It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The AP Solves the Mystery of the Man Behind "Innocence of Muslims"

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:08 PM

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Anybody having sex with a 9 year old is a pedophile. If the girl were at least old enough for breeding, then your argument might have some sliver of merit.

But where does it say he had sex with a 9 year old ? It only says Mo married Aisha when she was 9, nothing about sex. And if Mo was a peadophile, why were all of his other wifes not underaged ? Most of his other wifes were 20 + years of age, one of them was even 50 years old when they got married.

I mean, theese thing weres common. Just look at the marriage of King Richard II of England in 1396. King Richard II married a 6 year old just to stop the war between France and England.

Could it be possible that Mo married Aisha out of other reasons than just to have sex with a child ?
Hell,i could imagine there were loads of sex slaves, children included, at the time, no one had to marry a child in order to fulfill their disgusting sexual desires.

edit on 13-9-2012 by ArtooDetoo because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:13 PM

Everything We Know About The Meth-Cooking Fraudster Thought To Be Behind Controversial Anti-Islam Trailer

Didn't see this posted, so thought I'd share it.

Nice headline huh

He has a checkered past with the law

Nakoula has a history of "check-kiting" — whereby you remove money from a bank account before the bank realizes it is fraud. In 2010 he was forced to pay $790,000 in fines for federal bank fraud and sentenced to 21 months in prison. The Federal Bureau of Prison's show he was released in June 2011.

Nakoula's criminal history goes further than that, however. In 1997 he was charged with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and was sentenced to jail, the Daily Beast reports. He violated probation in 2002 and was forced to return to jail.

He has also had a series of financial problems.

Anyway here's a link to the article.

Business Insider
edit on 13/9/2012 by kingears because: added quotes

edit on 13/9/2012 by kingears because: no reason

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:19 PM

Originally posted by ArtooDetoo

I mean, these things were common. Just look at the marriage of King Richard II of England in 1396. King Richard II married a 6 year old just to stop the war between France and England.

That's right. It was common and is still common today in some cultures.

Child brides are supposed to live amongst the husband's family and learn their ways. Its tradition and cultural custom. Parents believe they are protecting girl children by marrying them off. They are not supposed to have sex until the woman becomes of age.

Of course - - news only reports the negative.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:37 PM
I still do not believe that the film is the sole instigator of this attack. One does not just walk into a US Embassy and kill an ambassador. Are teh defenses really taht poor there?? I mean did we not learn anything from Iran after we messed around with their government and then the people there turned on us in a similar manner??

I think this sounds more like an attack based on our countriy's involvement in their affairs and not just a knee jerk reaction to a stupid movie. Had they just vandalized the embassy i would buy it but killing an ambassador?? yeah right.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:54 PM
reply to post by votan

I'm afraid the answer is yes.

Security really was that poor there. That is from cryptome, Wednesday morning.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:05 PM
I think the larger question to all of this, is at what point will the West accept and respect Muhammad as the historical figure that he is?

Micheal H. Hart published a book in 1978 ranking the 100 most influential people in history. The 100

1. Muhammad
2. Issac Newton
3. Jesus Christ
4. Buddha
5. Confucius

Sure, this is a very debatable topic, but any serious list would have Muhammad near the top. The Prophet of Islam catches a bad rap because of violence and some, by Western standard, outdated choices. But viewing a leader of the 600's needs to be taken with regard to the context.

Was Muhammad any worse than Alexander the Great or Caesar? Leaders that are idolized in the Western narrative. This man initiated an empire that unified vast lands and the vestiges remain impactful.

On top of that, he is credited with authoring a book of divine revelation.

And yet, in the public school system I believe we spent no more than a class or two discussing Muhammad and Islam. Why are we shying away from this topic?

I searched google for a poll of American public opinion on Muhammad, and guess what? Came up empty. You may be able to find some stuff about attitude toward Islam, but not the Prophet specifically. Why? Because, surely a large percentage would be unfavorable toward him and this would be dangerous if known in the Islamic world. Maybe I wasn't thorough enough, correct me if this is the case.

Pew- Islam most unfavorable religion (This article is from '07, compares Islam with Mormonism as 2 most unfavorable religions)

The difference is that Muslims respect Christ as a prophet, but resent modern Christians. While Christians are somewhat tolerant of the majority of Muslims, while being skeptical or hostile toward the prophet.

Allow the Islamic world their Prophet, respect their tradition. Trust them to interpret the Koran in the context of the 21st century. If the Crusades didn't seem to be a reoccurring event from their perspective, we might see a change in the definition of Jihad in the direction of a metaphorical personal battle of inner good and evil.

How can we expect our leaders to grant Muslims free reign when the population behind them remain hostile, disrespectful, or skeptical at best toward their Prophet?

How many of you can say, "Islam's Prophet Muhammad was an individual with accomplishments to rival anyone in history and deserves some respect and credit."


posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:12 PM
It seems like it's zealotry against zealotry.
I say we put all the zealots on Antarctica and let them fight it out... leave the rest of us sane people the hell alone.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:38 PM
Regardless of how disgusted I was by just viewing the 15 minute trailer of the movies, the people associated with the film shouldn't be held responsible. How can somebody else be responsible for another persons actions based or sparked off by opinion? How did any of these countries that are so offended, even come to watch the film? Are they not fairly strict about the internet in their societies? These countries where the Muslim faith is prominent?

Are not Christian's just as offended and shocked at some of the jokes and parody's made about Christianity? I immediately think of the Satanic Bible. Or I think of Southpark. I also think immediately of some very offensive comedians. Which I generally love.

FREEDOM of speech, baby. Chant it, wear it out. Don't let them shred another piece of our fragmented freedoms and rights.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:53 PM
Another person connected with the film pops up, along with a concern re "American free speech" ....

Nakoula, who used Bacile spelled multiple ways as a pseudonym, contacted Klein months ago for advice about the limits of American free speech and asked for help vetting the movie's script, Klein said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Dear God, from Viet Nam to another war that made no sense, the connection in one man's mind, and what he will do about it...

Klein said he recognized parallels between what he saw in Vietnam, where he says he infiltrated Viet Cong cells, and "Muslim sleeper cells"..."I'm kind of an unsophisticated James Bond operative. I want to piss this guy off, I want to find out, Why does he want to kill me?" he said. "Why does he want to capture my daughter and granddaughter and rape them? Why does this guy want to act this way?"

The role dovetailed with Klein's relentless pursuit of radical Muslims in America, an activity he says he began after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. It took on more meaning in 2007, when his son, then a 27-year-old Army staff sergeant, was seriously injured in Iraq. ... "What do I get out of this? I get to die one of these days hoping my granddaughters and my grandsons will be safe from these monsters," Klein said while sipping a beer on the front porch of his home.

Hatred. Hatred in one man's mind, that darkens his life. That Three Rivers "church" BTW also preaches hatred, born of fear; they were the Militant Christian Survivalist Millenialists who knew the United Nation tanks were going to block the main street into their town, when all hell broke loose at midnight 12-31-99. They bunkered down to wait.

Since that scenario never happened, their hatred spread to Muslims.

Klein founded Courageous Christians United, which conducts protests outside abortion clinics, Mormon temples and mosques, and started Concerned Citizens for the First Amendment, which preaches against Muslims and publishes volumes of anti-Muslim propaganda that Klein distributes. He also has helped train paramilitary militias at the church of Kaweah near Three Rivers, about an hour southeast of Fresno, to prepare for what they believe is a coming holy war with Muslim sleeper cells,


The filmmaker's idea was to give the film a title that would draw in "hardcore Muslims" and then trick them into watching a movie that bashed Islam in the hopes that they would give up their faith, Klein said.


So, like a wildfire ember carried miles on a strong wind, landing to create more fire and devastation, a spark from a fire of hatred was carried a great distance to inflame the minds and hearts of other fearful men.

Hatred from any religious group must be called out.
edit on 13-9-2012 by desert because: add missing punctuation

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:31 PM
If the guy didn't want to be identified he wouldn't have made it so easy to locate him. This is all part of the bigger picture, whatever that is. Why go through the trouble of using an alias when your only plan in case the press shows up is to put your thumb over your middle name on the drivers license? It would actually be funny if this wasn't so serious. These aren't the droids you're looking for.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by Trublbrwing

His probation says he was not allowed to use fake names or the internet. So he had good reason to use fake names.

June 24, 2010: U.S.A. vs. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (sentencing) Case 2:09-cr-00617-CAS Document 58 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:291 United States District Court Central District of California UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. NAKOULA BASSELEY NAKOULA Defendant Mark Basseley Youssef; Yousseff M. Basseley; akas: Nicola Bacily; Malid Ahlawi Docket No. CR09-617-CAS 7 7 4 ENTER Social Security No. 0 (Last 4 digits) JUDGMENT AND PROBATION/COMMITMENT ORDER MONTH DAY YEAR

5.The defendant shall not obtain or possess any driver's license, Social Security number,birth certificate, passport or any other form of identification in any name, other than thedefendant’s true legal name; nor shall the defendant use, for any purpose or in anymanner, any name other than his/her true legal name or names without the prior writtenapproval of the Probation Office.

7.Defendant shall not possess or use a device with access to any online service at anylocation without the prior approval of the Probation Officer. This includes access throughany Internet Service Provider ("ISP"), bulletin board system, or any public or privatecomputer network system. Further, defendant shall not have another individual access theInternet on defendant's behalf to obtain files or information that defendant is restrictedfrom accessing personally, or accept restricted files or information from another person;8.Defendant shall use only those computers, computer related devices, screen/user names,passwords, e-mail accounts, and ISPs approved by the Probation Officer. Computer andcomputer-related devices include, but are not limited to, personal computers, personaldata assistants (PDAs), Internet appliances, electronic games, and cellular telephones, aswell as peripheral equipment, that can access, or can be modified to access, the Internet,electronic bulletin boards, other computers, or similar media. Defendant shall use anyapproved computers only within the scope of his employment. Defendant shall not accessa computer for any other purpose. Defendant shall immediately report to the ProbationOfficer any changes in defendant's employment affecting defendant's access and/or use of computers or the Internet, including e-mail;

edit on 13-9-2012 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:34 PM

Originally posted by desert
Hatred from any religious group must be called out.

And that is why freedom of speech is so important. Bit of a double edged sword though isn't it?

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:48 PM
This is where freedom of speech needs to be interpreted. It means just that, freedom to your opinion. Think about the westboro baptist church and all of the vile things they have said over the years. You don't hear about military personnel storming their church and killing them do you? You might completely hate what one person says but two wrongs don't make a right.

Whoever made the video was just stupid, plain and simple. Yeah he had every right to, but come on. Why can't we just have some common sense and get along?

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:36 PM
The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.
- Arthur C. Clarke -

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 02:12 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 02:37 AM
None of this would have happened if not for Salmon Rushdie. Let us blame him.

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 03:14 AM

Originally posted by chasingbrahman

Now that the producer has been identified, how does anyone feel about the legality of making this film? I realize the actors and others employed by the film's producers are quite angry. But as to our future, and the internet's future, I'm concerned that this will result in an EO which suspends certain internet freedoms contingent upon staff review. I wonder if YouTube users will soon experience a delay in posting video while staff reviews it for content.

By no means do I support such sensationalism. It's unnecessary and only makes the gap between the Western world and Muslims more than necessary. That said, it is even more ridiculous to murder people, let alone people who are not even involved with the movie at all. Islam is the religion of peace, right? Well, I don't see it. What I do see is a huge minority group of Muslims who act like a bunch of hypocrite cavemen. How can one feel so quickly offended. Who cares about a few cartoons or a movie for this matter, it wouldn't be reason for me to feel offended and definitely not to protest, destroy, or kill people. Cavemen, that's what these creatures are. I am sure Allah and the prophet would be ashamed of their deeds.

Just imagine, we would kill a Muslim for every flag of ours they burn... there would be a lot of dead Muslims. A ridiculous reasoning.

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I was under the impression that embassies had decent security, I stand corrected.

edit on 14-9-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:59 AM
Ultimately, it was an obviously planned event. The film was released in July. Why on that day did the protesting and the attack and the Libya Embassy?

Dance puppets dance.

The human race needs to wake up.

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:05 AM
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth

I think it is a cover story to take away attention from the true reason why the embassy was attacked.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in