In response to skeeter20's comment:
In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
Right. So, following your scenario, the "crazies" flip out over a youtube video, watched by 700 people. Hillary pushes for and gets the "film maker" arrested and thrown into jail. Why? Doesn't that disturb you? Do oyu realize how unlikely this sounds?
In response to skeeter20's comment:
There were only 700 views of "the video" at the time of the protests. That's an awful lot of protests for a video so far down the youtube food chain.
Unless, of course, mere knowledge of the video's existence - passed mouth to mouth / over the internet - is enough.
I doubt that even a majority of the crazies rioting over prior mohammed cartoons actually took the time to dig them up. They just heard "depiction of my invisible man !?!?!?!?!?" and lost their sh!t.
Religion, especially fundamentalist religion, can be quite dangerous.
This whole video excuse is nonsense. I want to know WHO pushed this as the official story in the face of no evidence, and why.
You're really sticking to your 700 views narrative? So McClatchy is in on the coverup now, too?
The scene aired on al Nas blurred the face of the woman, in accord with Salafist beliefs that a man should not engage with an uncovered woman who is not his wife. But it left the manâÂÂÂÂÂÂs image clear, even though Muslims are forbidden to make any attempt to recreate Muhammad.
âÂÂÂÂÂÂWhat is this stupidity?âÂÂÂÂÂÂ Abdullah asked, after the station aired the clip, concluding later that the creators of the film âÂÂÂÂÂÂwant to inflame Egypt.âÂÂÂÂÂÂ
Abdullah asked if anyone had apologized for creating such a film. His co-host responded, âÂÂÂÂÂÂAn apology is not enough. I want them convicted.âÂÂÂÂÂÂ
That same day, the Mufti of Al Azhar University, the chief source of Sunni Islamic thought in the Arab world, condemned the clip for âÂÂÂÂÂÂinsulting the prophetâÂÂÂÂÂÂ and noting it was produced by âÂÂÂÂÂÂCopts living abroad.âÂÂÂÂÂÂ
Facebook pages started appearing, urging Islamists and youth to protest Tuesday, the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Jones had called for putting Muhammad on trial that day in a web message, which is why, protest organizers said, they scheduled it for that day. Calls started coming into the U.S. embassy as well, catching everyone there by surprise.
âÂÂÂÂÂÂPeople were writing to us asking what the role of the U.S. government has in this video. What are you going to do? Who produced this?âÂÂÂÂÂÂ said one U.S. official at the embassy who did not want to be identified because he was not authorized to speak publicly. âÂÂÂÂÂÂOur initial response was: What video?âÂÂÂÂÂÂ
But as the embassy learned about the planned protests and the videoâÂÂÂÂÂÂs content, officials there said, they immediately recognized the potential problem. They called leaders of the groups calling for the protest and apologized for the film, according to recipients of the call. They told them the film does not represent how Americans see Islam. In a statement posted on the embassyâÂÂÂÂÂÂs web page, they condemned the video.
But it was too late. Nader Bakkar, a spokesman for the conservative Islamist Nour Party and one of those who received a phone call from the embassy in the hours before the scheduled protest, said there was no going back. It was now a religious duty to defend the prophet, he said.
On Monday, a day before the scheduled protest, newspapers reported on the upcoming protest, saying it was called because Americans must pay for allowing such a movie to be produced. Major newspapers wrote about the Coptic church disavowing the movie. Islamic groups called for those who produced the movie to be punished. Bakker told another the newspaper, al Masry al Youm, there should be a law that forbids insulting the prophet. âÂÂÂÂÂÂThis is the leastâÂÂÂÂÂÂ that needs to happen, he said.
By mid afternoon Tuesday, protesters started gathering in front of the embassy, chanting against the United States. By 5 p.m. some scaled the 12-foot wall protecting the compound, set a ladder against the flagpole and brought down the American flag. They replaced it with an Islamic one. A protester handed the American flag to those sitting on top of the wall, and they began tearing at it. Whatever remained of the flag was eventually burned.
Five hours later, in neighboring Libya, attackers launched an assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens, tech officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/15/168613/anti-us-outrage-over-video-began.html#storylink=cpy
So, the VERY article you put up shows how this was manufactured as an excuse, timing it around 9/11, AND no mention of the video in the Bengazi portion of the attck.
So, again, I ask: Who in the U.S. government put fprward the video excuse for Bengazi?
We already know for a fact that the government knew that the bengazi attack was not related to the Bengazi attack.