Proof: Obama Refused to Call Benghazi 'Terror,' CBS Covered Up

*Source: Breitbart

 

In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof--two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public--that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack "terrorism" from the beginning.

CBS unveiled additional footage from its 60 Minutes interview with President Obama, conducted on Sep. 12 immediately after Obama had made his statement about the attacks in the Rose Garden, in which Obama quite clearly refuses to call the Benghazi an act of terror when asked a direct question by reporter Steve Kroft:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack? OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.  And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

CBS News held onto this footage for more than six weeks, failing to release it even when questions were raised during the Second Presidential Debate as to whether Obama had, in fact, referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror before blaming it falsely on demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. The moderator, CNN's Candy Crowley, intervened on Obama's behalf, falsely declaring he had indeed called the attack an act of terror in his Rose Garden statement, and creating the impression that Romney was wrong. That exchange turned what would have been an outright win for Romney in the debate into a narrow win or possibly a loss--and it discouraged him from bringing up the issue again in the next debate or on the campaign trail. CBS News could have set the record straight, but held onto this footage, releasing it just before the election--perhaps to avoid the later charge of having suppressed it altogether. Fox News' Bret Baier, who has been following the timeline of events closely, noted in his analysis this morning:

These are two crucial answers in the big picture.  Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back. Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden. How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi? 

There are many questions, and here are a few more. Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama's claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?  

Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional "60 Minutes" interview material from Sept. 12?  

Why wasn't it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that "60 Minutes" tape -- why didn't they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously?  

Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don't add up.

Actually, the conclusion to be drawn is quite simple: CBS News, in an effort to assist President Obama's re-election campaign, corruptly concealed information about two critical issues--namely, a terror attack and the president's dishonesty about it. When the players in the Libya scandal face investigation, so, too, should CBS News and those in the mainstream media who have wantonly assisted the administration's shameless lies.

Innocence of Muslims Film was Made by Terrorists.

*Source: Walid Shoebat

There is more to the story of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula than what we are told by the media. Court documents reveal that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of the movie Innocence of Muslims, partnered in a scheme with Eiad Salameh, my first cousin, a Palestinian Muslim from Beit Sahour in the Palestinian district of Bethlehem.

To prove my claim, I revealed Eiad Salameh long before this whole fiasco erupted—in 2008 and the first real reportage of Eiad and Nakoula was revealed on September 14th, 2012.
Now do I have your attention?

The narrative that circulates the media fails to answer crucial questions behind the mystery of this film.
For example, to date, no one has stepped forward or can confirm for certain that whoever holds an identity by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is that man’s true identity. In the Middle East, if a man by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula indeed exists while being blamed for creating a mess of international proportions—which included the anger of over one billion Muslims—it would not be that difficult to find the entire family in Egypt, including brothers, cousins, aunts, siblings wife, wives, ex-wives, mistresses, pets and all.

In the Middle East, no one can hide. Egypt is where the demonstrations that have taken place all over the Middle East and Asia were sparked. Yet, it cannot produce this man’s background?
Besides, why would Nakoula, who claims to be a religious Coptic activist, have extensive connections with Eiad? My cousin hated Copts with a passion and is well-known in the Middle East as a master schemer, probably one of the best the Middle East has produced. He also has multiple contacts with terror networks.

Eiad is from Beit Sahour, Bethlehem. He is a dubious individual who was well known in the Arab community as the main contact for obtaining authentic, legitimate identifications from passports to credit cards, under many nationalities. He then places these identifications into the hands of dubious characters whose names are not the names written on the passports.

Eiad is a Muslim terror supporter and is not an Egyptian Copt. Both my cousin Eiad and whoever this man is who pretends to be Nakoula, had multiple, fraudulent identifications and the two connected for a decade in multiple scheming operations—the type that usually links to terrorism.

The Daily Beast reported regarding Nakoula’s bust:

"The bust came around the time the feds were launching Operation Mountain Express, which would become a huge investigation into pseudoephedrine-dealing involving numerous people of a Middle Eastern background. The authorities initially insisted there were no links to terrorism, but suddenly switched and decided that a chunk of the money was going to Hizbullah."

Eiad, like Nakoula, portrayed and identified himself as an Israeli Jew, a thing Eiad did for years. He even fraudulently holds an authentic Israeli passport.

No one knows for certain that Nakoula is even who he claims to be, but we are 100% certain that both my cousin Eiad and Nakoula had multiple fraudulent identifications and what has never been disclosed until now is that the two were linked for at least a decade.

First of all, clan Nakoula also exists in Eiad’s village Beit Sahour Bethlehem. It is still the little town of Bethlehem, just as it was in Biblical times.

The feds are also silent and have kept much of this issue away from public view. Despite Nakoula’s previous offenses, the Justice Department lawyers and federal agents defended him, giving several excuses to Judge Snyder and pushed for leniency, all because of him supposedly promising to help them catch Eiad.
Via the sentencing transcript:

…he [Nakoula] has implicated Mr. Salamay [aka Salameh] there is no question that Mr. Salamay at some point is gonna be indicted if he hasn’t already been… we all know what’s gonna happen. Salamay is gonna get arrested some day and based on the debriefing information turned over he is gonna enter a guilty plea, or if he doesn’t, then Mr. Nakoula is going to be called in to testify…

This claim by the Feds is false.

If the feds were indeed interested in catching Eiad, he was in fact doing his shenanigans for three decades without a single arrest and despite several arrest warrants issued.

He was in fact finally locked up in January 2011 in Canada as we were told by our contact out of the Intelligence Bureau in Canada (IBC) who wrote us by email (which we have the evidence).
While the Canadians wanted to keep Eiad in custody as long as it took and were working with the Feds to extradite him to the United States, the U.S. preferred not to bring Eiad in to face justice. Instead, they asked the Canadians to fly him to freedom in Palestine.

I received my last email from my contact on July 15th, 2011, which stated: “He is awaiting deportation to Palestine, unless the US hurry up and indict him…” The feds never responded to the Canadian’s last appeal and within a few days, Eiad was put on a plane, courtesy of the Canadian taxpayers.
Where did he go?

Palestine.

The Palestinian terror connection to this film increases once we learned that Nakoula used Eiad’s last name “Erwin Salameh” portraying himself as his brother. As we also obtained from our contact in the IBC, Eiad was also involved with someone having the last name “Tanas” as late as 2011 and Nakoula had used the name “Thomas J. Tanas”.

In addition, the naming convention used by Nakoula in 2009 looks remarkably similar to one of Eiad’s embezzlement operations in 2000.

Nakoula used a fictitious company called M & A Trading in 2009, which he simply switched from Eiad’s A & M Trading as revealed in the U.S. Trustee report in 2001.
I can provide much evidence privately to reliable media, on the condition that the names of the agents remain anonymous (as per their request) but I have disclosed Eiad in all of my seminars to hundreds of FBI agents and police force.

Full Report Here.

So who is this man behind the film Innocence of Muslims?

To identify his motives, I then obtained a radio interview in Arabic that this supposed Nakoula gave in which he stated that he is not Christian but a secular liberal. He was asked, “What is your position on the Jewish and the Christian faith?” Nakoula responded, “I have no calling for these religions.”



Nakoula, who stated that he was an author of several books on Islam (written in Arabic) refused to give his name to the interviewer. Yet, if court documents give his legal name as Nakoula Bacile/Bassele Nakoula, I found no books under that name. Nothing. And neither did anyone produce them.

Nakoula was lying again and is no Coptic author.

A court document refers to a letter from a friend who referred to Nakoula as “a God-fearing man whose first priority is his family.”

This contradicts what he said in Arabic; he is not interested in Christianity or Judaism and is possibly a Muslim.

Nakoula claimed that he produced the film with his son, Abanob Basseley, and the money for it (between $50,000 and $60,000) came from his wife’s family in Egypt.

None of this has been proven.

What has been proven is that he embezzled millions with Eiad and the money must have come from these scandalous operations, which are usually linked to terrorist activity.

Why would any anti-Islam Christian or even Jewish activist want the destruction of his own? It makes zero sense, unless of course this person intends to do harm to his real enemies—Israel and the Copts.

Both are Eiad’s ardent enemies.

How is it possible that these two would snuggle up together for a decade?

On one hand, we have a Meth-dealer-Egyptian-Coptic-anti-Muslim-activist-fundamentalist-Christian. Then on the other hand, we have a Muslim-fundamentalist-Palestinian-scam-artist-terrorist.

The results of this entire fiasco will not be the apprehension of terrorists, but the continual chipping away at the First-Amendment, since Americans by and large are still practicing the art of self-blame while they ignore the real culprits who enter our country with the intent of doing it much harm.

Pakistan Cabinet Minister Offers $100k to Murder Anti-Islam Filmmaker

*Source: RT

Pakistani students carry swords at a protest rally in Lahore on September 22, 2012, against a US-made anti-Islam film (AFP Photo / Arif Ali)

Amid protests that killed more than 20 people throughout Pakistan on Friday, the country’s Cabinet minister offered a $100,000 reward for the murder of the US filmmaker that ridiculed Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.
­Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour told the Associated Press that he encourages the Taliban and al-Qaeda to perform this “sacred duty.” He himself would pay the reward out of his pocket, he said.
“I announce today that this blasphemer, this sinner who has spoken nonsense about the Holy Prophet, anyone who murders him, I will reward him with $100,000,” he said at a news conference in Peshawar Saturday. “I invite the Taliban brothers and the al-Qaeda brothers to join me in this blessed mission.”
Worldwide, offended Muslims have expressed their outrage against the film titled “Innocence of Muslims,” which was allegedly produced by 55-year-old filmmaker and Egyptian-born Coptic Christian, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, also known as Sam Bacile. Death threats against the alleged filmmaker are being made across social media websites, causing the Californian man and his family to go into hiding.
“I also announce that if the government hands this person over to me, my heart says I will finish him with my own hands and then they can hang me,” the minister said. The government of Pakistan has already proclaimed that it has disassociated itself from the minister’s statement. But as protests raged on, anger at the filmmaker continued to brew among those who felt personally offended by the 13-minute anti-Muslim YouTube clip.
“Insallah, we will kill him,” wrote one Facebook user from Karachi, Pakistan.
And as more than 5,000 protesters marched towards the parliament in Islamabad Saturday, there was much chanting about the filmmaker who enraged so much of the world. Knowing that he was committing a crime by endorsing murder, Minister Bilour said he was ready to carry out the deed himself.
“Punishment for those who humiliated our Prophet,” the protesters chanted while rallying in the capital, just a day after exceptional violence erupted throughout the country.

Pakistan Anti-Islam Film Protest Ends in Islamabad.

*Source: BBC


The BBC's Aleem Maqbool in Islamabad says people were "choked by tear gas".

Demonstrators who gathered outside the US embassy in Islamabad to protest against an amateur video mocking Islam have dispersed peacefully.

The Pakistani authorities had earlier called on the army as police struggled to contain the crowd of thousands with tear gas and live rounds.
Some protesters had said they would not leave the diplomatic enclave until the US embassy was on fire.
Protests over the film, Innocence of Muslims, have claimed several lives.
It was made in the US and is said to insult the Prophet Muhammad.
Streets leading to the enclave, where most of the embassies are housed, were earlier blocked off by shipping containers in an effort to increase security.
'Out like a light' Television pictures showed chaotic scenes as police tried to gain control of the situation.
Protesters burned an effigy of US President Barack Obama and threw missiles at the police.
One demonstrator told reporters: "The infidel who produced the movie should be hanged, or hand over him to the Muslims. And we don't want any (US) diplomat or embassy in Pakistan: all relations should be cut off."
The BBC's Aleem Maqbool in Islamabad, who did not see any evidence of the army at the scene, said the protest was "turned out like a light".
He said it was amazing, given the strength of feeling at the the protest earlier, that the crowd left as peacefully as it did.
A demonstration in the same area on Wednesday saw around 500 protesters gather outside the gates of the enclave.
The US State Department earlier issued a warning against any non-essential travel to Pakistan.
It also "strongly urged" US citizens in Pakistan to avoid protests and large gatherings.
Anti-US sentiment has been growing since people became aware of the amateur film earlier this month.
The US Ambassador to Libya was killed in an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, on 11 September.
Protests in countries around the world then took place.
Tensions with the West have been further inflamed by the publication by a French magazine of obscene cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad on Wednesday.
The Pakistani government has called a national holiday on Friday to enable people to demonstrate peacefully.

Is Muhammad Movie a Contrived Fraud?

*Source: InfoWars

Bizarre story behind film that supposedly sparked middle east unrest

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, September 13, 2012

An anti-Muslim film that has been blamed for the attacks on U.S. embassies in Egypt, Libya and Yemen is likely a contrived fraud designed to stir up unrest in the Middle East while shielding the true reasons behind the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens.

A trailer for the film, entitled The Innocence of Muslims, has been on You Tube for over two months. Despite the alleged film maker’s claim that the movie was funded by rich Jewish donors to the tune of $5 million dollars, it has all the quality of a low budget film school project. The trailer has now been banned in several middle eastern countries, including Egypt and Afghanistan.

Indeed, the full film itself may not even exist, a doubt that has also been shared about the existence of its shadowy director Sam Bacile, who told the Associated Press this week that he was a 56-year-old “Israeli Jew” who lives in California, despite telling actors on set that he is Egyptian, while others have claimed he is an American.

Bacile claims he made the film to illustrate how “Islam is a cancer, period.”

However, numerous authorities have failed in attempting to locate a ‘Sam Bacile’ residing in California. Bacile is likely a pseudonym for the only real person who has been positively connected with the movie – Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year-old Coptic Christian living in California who was convicted for federal bank fraud in 2010.

The movie itself – or the 14 minutes of it which have been released – is also highly suspect. Actors involved in filming were told “they were appearing in a film about the life of a generic Egyptian 2,000 years ago.” Following the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, all 80 cast members put out a joint statement stating that they were misled by the producer.

“The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer. We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose,” the statement says. “We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred.”

The film has been purposely dubbed and edited to elicit maximum outrage from Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad is depicted as a pedophile, a homosexual, a religious phony, a philanderer, a womanizer and a bloodthirsty dictator.

During dialogue, the actors words have been crudely dubbed to include references to Muhammad that were not in the original script.

As Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress involved in the movie, told Gawker, “In the script and during the shooting, nothing indicated the controversial nature of the final product. Muhammed wasn’t even called Muhammed; he was “Master George.”

“The words Muhammed were dubbed over in post-production, as were essentially all other offensive references to Islam and Muhammed,” writes Adrian Chen.

For example, at 9:03 in the trailer, the words “Is your Muhammed a child molester?” are heard, yet the actress’ voice has been dubbed as her lips do not form the word “Muhammed”.

As the Christian Science Monitor summarizes, the film looks like, “it could have been ginned up by someone sitting a basement with cheap dubbing software.”

Everything about the movie suggests it was a contrived fraud to artificially manufacture unrest in the middle east at a time where speculation that the U.S. and Israel are about to launch military interventions in Iran and Syria is rife.

The amateurish nature of the film may be a ruse to deflect suspicion away from its true purpose and the real identities of its creators.

“Those sniffing the air properly smell some sort of intelligence/influence operation in the whole situation,” writes Daniel McAdams, comparing the film to Kony 2012. “A purposely bad cover for what happened in Benghazi yesterday? A badly done attempted cover for what happened yesterday? Arabs — even Muslim Brotherhood — looking to score points by blaming “wealthy Jews” for making the film? A power struggle between Islamist factions in Egypt? Israelis attempting to make it look like Arabs made a crudely anti-Semitic cover story for a crude film?”

What’s known for sure is the fact that the establishment media has seized upon the movie as an excuse to explain away the attacks on the embassies in Cairo and Benghazi as just another instance of extremist Muslims getting riled up over nothing in particular.

Subsequent reports confirmed that the attacks were coordinated well in advance of the release of the Arabic version of the trailer this week and had nothing to do with the film, but the media immediately ran with that narrative.

This conveniently disguises the true narrative behind the attacks, which is the fact that the United States and other NATO powers are seeing their chickens come home to roost having armed and empowered Al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic extremists in pursuit of regime change, most notably in Libya where the removal of Gaddafi was achieved via NATO’s support for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – which is listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department and was responsible for killing U.S. troops in Iraq.

Given that these same militants are now being used by Gulf states and NATO powers in a bid to topple President Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, their connection to the embassy attacks must be downplayed. This was evident when NATO stooge Ali Aujali, Libya’s Ambassador to Washington, ludicrously claimed that Gaddafi loyalists were responsible for killing Ambassador Stevens.

With embassies in Yemen, Tunisia and other countries now coming under siege, the mass media’s promotion of what would otherwise have been an obscure, ineffectual and downright laughable 14 minute You Tube trailer has now created a crisis that threatens the stability of the entire region.

The bizarre circumstances behind The Innocence of Muslims, its shadowy creators and the deliberate attempt to manipulate the film to offend Muslims clearly suggests that the whole farce was a contrived set-up to inflame tensions in order to justify an acceleration of U.S., Israeli and NATO aggression across the Middle East and North Africa.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.