a “future” war on Iran.

          F. G. Sanford seemingly doesn’t grasp that a Likud Israel is profiting from the invasion of Iraq ,Afghanistan and subsequent western anti Islamic warmongering in Syria , Lybia Yemen etc etc.

          “Anything beneficial” ?

          “US neocons mainly Jewish” like those “dancing Israelis on 9/11” naturally feel rewarded and very happy that their efforts are successful and their final solution or Ethnic Cleansing in Palestine can continue at a faster un-noticed pace.

          Likud Israel is first and foremost with the neocon a $3-4 Trillion cost to the US Taxpayer seems not a consideration

          Introducing “if” into your equation is always distracting at best when nobody can call what has resulted from US neocon adventures a success except Israel and their “mainly Jewish neocons.”

          i.e.beneficial to Likud Israel (“US neocons mainly Jewish”) but definitely not beneficial to the US or the world.

          F. G. Sanford doesn’t see the Cui bono question.

          • F. G. Sanford
            September 19, 2012 at 15:08

            Actually, if Romney gets elected, Sheldon Adelson stands to save about $300,000,000.00 in taxes. So, the “cui bono” is a $200,000,000.00 savings after taxes. I guess I touched a nerve: you’re trying to connect dots that just aren’t there. Sure, the “dancing Israeli’s” were kind of suspicious, but common sense tells me that if someone just robbed a bank, they wouldn’t stand around in the street flashing the money at passers-by. It’s fine to be suspicious, but until there’s some concrete evidence, wishful thinking is all there is to your argument.

  13. bobzz
    September 17, 2012 at 23:34

    The press could help by consistently reporting that the film was made by Islamophobic cranks instead of calling it ‘a film made in America,’ which can sound official. An ironic note: Sadek, one of the film maker’s names, means righteous in Hebrew, a misnomer, if there ever was one.

Comments are closed.