As the debate about whether the anti-Muhammad film Innocence of Muslims is responsible for the Middle Eastern riots has all but been won by those who say one had nothing to do with the other, another debate may be taking shape. That debate is about who made the film, why it was made, and how it became such a lightning rod in the first place.

As Walid reported, the relationship between the producer of the film – Nakoula Basseley Nakoula – and Muslim fundamentalist Eiad Salameh (Walid’s first cousin) lasted for years. There may be debate about Nakoula’s bona fides when it comes to his being a Coptic Christian but there is no question about Salameh’s Muslim credentials and he hates the Copts.

As such, one main question needs to be asked: Why did Salameh and Nakoula work together for so many years? According to Walid, his cousin hates the Copts.

James Simpson delves into this debate and raises some very interesting questions as well in a piece published at Accuracy In Media entitled, “Innocence” Film a Premeditated Provocation for Islamic Terror?

In particular, take note of this one excerpt:

…Nakoula was represented in court by James Henderson, Sr. Henderson is a prominent attorney and former Justice Department prosecutor who headed an organized crime task force from 1978 to 1987. How could Nakoula, who claimed in court to have engaged in criminal activity to support his family and earned little from it, hire such a high-powered attorney? Interestingly, in court he spoke through an interpreter, but the film was written and spoken in English—with New York accents no less. And despite his claims of penury, Nakoula lived well in a nice Cerritos, California home, complete with a late model Mercedes S430 parked in the driveway. Somebody was paying him.

Henderson is the right guy for the job. He “maintains working contacts with former U.S. Government attorneys and officials throughout the United States.” His specialties include business fraud, government contract investigations, gaming and “international legal matters.” In the 1980s, Henderson was accused by an informant of having organized crime ties. Although Henderson was cleared of this charge, the snitch making the allegation at one time shared a cell with 1993 WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef, and claimed Yousef told him, “Bin Laden will use your own planes to take down the W.T.C.”

None of this adds up, unless this film had the one specific purpose for which it has been used. Such a film need not be well done. It only needs to provide a pretext. In that regard it has performed admirably.

Despite his many aliases, Nakoula is obviously known to the feds. Did they know of his film production? The local police apparently did. Are the feds uncomfortable with exploring the possibility that this film was part of a premeditated provocation by Muslim terrorists? Were they taken for a ride by this “informant?” Why did the U.S. insist for weeks that the recent Middle East attacks were the result of this film when they knew better? Is this yet another effort by the Obama administration to find a pretext to suppress free speech? Islamic leaders in America are already calling for legislation limiting free speech. Why has the FBI still not departed for Libya? Are they afraid of what they might find, or is someone else afraid of what they might find?

Again, it’s time to move on from talking about whether Innocence of Muslims caused the riots and start asking questions about the motivations and backgrounds of those behind it.

Read it all. Simpson brings a lot of things together.