Mark Greene asks is the YouTube release of Innocence of the Muslims actually aimed at the U. S. Presidential Election?
Was the YouTube release of an Arabic dubbed trailer of Innocence of the Muslims designed to inflame protests in the Middle East, undercutting public opinion of Obama’s diplomatic efforts just weeks before the election?
As American bases and consulates lock down under threat of repeated violent protests due to a anti-Islam video posted in Arabic on YouTube just days after 9-11, details about the identity of the film’s supposed writer director continue to get stranger and stranger. We already know that Innocence of the Muslims has put U. S. service persons and diplomats at grave risk. It has also put millions of moderate Christians and Muslims at risk as well. In addition, it may well have created cover for an al Qaeda-linked group to attack our Embassy in Libya, killing the U. S. Ambassador there.
To it’s great credit, The Huffington Post has continued to investigate production of the incendiary anti-Muslim film titled The Innocence of Muslims.
The Huffington Post writes:
Media for Christ, a Duarte, Calif.-based Christian nonprofit group, applied for the film permit, the San Gabriel Valley Tribune reported. The charity’s misson statement is to “glow Jesus’ light” to the world.
Though Joseph Nassralla, the president of Media for Christ, emerged as a force behind the anti-Muslim film, the organization said it had nothing to do with the project and was upset by its content, according to the L.A. Times. Nassralla has reportedly devoted himself to criticizing Islam in speeches and interviews during recent years.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
The Huffington Post goes in the report in a second article:
In yet another twist in the production of “Innocence of Muslims,” the anti-Islam film that has led to riots around the world. Gawker reports that the movie’s director is Alan Roberts, a man known best for creating softcore porn films.
Robert’s earlier work includes titles like “The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood,” “Young Lady Chatterly” and “The Sexpert.”
So what was the alleged director doing on the set of a film that would go on to inflame the masses? A number of Gawker’s sources suggest Roberts had no idea that the movie would be so political in nature. As previously reported, many members of the cast and crew were duped into thinking they were making a historical film, as much of the dialogue was dubbed over after production ended.
It is clear that the backers of Innocence of the Muslims knew they were making an incendiary film. In fact, they knew it would be offensive to the actors and crew of the production. By disguising it as an historical film and then overdubbing the dialogue with its final script, the producers were able to dupe a number of actors into performing in the film.
But here’s the central question. Was the recent release of an Arabic dubbed trailer on YouTube specifically intended to undercut Obama’s re-election bid?
When John Kerry ran against George W. Bush as a war hero, the Swift Boat effort directly undermined that central credibility. It was timed to muddy public perception of Kerry’s war record so close to the election that the Kerry campaign was unable to effectively respond. Now that Obama has successfully captured and killed Osama Bin Laden and navigated the geopolitical minefield that is the Arab Spring, did someone decide that riots in the Middle East would create doubts about President Obama’s handling of events in the Middle East? Although the original production of the film happened in the summer of 2011, the dubbed version didn’t make its way to YouTube until September of 2012. Why?
Although it is unlikely anyone would have intended the tragic death U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officials, the end result is this story in the New York Times which states:
The upheaval over an anti-Islam video has suddenly become Mr. Obama’s most serious foreign policy crisis of the election season, and a range of analysts say it presents questions about central tenets of his Middle East policy: Did he do enough during the Arab Spring to help the transition to democracy from autocracy? Has he drawn a hard enough line against Islamic extremists? Did his administration fail to address security concerns?
In a third story, the Huffington Post reports that Federal Agents questioned the film’s producer Mr. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, AKA Sam Bacile, at an LA sheriff’s station. Clearly Mr. Nakoula is an unseemly character. The full scope of his involvement and how he funded the film has yet to be fully understood. Who channeled money to him and from what organizations?
Whatever his exact motivations for making the film, one has to pose the question, why did he wait until just before the presidential election to post the film online dubbed in Arabic? The film was originally made in the summer of 2011.
And in that particular decision, did he act alone?
Also read: How the Extreme Right is Wronging America by Cameron Conaway
Mark, I appreciate the effort, but there’s just no way. If we lived in a world where the American public’s primary concern this election season was actually foreign policy, I might agree with you. However, we do not live in that world. We live in a world where the most important issue to voters is (and always has been) the economy. If the announcement of killing Bin Laden had secured a massive upsurge in the polls, then yes, your view might be closer to reality, but this did not happen. On the contrary, questions about how the stimulus money was… Read more »
In the sense that this was bankrolled from within the mainline Republican establishment, no, there’s no evidence for that. In the sense that damaging the incumbent’s electoral prospects was at least a secondary objective? Eminently possible. They do like to dream big in Hollywood, after all. In my opinion it kind of stops being an interesting question once you look into the politics of backers like Steve Klein and his Evangelical buddies. Can’t get any more transparent than that crowd. The real clever trick that the Coptic scoundrel at the center of this pulled, though, was the invention of an… Read more »
Wow, check this out (the French equivalent of The Onion): http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/us-protests-france-cartoons-idUSBRE88H1CX20120918
I think the Bain Capital stuff was this election’s swiftboat effort 😉 Anyway, I think this is a bit of a stretch. As a general rule, I hate both options in our two party system, and while I think both of them would stoop to this level (honestly, they don’t have far to fall), I don’t think they could pull it off. People give large political groups too much credit, I think this was just a random video on youtube that got a lot of notoriety, as they sometimes do. It probably would have gone totally unnoticed in the ocean… Read more »
Six weeks before the election. In Arabic. Long after the original production had wrapped.
For all you know, it was translated by an Arab, who could not give two farts about the election, but, instead, wanted to stir up trouble around 9-11.
I do not see how this is about Obama, except that it exposed his weakness in dealing with the Arab world.
-Jut
JutGlory
I love that last line. You’d couldn’t have scripted it better if you worked for the RNC.
Or if you were an Arab who wanted to cause trouble on 9-11.
My point is that either scenario is plausible, but I see nothing that suggests one theory is better than the other.
-Jut
he could stand up for the Muslim women for one. he could use the bully pulpit in a more forcefull manner. how about just finding one Muslim leader who will begin to turn away from the ridgid moronic dogma that fills the schools and politics. then push that person into a position of leadership and get behind them. and thats the problem , no one is willing to face down a people who think death is a bonus. he needs to lead now and how is up to him. perhaps this a a time for righteous anger. the internet has… Read more »
I think he’s busy standing up for American women at the moment. As for rigid moronic dogma that fills the schools and politics, Obama is fighting that here, too.
Here’s how I see it. This is an opportunity for Obama to stand up. Lets see how he deals with a world of angry Muslims. This could be his chance to blow away Romney or show Barack really does not have a clue as to the question of a “worldwide” freedom of speech?? Seems to me as if we have to have freedom of speech to furthur any conversation.
And how exactly would you have Obama “stand up”? Seems to me he’s beefed up troops and fully authorized deadly force to defend our people. I can see now that the talking points coming down from the right are all about “freedom of speech.” How long did it take to focus group that, I wonder? And now, in the name of free speech, we’re all going to go to the mat for this guy Nakoula Basseley Nakoula? Really? Well, not me, friend. I’ll defend his right to free speech, but I’d admire Mr. Nakoula a lot more if he had… Read more »
Mark: What was your stance on WikiLeaks?
You first.
Haha! I asked first. 🙂
Why are we not talking instead about questions of free speech? I watched the video, and while it’s clearly poorly made and offensive, there are any number of works of art out there that are offensive to various religions. We go down a very slippery slope when we say you can offend x and y religions but not z, because that religion is more prone to violent reactions. And an even bigger slippery slope when we start judgng what works of art are considered acceptable and unacceptable based on who they might offend. Even if someone did create this video… Read more »
Yay for free speech, I’m all for it. My article doesn’t mention a word about censoring this “work of art” as you call it. The issue that I’m raising here is who is behind the decision to post this in arabic to YouTube six weeks before the US election? I have my doubts it was some sort of coincidence. What’s more, posting it helped al Qaeda’s affiliates in Libya storm our consulate and kill our people. Finally, you wrote: “Isn’t it every American’s right to criticize and offend whatever and whomever they choose?” — That’s not what I would call… Read more »
Well, in response to your second paragraph, tell me then: What and who are we allowed to criticize and offend? Or are we not allowed to criticize and offend at all? You say it’s not a thoughtful philosophy yet you also say we shouldn’t be censoring the video. Is it OK to make a film that offends Christians but not Muslims? I would say a philosophy based on being thoughtful is all well and good but ultimately seeks to supress thought. Just ask Rushdie or the Dutch cartoonist, whose respective works of art caused furor across the Middle East. I… Read more »
You may be right about the video ending up helping Obama after Romney’s missteps. And I appreciate your view on offensive art. But I’m not seeking to examine who took offense to the movie or why. We all know why. We all know that the people taking offense are not acting with any high degree of… what’s the right word here… civilized behavior. (That would be deploying drones with rockets, not mobs) Got that. Know it. But I’m talking about why the film was made. Not what the film is, but the purpose for which it was made. And who… Read more »
Why the film or any piece of offensive “art” was/is made is irrelevant. We would then need to start investigating the motives of anyone who ever put out a piece of art if it, incidentally, happened to spark controversy and riots. Sure, if a journalist wants to investigate, but when the federal government gets involved that’s what worries me.
Neely,
I’m asking voters to THINK about when this YouTube video went up and why it was created in the first place. And who decided to provide it dubbed in Arabic at this particular moment.
And no, Neely, its not “irrelevant” why offensive art is made. Most offensive art is made by people who WANT to tell their reasons for doing so. They are trying to get people’s attention. The question is, who is behind this video and why are they hiding? Who were the donors? Who make this movie? Why aren’t they telling their story?
Why are they hiding? Why aren’t they telling their story?
So, they don’t get killed.
-Jut
Kind of like if I went to a backwoods Louisiana parish Baptist Church and started saying Jesus was a child molester? Seriously, why is the anger towards this filmmaker so astonishing to Americans? Free speech only goes so far in the US. Remember, we lynch people for being gay here.
Those are not even similar examples. You might get beaten up behind that Baptist church; that might not even happen. But, the Pope will definitely not command your death. And, it is not the anger that is the issue. Christians get angry about “piss Christ,” but they don’t want to kill the “artist.” They just don’t want to fund similar projects. We boycott speech we don’t like. Last Temptation of Christ probably led to exactly ZERO attempts on Defoe’s life. And, lynching gay people? Really. I have never gone to the local Pride festivities in my town (I hear the… Read more »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
Also: FBI stats from 2009
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/incidents.html
Sexual-orientation bias
Law enforcement agencies reported 1,436 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias. Of these offenses:
55.6 percent were motivated by anti-male homosexual bias.
26.2 percent resulted from anti-homosexual bias.
15.0 percent were prompted by anti-female homosexual bias.
1.7 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.
1.5 percent were the result of anti-heterosexual bias. (Based on Table 1.)
And that’s just what makes it to the report. How much goes unreported? Who can say.
“Seriously, why is the anger towards this filmmaker so astonishing to Americans? Free speech only goes so far in the US. Remember, we lynch people for being gay here.”
Americans aren’t the only ones who are astonished. Europeans, Indians, Chinese, Canadians and most of the world is quite astonished too at the intolerance of Muslims. No country and no people are this uncivilized and barbaric. What astonishes me is that in this day and age anyone would not find the behaviour of Muslims outrageous. It is outrageous and it is ridiculous.
Which Muslims are you talking about? The Muslims in India, or Thailand, or Canada or where? If you’re talking about people in the middle east who hate us, well, that’s a long long story. But you surely wouldn’t lump all Muslims into one big group right? I mean, you couldn’t be that uh,…blindly bigoted, right? I mean, that would be like lumping all Christians into one group, just because a few of them are bugger crazy nuts? Right?
Was this written in jest or has Mark joined the ranks of the nutjob brigades along with the Truthers and Birthers?
Nope. Not in jest. I’m dead serious. What in particular are you taking issue with?
Uh, is was just a video posted on YouTube. There haven’t been any news reports of it being promoted, or released in theatres, or shown in any venue at all prior to the attacks and murders. How would the creators know that it would even been seen out of the millions of videos on YouTube, let alone effect an election? Trying to equate this to the swiftboaters, which was backed by millions in TV ads, is ridiculous. Better to write about this than ask why the Obama Administration didn’t provide US diplomatic facilities adequate security in Muslim countries on the… Read more »
Which Embassy did they burn down? I forget.
It was positively hysterical heading down town today- everything but mounted Cossacks on the ETrain….
Do the watchers not have ticklers on their calendars?
Thank You Mark- and just to let my paranoia run free-range a bit, I’ll consider the OWS anniversary in considering the timing….
I’m busy this week-
Is there even a film or just a trailer?