Today’s show was a phoner due to buses not running on anything approaching a “schedule.”
The show, broadcast live from my dining room, was all about the various theories which purport to explain why the consulate in Libya was attacked. It’s a messy situation and the conspiracy theories make it all the more muddy.
Claims that the incident was a false flag operation have been rife: this blog post from Aotearoa: A Wider Perspective is a nice example. It links in the attacks with the anniversary of 9/11, points out that there was media confusion as to either where the attack took place or which embassy or consulate was being talked about and so forth.
I’m rather partial to this one, not because of the content of the theory but rather the author’s “I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but…” angle on the proceedings: Mitt Romney caused the incident. The universal distrust of Republicans is now such that we suspect him of being capable of almost anything.
But not of winning the presidency.
Still, all of these pale in comparison to the mysteries behind the film, “Innocence of the Muslims,” which seems to have sparked it all in the first place. I’m not going to link to the two trailers to this film: if you’re really interested, you’ll go find them on the internets and I’d rather not link to offensive dross unless I really can’t help it. If you bother to watch them you’ll be astounded by the production values (or lack thereof) and the sheer incompetence of both the script and the acting. For a film which is rumoured to have been financed by 100 Jewish bankers who put in 5 million $US, either they didn’t get their money’s worth or that’s yet another lie spread by Sam Bacile in his quest to… Well, stir up trouble. You might find the following links about the film, the producer and the actors who are distancing themselves from it quite interesting. It certainly seems like he has been acting in a conspiratorial manner.