Kevin, I'm not sure I understand the connection you are making between the production of this film and the violence that took place thereafter. You seem to imply that the film-makers are directly responsible for the attacks, which may be true in a strictly causal sense but don't you think you are excusing the insanity and irrationality of what followed? Even if the Israeli government directly funded and produced the film, it would still not be accurate to say Zionists killed the ambassador, because we all have the right to free speech and Muslims have no right to tell anyone else what they can say or inflict violence based on their own religious beliefs. Do these events not demonstrate that these principles of freedom of expression are not sufficiently evident in the Muslim world? I usually agree with most of what you say Kevin, but this time I have a hard time swallowing this association of guilt you are claiming of the film-producers. You seem to say without saying that the response to the film has been justified, and I just can't accept that. -Kent
Obviously not every little bit of the "response" (1.49 billion Muslims ignoring it or protesting in acceptable ways, a small handful perpetrating inexcusable violence) was justified. Just 99.99999999899899998 percent of it. But the violence was predictable. If I walk into a local bar and find a nasty looking drunk wearing a Chicago Bears t-shirt and start ranting obscenely about how Bears fans like to perform passive homosexual acts, one could argue that I'm technically within my Constitutional right of free speech. But the violence that will result was predictable, and the fact that I did it means that I wanted to elicit that violence. Likewise, if someone insults a religion of 1.5 billion people in a sufficiently obscene way, obviously at least a small minority of those people will commit violence against those they hold responsible. DUH. I was in Paris when Christians burned down a theater showing The Last Temptation of Christ. This happened all over the world. Was it predictable? Yes. Was that film defensible? Yes. Is this latest anti-Islam film defensible? I very much doubt it. The difference is that Scorsese's film wasn't designed ONLY to elicit violence. -Kevin
* * *
I might have added that I suspect the intelligence agency or agencies that produced and distributed this film also orchestrated the assassinations of the diplomats in Libya. There are indications that those killed in Libya were thorns in the side of Mossad, or at least pesky non-Zionists who had somehow gotten past the firewall preventing non-Zionists from working in the US diplomatic corps.
Let's break down the Zionist New York Times' account of the allegedly Arab-loving, pro-Palestinian Ambassador Stevens. (The subtext of this story, intelligible only to Straussian Zionist NY Times readers, is: "good riddance.")
The NY Times story is headlined: "A U.S. Envoy Who Plunged Into Arab Life"
In other words, he "went native" and started agreeing with the opinions of the Arabs he lived among. (I can relate, since the same thing happened to me when I was in Morocco on a Fulbright.)
The NY Times photo shows women in hijab mourning the passing of Ambassador Stevens.
|Subtext: "He was killed because he was a pro-Isam Arab-lover"|
The article is filled with clues supporting this interpretation. For example, we learn about Stevens' "affection for Arab culture and street life, whether in Syria, Libya or the Palestinian territories..." OMG! AFFECTION for Palestinians!! We all know that for Zionists, Palestinians are jackals, venomous reptiles, fit only for extermination. (The article's subtext suggests that those Arab-Muslim snakes finally bit the handler who loved them.)
The NY Times article admits that the official "killed by Islamic radicals" narrative is questionable:
"Precisely what happened the night he was killed is unclear. But for an American ambassador to have so little security on the anniversary of Sept. 11, especially in a part of Libya known for its radicalism, is bound to raise questions..."
We learn that Stevens “was a different kind of American diplomat, he really was” in his closeness to the Arab people he lived among (who of course have no use for Israel and Zionism). We learn that he was highly unusual in his openness to the Palestinian/Arab view that Zionism is evil and doomed:
"American diplomats, given a presentation on the Israeli settlements by the Palestinians, often responded with exasperation, Ms. Buttu said, complaining that the Palestinians 'didn’t understand how much we do for you behind the scenes with the Israelis.' But Mr. Stevens was different, she said. 'He would say, ‘Tell me more. Tell me more of what America can do to help and why.’ ”
We also learn that Stevens was “very much in the tradition of old-school Americans" in the Middle East from the pre-Zionist era. In those days, Americans and Middle Easterners were the best of friends. Then along came Zionism and the Palestinian genocide, and the Zionists took over America and purged the US government of anyone who doesn't love Israel and hate Arabs and Islam. The murder of Ambassador Stevens is a message that Americans who try to go back to the pre-Zionist outlook, when Americans were the best friends of Arabs and Muslims, will be slaughtered.
The NY Times also informs us: "Roya Hakakian, an Iranian-born writer who met him then, said that 'he displayed the quintessential sunny innocence of Americans.'” The subtext: He was so innocent he thought he could be a friend of Arabs and Muslims, and be open to their anti-Zionist views, without running the risk of being murdered by Zionists.
The Times article's last line is: "At the end, those very forces whose influence he thought would be curbed had claimed his life." Surface meaning: The word "forces" refers to radical Islamists. The esoteric meaning for Straussian Zionists: "forces" refers to Zionist forces - his real killers.
Leo Strauss taught his disciples - who by now include all of the hardcore Zionist neocons - to write and act this way: Lie and kill, and keep your team members informed of what you're doing by putting all of your public writing in doublespeak: A surface message for brainwashing the stupid masses, and beneath that, the nasty truth, which only your fellow neocons are likely to decipher. It should not surprise us that the New York Times, the Zionist paper of record, has published an article in neocon doublespeak all but confessing to the Zionist murder of Ambassador Stevens.