September 14, 2012, - 2:29 pm
The Copt/Wall St Journal Blood Libel Against the Jews – the anti-Mohammed Movie & Nakoula/Bacile
When will the Copts and the Wall Street Journal apologize for their blood libel against Jews and Israel with regard to the movie, “Innocence of Muslims,” the movie used as a phony excuse for planned, coordinated Muslim violence on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 earlier this week . . . and the violence ever since? As I’ve said all along, Muslims don’t need an excuse–phony or legitimate (and it is never legitimate)–to engage in the violence that is their way and prescribed by the koran, the hadiths, and the imams and their sermons. But a movie trailer was used by Coptic Christians to defame and incite blame and hatred against the Jews and Israel, and the Wall Street Journal was complicit, with zero apologies from either party.
Scene from the “Innocence of Muslims” Trailer by Fake “Israeli Jew”/Real Copt “Sam Bacile”/Nakoula Basseley Nakoula
On Wednesday, I told you my suspicions, confirmed later in the day, that “Sam Bacile”–the man who implicated Jews and Israelis in the crappy trailer he posted online–was a fraud, not a Jew, not an Israeli, and never raised the $5 million he claimed he got from “100 Jewish donors.” I said he was an agent provocateur, and I was disgusted that the Wall Street Journal reported this as fact and never ever made any attempt to verify even one of these specious claims that turned out to be the work of a Coptic Christian ex-con who committed bank fraud. But where did he get the money–even though it was not $5 million? And why did he implicate Israel and the Jews? And why did the Wall Street Journal–the second most popular newspaper in America (behind USA Today)–report his BS as fact, without making a single attempt to verify that “Sam Bacile,” who we now know is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was Israeli, Jewish, and raised $5 million from “100 Jewish donors”? Just so you know, the Journal reporters whose bylines appeared on the story were Matt Bradley, Dion Nissenbaum, Sam Dagher, and Jay Solomon–respectively, a gentile, a Jew, an Arab, and another Jew. Not one of these “reporters” actually did any reporting. They, instead, put their names on a blood libel against Jews, and it spread around the world. The stories debunking that did not spread as far or wide, and the Arab Street–already prone to Muslim conspiracy theories against Jews–will use it as an excuse for more violence against Jews, just as they used it as a phony excuse for premeditated, planned violence against Americans and our embassies. Here is what they reported on Wednesday as fact (when it was not–and they did nothing to verify it):
The movie, “Innocence of Muslims, ” was directed and produced by an Israeli-American real-estate developer.
Hmmm . . . how did they know he was an Israeli or a real-estate developer? Because he told them so, and they didn’t want to break a fingernail dialing the Israeli Embassy or looking up California property records to verify this.
Then they wrote:
Mr. Bacile said he raised $5 million from about 100 Jewish donors, who he declined to identify.
Um, maybe the fact that he didn’t want to identify even one of them could have been a hint that he was lying. I mean, next, David Duke will tell the Journal that the “100 Jewish donors” were behind 9/11, and will the Journal report that? I heard that “100 Jewish donors” were behind syphilis and gonorrhea and the return of the Bubonic Plague. ‘Cuz someone told the Wall Street Journal, and they just published it. So, it’s gotta be true, right? (What other Wall Street Journal info is equally phony? Probably a lot more than people realize. Amy Chozick, then of the Journal and now of the New York Times did the same thing to me. She repeated as fact false info fed to her by HAMAS CAIR and other Muslim groups, claiming that John McCain dumped an “innocent, respected Arab businessman” from his campaign in Michigan in 2008 because of what I wrote about him. But, as I wrote, the man, Ali Jawad, was a federally convicted insurance defrauder and was an open supporter of Hezbollah, not to mention the fact that he was under investigation for Hezbollah cigarette smuggling.)
Clearly, “Bacile” a/k/a Nakoula is an agent provocateur against the Jews and Israel. The question is who funded his provocation and how deeply the Coptic church, despite its obligatory public denials, was involved. That he is Copt is hardly a coincidence and not exclusive of his anti-Semitic blood libel.
As I’ve repeatedly noted on this site–often to doubters who want desperately to take the Copts’ side against Muslims–Copts were even more anti-Semitic than Muslims in Egypt(see also here). They led Muslims to the pogroms against Jews throughout Egyptian history. Their recently deceased clown of a religious leader, Pope Shenouda III, repeatedly attacked Jews as Christ-killers, called for the murder of Jews, and praised HAMAS, asking Copts to support the Islamic terrorist group. If you think that Nakoula a/k/a “Sam Bacile” engaged in this blood libel against Jews off the top of his head, think again. The Copts hate Jews, and they clearly set out to defame Jews and Israel with all of this, by claiming that Israelis and Jews were behind this when they were not. And it’s no coincidence that the Egyptians and Arab world discovered the trailer (I’ve noted that we don’t know if a real, full-length movie actually exists) after American Coptic leader, Morris Sadek–the President of the American Coptic Assembly (and a close ally of Hanan Qahwaji Tudor, the con artist who goes by several aliases including “Brigitte Gabriel” and “Rachel Cohen”), translated it into Arabic, publicized it, and sent it out to Egyptian Muslim media he knew would latch onto it like a match to gasoline. He has yet to denounce his friend Nakoula’s disgusting blood libel against the Jews and Israel, probably because he approves of it.
I say that because I’ve had some interaction with Morris Sadek in the past (and he’s not responded to my inquiry about the movie and “Bacile”/Nakoula). When I wrote several times on this site about Coptic pogroms against Jews, and Pope Shenouda’s anti-Semitic incitement in Easter sermons and elsewhere, Sadek e-mailed me and admitted to me flat out that I’m right about Coptic anti-Semitism. But then he went on to tell me how I should be on the Copts’ side anyway. Uh, sorry, no sale. I view Copts v. Muslims as I do Hezbollah v. HAMAS and Shi’ite v. Sunni. They all hate and wanna kill me, so I just want them to keep fighting each other forever . . . and all of them to lose.
This deliberate, planned blood libel of the Jews and Israel is more reason for me to feel that way about the Copts. So, where is all the Jewish outrage, especially on the Jewish right about this? Why isn’t anyone calling the Copts out for this, when Morris Sadek promoted the movie and said nothing when he knew Nakoula/”Bacile” and that Nakoula/”Bacile” was lying about being a Jewish-Israeli and that Jews financed the movie? Because that’s what Copts do–they defame and attack Jews. They use us. They are not our allies. And they are not the allies of legitimate Christians.
Again, where is the Wall Street Journal apology to the Jews and Israel? And where is the Coptic apology to the Jews and Israel?
If you think one is forthcoming, I have some ovens in Auschwitz–the result of many similar blood libels against the Jews–to sell you.
Also, check out Edgar Davidson’s piece on this topic.
***
One last question: why hasn’t anyone posted Nakoula’s mug shot, which can usually be obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from the U.S. Federal Marshal Service or the Federal Bureau of Prisons? The face of this anti-Semitic blood libelist needs to be seen and known.
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2012
"When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism." Martin Luther King Jr, 1967
"When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism." Martin Luther King Jr, 1967
http://edgar1981.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-latest-blood-libel-against-israel.html
The latest blood libel against Israel and Jews
Even the most basic fact checking by the media would have immediately discovered that the so called "Israeli Jew living in America" Sam Bacile (supposedly the man behind the anti-Islam film making the news) was a fabrication. And the idea that his film was funded by "100 wealthy American Jews" was so obviously false (the claim fits the classic Arab conspiracy theories) that it should have set alarm bells ringing for any self-respecting journalist or news editor.
Yet on Tuesday (September 11th - no coincidence about that) when Muslims in Egypt and Libya 'spontaneously rioted' in protest at the film every major media outlet in the UK - including the BBC and Sky news - stated as an uncontested fact that the film had been directed by an Israeli with $5million funding provided by 100 wealthy American Jews.
When 'Sam Bacile' was quickly discovered to be an Egyptian Coptic Christian, named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula the media seemed strangely reluctant to point this out and rectify their earlierblood libel error). So if you do a quick search of the internet you will find thousands of articles and blog postings still spitting their anti-Semitism about Sam Bacile.. Even worse is that the main stream media (including Sky News) is continuing to feed the blood libel by still citing the nonsense about the "100 wealthy American Jews" funding the film. For example, Britain's most popular newspaper the Sun states in today's issue (still available online here) that:
They say that a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. It never takes much of a lie about Jews to be quickly consumed as a fact by the entire Muslim (and leftist) world. But the extent to which the Western media has fed and perpetuated such an obviously preposterous lie as this one is on a scale of cynicism previously unseen. For a typical posting about the story here - and it is one of thousands like it still up. It provides yet more proof of the deep-seated anti-Semitism of much of the media.
And the media's main spin on the riots - that they are only inspired by this film's 'provocation of Muslim feelings' - also reveals their pandering to Islamism and total lack of understanding of Islamist politics. The film has been available on YouTube since July, yet an Arabic translation of it was broadcast in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood - just in time for them to riot on September 11th, while the attack on the US embassy in Libya had clearly been planned well in advance.
UPDATE: I have been looking at further coverage of the story tonight and I can find no main stream media article which has made any attempt to consider the issue of the false original claims. Whereas every article emphasized the "Jewish Israeli" nationality orginally claimed, none of them mention the Egyptian Coptic nationality of the actual director. In fact many main stream media articles fail to mention Nakoula at all while others are happy to keep the blood libel very much alive, For example, tonight's Evening Standard covers the story on Page 24. The writer Rashid Razaq does not mention the name Nakoula once. He does, however, describe a banner held up in one of the protests as saying "It is the duty of all Muslims and Christians to kill Morris Sadek and Sam Bacile and everyone who participated in the film.” Razaq makes no atemtp to point out the obvious error here. So, as far as the Evening Standard is concerned, the Israeli Jew Sam Bacile not only exists but he is the one to blame for all of this. Still, I guess this is par for the course for the Standard's Middle East reporting.
UPDATE 16/9/12: Although some of today's Sunday newspapers have mentioned the anti-Semitic angle to the story (well done especially to Toby Young in today's Sun) most people in the UK have accepted that is was 'the Jews' behind all of this because that message was forcefully rammed home on TV and radio where it has not yet been corrected. One person emailed me the following:
Now for the Cry of the Coptics . Why no Jew should help them.
The Siege of Egypt's St. Mark Cathedral
He further confirmed that live ammunition was fired on those Copts who refused to relent and instead fought back fiercely, mainly with rocks. When Ramzi tried to calm them, they told him that they "were ready to be martyred for our most important church," and, "We are not just children to abandon our cathedral to be set aflame or have someone attack it."
Ramzi said that he could not really blame these Christian defenders and added that many were already in heavy mourning for the six Copts murdered the day before, and that, after a second attack on their cathedral at the funeral of those who had been killed, they had reached a point beyond frustration.
Ramzi's most important and, at the time, controversial assertion, however, was the role played by Egypt's Interior Ministry. The police and security figures, he said, would tell the beleaguered Copts that everything was fine, that matters were secured, "only to find another five gas bombs thrown their way, not to mention live ammunition fired at them." Similarly, he said that security forces kept circling the cathedral and shooting gas bombs at every door: "Why, why would they do this?" Ramzi said on the phone. When he and others phoned the police, urging them to bring an armored vehicle to the front of the cathedral to guard it, the vehicle came, but far from protecting the cathedral, he personally saw "the [Muslim] youths" standing on top of it, throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at the cathedral.
When the host continued to express dismay and doubt, that the state security would really behave this way, Ramzi asked an important question: the one thing that everyone agreed to is that, for hours, there were at least 30-40 Muslim youths hurling various projectiles and Molotov cocktails at the cathedral, "So can you tell me why security did not stop them or apprehend them? Was Egypt's entire state security unable to stop a mere 30-40 youths from vandalizing the nation's cathedral?"
When the host said, "but they arrested ten people," Ramzi scoffed: "What are you thinking? You will find that the majority of them are Christian!"
Time has proven all of Ramzi's eyewitness assertions true. Soon after his interview, which was conducted as the cathedral was still under siege, several pictures were published, including by Youm7, a prominent Egyptian paper, showing Muslims shooting rifles and throwing rocks and other objects at the cathedral, while the security forces stand by. One picture shows a masked man in civilian clothes sitting in an Egyptian armored vehicle.
Even the Western mainstream media recently came around to affirming that Egyptian security forces were involved in the attack on the cathedral. And, true to Ramzi's prediction, the only people to be arrested in connection with this latest assault on Christianity were the Christians themselves.
Yet on Tuesday (September 11th - no coincidence about that) when Muslims in Egypt and Libya 'spontaneously rioted' in protest at the film every major media outlet in the UK - including the BBC and Sky news - stated as an uncontested fact that the film had been directed by an Israeli with $5million funding provided by 100 wealthy American Jews.
When 'Sam Bacile' was quickly discovered to be an Egyptian Coptic Christian, named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula the media seemed strangely reluctant to point this out and rectify their earlier
The two-hour film cost £3.1million to make — and it is claimed was financed by 100-plus Jewish donors.Even while the same article makes it clear that Nakoula is a con-man it fails to state theonly person who ever claimed that the film was funded by 100 Jews was Nakoula himself. That's the same Nakoula who also claimed that the actual director was "Israeli Jew Sam Bacile" who turned out to be a pseudonym for Nakoula himself. Anybody with the slightest knowledge about Egyptian Copts will know exactly why Nakoula has acted in the way he has. Firstly, as a Copt he will be especially concerned for the fate of Copts in Egypt under the new Islamic regime - they are being brutally persecuted. Secondly as a Copt there is one group of people he will hate even more than the Islamists, and that is the Jews (seehere). So by framing his film as a classic Israeli-Jewish conspiracy he was able to kill two birds with one stone.
 |
| Proud Muslim mother photographs her child at Sydney demonstration (for more on the Muslim Sydney riots 'against the film' see here) |
And the media's main spin on the riots - that they are only inspired by this film's 'provocation of Muslim feelings' - also reveals their pandering to Islamism and total lack of understanding of Islamist politics. The film has been available on YouTube since July, yet an Arabic translation of it was broadcast in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood - just in time for them to riot on September 11th, while the attack on the US embassy in Libya had clearly been planned well in advance.
UPDATE: I have been looking at further coverage of the story tonight and I can find no main stream media article which has made any attempt to consider the issue of the false original claims. Whereas every article emphasized the "Jewish Israeli" nationality orginally claimed, none of them mention the Egyptian Coptic nationality of the actual director. In fact many main stream media articles fail to mention Nakoula at all while others are happy to keep the blood libel very much alive, For example, tonight's Evening Standard covers the story on Page 24. The writer Rashid Razaq does not mention the name Nakoula once. He does, however, describe a banner held up in one of the protests as saying "It is the duty of all Muslims and Christians to kill Morris Sadek and Sam Bacile and everyone who participated in the film.” Razaq makes no atemtp to point out the obvious error here. So, as far as the Evening Standard is concerned, the Israeli Jew Sam Bacile not only exists but he is the one to blame for all of this. Still, I guess this is par for the course for the Standard's Middle East reporting.
UPDATE 16/9/12: Although some of today's Sunday newspapers have mentioned the anti-Semitic angle to the story (well done especially to Toby Young in today's Sun) most people in the UK have accepted that is was 'the Jews' behind all of this because that message was forcefully rammed home on TV and radio where it has not yet been corrected. One person emailed me the following:
Edgar
Same problem with James O'Brian on the LBC phone in . He repeatedly referred to the producer being an Israeli Jew . In order to reinforce the stereotype , he mentioned the standard trope of a ' shadowy group of cigar chomping individuals ( early Hollywod Jewish moguls smoking cigars ) and congratulating themselves on achieving the desired outcome. I eventually got through to one of his team informing her that as of the previous evening , AP and the Huff had identified him as being a 55 year old Coptic Christian from Egypt. It was obvious O Brian's researchers had not done their homework or as more likely were closed down. Needless to say I was not put through and O Brian was allowed to carry on slating the Jews for something that was nothing to do with them. I'm not surprised . O'Brian has previous form on Israel and it's all bad .
Joke is, on the same programme he went on to castigate the Sun for their reporting of the Hillsboro disaster labelling the Sun gutter press .
Man is a hypocrite without parallel .James O'Brien is indeed a nasty piece of work (I can no longer bear to listen to him). A real old-fashioned anti-Semite. I've put in formal complaints to LBC before about his anti-Israel bias and have been totally ignored. O'Brien is on every weekday spewing his nonsense from 10.00 until 13:00. But there is no relief on LBC on Saturdays. From 07.00 until 10:00 there is the classic "as a Jew" James Max whose ignorance about Israel and the Middle East never fails to stop him pushing the classic leftist narrative (despite the fact that he calls himself a conservative). Then from 10:00 until 13.00 there is the double act of two of the biggest anti-Semites ever to have been MPs, namely Ken Livingstone and David Mellor. The joke is that Mellor is supposed to be the 'conservative counterbalance' to Livingstone.
UPDATE 16/9/12: Fox News and the Guardian perpetuate the blood libel
The Siege of Egypt's St. Mark Cathedral
An Insider's Account
"Was Egypt's entire state security unable to stop a mere 30-40 youths form vandalizing the nation's cathedral?" — Amir Ramzi, eyewitness to the Egyptian security forces joining the mob that attacked the cathedral.
What really happened on Sunday, April 7, 2013, during the St. Mark Cathedral attack in Cairo, where two Christians were killed and dozens wounded by Egyptian forces? As usual, different reports gave different versions, but now that the smoke has settled, the facts as first asserted during the attack by Coptic activists have been confirmed.
Back during the conflict, when the military was actually besieging the St. Mark cathedral—the most sacred building for millions of Coptic Christians and the only apostolic see in the entire continent of Africa—Amir Ramzi, a Copt who managed to escape the compound where hundreds of other Christians were trapped all night, was interviewed by phone on the popular Egyptian show, Cairo Today.
According to Ramzi, President of the Criminal Court: "Today we witnessed a day unprecedented in the history of modern Egypt—a day when holy sites were attacked both by the interior ministry and the mob."
The program's host, Amr Adib, evidently finding it difficult to implicate the interior ministry in an attack on an Egyptian landmark, asked Ramzi to clarify. So Ramzi began from the beginning, explaining how the funeral service was for six Christians killed two days earlier—including one intentionally set aflame—in a conflict begun when Muslims were seen sexually harassing a Christian girl. Many of the Copts coming out of the cathedral funeral service were angry and protesting. Waiting for them in the streets were Islamic extremists, who started hurling rocks on the Copts—who responded in like manner. Eventually police appeared; Ramzi himself called a police chief, who assured him that the Copts should just go back into their cathedral until the police secure the situation:
So that's what we did, thinking police would come to protect and separate the clashers. We were surprised to find that the police began to intervene and become another party to the conflict, attacking the Copts who were fighting back against the [Muslim] youth who were attacking them, and shooting gas bombs into the cathedral compound, which caused extreme poisoning, to the point that the ambulance cars were not enough to take the sick.
Ramzi added that three to four gas bombs struck the papal headquarters itself—the seat of the Coptic pope—while another 40 to 50 entered into the general compound, causing dozens of Copts, including many women and children, to grow sick and faint. Whether from the gas bombs themselves or from another source, Copts also found the ceiling of their cathedral catching fire, although the youths managed to put it out.
Ramzi said that he could not really blame these Christian defenders and added that many were already in heavy mourning for the six Copts murdered the day before, and that, after a second attack on their cathedral at the funeral of those who had been killed, they had reached a point beyond frustration.
Ramzi's most important and, at the time, controversial assertion, however, was the role played by Egypt's Interior Ministry. The police and security figures, he said, would tell the beleaguered Copts that everything was fine, that matters were secured, "only to find another five gas bombs thrown their way, not to mention live ammunition fired at them." Similarly, he said that security forces kept circling the cathedral and shooting gas bombs at every door: "Why, why would they do this?" Ramzi said on the phone. When he and others phoned the police, urging them to bring an armored vehicle to the front of the cathedral to guard it, the vehicle came, but far from protecting the cathedral, he personally saw "the [Muslim] youths" standing on top of it, throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at the cathedral.
When the host continued to express dismay and doubt, that the state security would really behave this way, Ramzi asked an important question: the one thing that everyone agreed to is that, for hours, there were at least 30-40 Muslim youths hurling various projectiles and Molotov cocktails at the cathedral, "So can you tell me why security did not stop them or apprehend them? Was Egypt's entire state security unable to stop a mere 30-40 youths from vandalizing the nation's cathedral?"
When the host said, "but they arrested ten people," Ramzi scoffed: "What are you thinking? You will find that the majority of them are Christian!"
Time has proven all of Ramzi's eyewitness assertions true. Soon after his interview, which was conducted as the cathedral was still under siege, several pictures were published, including by Youm7, a prominent Egyptian paper, showing Muslims shooting rifles and throwing rocks and other objects at the cathedral, while the security forces stand by. One picture shows a masked man in civilian clothes sitting in an Egyptian armored vehicle.
Even the Western mainstream media recently came around to affirming that Egyptian security forces were involved in the attack on the cathedral. And, true to Ramzi's prediction, the only people to be arrested in connection with this latest assault on Christianity were the Christians themselves.
Raymond Ibrahim is author of the forthcoming book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians. He is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and associate fellow at the Middle East Forum.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.