Al Qaeda,ISIS' Best Friend,The US, Is Openly Sending Heavy Weapons From Libya To Syrian Rebels
Syrian Civil War And The Making Of Islamic State
CounterCurrents.org-17 hours ago
It's a plausible fact that the US does not directly supports the Syrianjihadists, ... Lately, some anti-aircraft weapons from Gaddafi's looted arsenal in Libya have ... The Defense Intelligence Agency's report [1] of 2012 that presaged the .... used to openly brag that CIA provides all those AK-47s, RPGs and .
Uncle Sam's Proxy Wars
American Free Press-Dec 11, 2015
In light of 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents first revealed last ... That hegemony is a key goal of both U.S. and Israeli long-term ... Libya attacks in 2012 and the U.S. presidential election at the time. ... Then there is the tracing of U.S.-made weaponsemployed by ISIS back to the CIA and ...
Benghazi Commission: Obama Admin Gun-Running Scheme Armed ...
Breitbart News-Nov 30, 2015
“This U.S. gun-running policy in 2011 during the Libyan revolution was ... Some of the other weapons that eventually ended up in Syriaincluded ... that legally covered the CIA and other U.S. agencies that otherwise would ...
U.S. Efforts to Arm Jihadis in Syria: The Scandal Behind the ...
www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-efforts-to...undercover-cia.../5377887
Apr 15, 2014 - U.S. Efforts to Arm Jihadis in Syria: The Scandal Behind the Benghazi ... 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in ... A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of ...
But then Hersh breaks the deeper story wide open:
A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)
The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’...........
THAT'S WHAT OUR GAY FASCIST AMBASSADOR STEVENSON DIED FOR.
How long as it been? Years have gone by and there is a Select Committee of Congress, yet still we do not know the answer to three basic questions about the Incident at Benghazi that any detective doing a homicide investigation would ask. We do not know how ambassador Stevens died. If he was murdered, we do not know who did it, and finally, what was the motive for the murder of our ambassador? In short, we need a theory of the crime to find out the truth about the Incident at Benghazi.
How did ambassador Stevens die? It is unproductive to insist, as some journalists claim, that the ambassador died of smoke inhalation. The official autopsy report on the cause of Stevens’ death has never been released, so no one can say with certainty except the corner what was Stevens’ cause of death.
Eleanor Clift, columnist and pundit from the Daily Beast, insisted during a broadcast discussion of Benghazi on “The McLaughlin Group” that U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens wasn’t really murdered. Her exact words are: “I’d like to point out that Ambassador Stevens was not ‘murdered,’ ” she said, bending her fingers in the air to suggest the drawing of quote marks, “but died of smoke inhalation in a CIA safe room.” But how could she know this? - canadafreepress
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-is-openly-sending-heavy-weapons-from-libya-to-syrian-rebels/5494913
GR Editor’s Note:
This article was originally posted in December 2012. It is of utmost relevance in assessing the present situation. It documents the fact that the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels (including the ISIS) operating in Syria are directly supported by Washington.
The Lies of London’s Sunday Times regarding Obama’s counter-terrorism campaign against the ISIS is refuted by an earlier Sunday Times report. The Sunday Times report quoted below confirms that Obama has been arming the terrorists for the last three years, since 2012.
M. Ch, GR Editor, December 10, 2015
* * *
The Obama administration has decided to launch a covert operation to send heavy weapons to Syrian rebels [December 2012], Christina Lamb of The Sunday Times of London reports.
Diplomatic sources told the Sunday Times that the U.S. “bought weapons from the stockpiles of Libya’s former dictator Muammar Gaddafi.”
The heavy arms include mortars, rocket propelled grenades, anti-tank missiles and the controversial anti-aircraft heat-seeking SA-7 missiles, which are integral to countering Bashar Al-Assad’s bombing campaign.
Many have suspected that the US was already involved in sending heavy arms.
The administration has said that the previously hidden CIA operation in Benghazi involved finding, repurchasing and destroying heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, but in October we reported evidence indicating that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.
There have been several possible SA-7 spottings in Syria dating as far back as early summer 2012, and there are indications that at least some of Gaddafi’s 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles were shipped before now.
On Sept. 6 a Libyan ship carrying 400 tons of weapons for Syrian rebels docked in southern Turkey. The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi” who worked for the new Libyan government. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution.
Stevens’ last meeting on Sept. 11 was with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi “to negotiate a weapons transfer in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.”
Last month The Wall Street Journal reported that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the now-exposed CIA annex. It follows that the ”weapons transfer” that Stevens negotiated may have involved sending heavy weapons recovered by the CIA to the revolutionaries in Syria.
The newest report comes days before the U.S. is expected to recognize the newest Syrian coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. The State Department has also indicated it will soon name the opposition’s highly effective al-Nusra Front a ”terrorist organization” for its ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).
Both of these stipulations — recognition of a unified opposition and creation of distance from extremists — are pivotal in order for the Obama administration to openly acknowledge supporting Syrian rebels with heavy weapons.
The original source of this article is Business Insider
....................................
http://canadafreepress.com/article/77490Three Questions the Select Committee On Benghazi Still Hasn’t Answered
By Robert Klein Engler -- Bio and Archives December 13, 2015
How long as it been? Years have gone by and there is a Select Committee of Congress, yet still we do not know the answer to three basic questions about the Incident at Benghazi that any detective doing a homicide investigation would ask. We do not know how ambassador Stevens died. If he was murdered, we do not know who did it, and finally, what was the motive for the murder of our ambassador? In short, we need a theory of the crime to find out the truth about the Incident at Benghazi.
How did ambassador Stevens die? It is unproductive to insist, as some journalists claim, that the ambassador died of smoke inhalation. The official autopsy report on the cause of Stevens’ death has never been released, so no one can say with certainty except the corner what was Stevens’ cause of death.
Eleanor Clift, columnist and pundit from the Daily Beast, insisted during a broadcast discussion of Benghazi on “The McLaughlin Group” that U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens wasn’t really murdered. Her exact words are: “I’d like to point out that Ambassador Stevens was not ‘murdered,’ ” she said, bending her fingers in the air to suggest the drawing of quote marks, “but died of smoke inhalation in a CIA safe room.” But how could she know this?
Against Clift’s assertion, Bill Gertz claims in The Counter Jihard Report that, “An al Qaeda terrorist stated in a recent online posting that U. S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens was killed by lethal injection after plans to kidnap him during the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi went bad.”
Related to the question about the cause of Stevens death is the question about his torture and the mutilation of his body. The photographic evidence seen on the Internet leads us to question the explanation that Stevens’ death was caused by smoke inhalation. There are just too many wounds seen on Stevens’ body in some photographs for that explanation to be the whole story. Smoke inhalation usually does not leave a wound on the forehead or shoulder that miraculously heals itself in a Benghazi morgue.
Until the official autopsy results are given to the public, we are left to wonder how Stevens died at Benghazi. Rumors of rape, mutilation and torture will persist until proven otherwise. Like most of the facts surrounding the Incident at Benghazi, it is hard to see the truth through the darkness and the smoke.
It seems unlikely that ambassador Stevens died of natural causes. This being the case, other questions arise. Could the life of the ambassador have been saved? Was an order to stand down given to stop aid from reaching Benghazi? What was ambassador Stevens doing at Benghazi in the first place? Finally, Who killed ambassador Stevens?
We know now that it may have been possible to save Stevens and the other Americans at Benghazi. “Judicial Watch…released a new Benghazi email from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering ‘forces that could move to Benghazi’ during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, ‘we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi.They are spinning up as we speak.’”
“According to a Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin, former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty…were ordered to stand down three times following calls during the attack. The first two times occurred soon after they heard initial shots fired…and (they) requested permission to go to the consulate to help out…(Forbes).”
As far back as 2012, the “official” explanation for the Incident at Benghazi is that it was a spontaneous demonstration protesting a video
The Examiner.com claims “…former House speaker Newt Gingrich…was informed by a U. S. senator that at least two media networks have recently been given…evidence about the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans…The networks obtained e-mail evidence from…the office of National Security Advisor James Jones…ordering a counterterrorism team to cancel a rescue mission at the U. S. consulate and CIA annex in Libya. According to Gingrich…they were told explicitly by the White House ‘stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action.’” Former House Speaker Gingrich has never been called by the Select Committee to verify these statements.
As far back as 2012, the “official” explanation for the Incident at Benghazi is that it was a spontaneous demonstration protesting a video that was seen by the attackers as insulting to the Prophet and Islam. We know now that this “official” explanation, and the motive it suggests is a lie. According to the president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, “I think you can fairly conclude that it was during that phone call that they (Clinton and Obama) decided to push the video lie…” Nevertheless, the White House has repeatedly claimed Stevens’ death was the result of a protest to a video insulting to Islam.
The death of a US ambassador is a serious matter. Stevens was the personal representative of president Obama. To let years go by without charges made in this matter seems scandalous. At the very least, the perpetuators could be charged with fourth degree murder. No to do so may be a result of the fundamental transformation that is taking place in US society and an attempt to cover up what was going on at Benghazi.
What was Stevens doing at Benghazi that brought him into harms way? It is generally agreed that some kind of gun running was taking place at Benghazi and that ambassador Stevens was a party to it. Fox News confirmed this. Weapons were probably collected by the CIA from the old Libyan regime and assembled at Benghazi for transport via Turkey to the rebels fighting Assad in Syria.
Many now believe that after Stevens’ death the administration put forward the cover story of a video being the reason for the attack that “killed” Stevens. In her Dover Air Force Base statement Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.”
Nevertheless, Guy Taylor, writing in the Washington Times, claims documents show that the administration’s story that the attack at Benghazi was false from the beginning. “Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred…”
In his book, ‘Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,’ Edward Klein, “claims President Obama instructed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to blame the Benghazi terror attack on a protest over an anti-Islam film, over Clinton’s objections.” Perhaps Klein should testify under oath about this accusation.
We know, too, that, “When the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi…threatened to expose the administration’s gun-running into Syria, it was Victoria Nuland who initiated the White House cover-up. After reading the first draft of the State Department’s talking points stating the incident was a coordinated terrorist attack, Nuland warned this ‘could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why would we want to seed the Hill.’”
Edward Klein writes, “If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument (the video caused the death of four Americans) out of the water…Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,’” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “‘Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.’”
If Stevens was involved with gun running, and an Internet video was not the motive for the attack at Benghazi, then we must look elsewhere for a motive for the crime. Something must have gone wrong in the weapons exchange that caused the attack to take place and Stevens and others to die. What could have that been?
It’s highly unlikely that forces loyal to the Kadhafi regime could have attacked the CIA compound at Benghazi, without Stevens and the more than 30 Americans stationed there not knowing about the attack beforehand.
This delivery of weapons to al-Qaida-dominated rebel militias leads some to believe that Steven’s death was a hit, to keep him quiet about this connection between Clinton’s State Department and illegal gun running. If we accept this motive, then Ambassador Stevens, who was bright, ambitious, and well known to both Obama and Clinton, was betrayed by them.
But if all parties in the weapons exchange were making money on it, including al-Qaeda, what would be their motive for attacking and killing Stevens? Most likely not the motives mentioned above. It does’t make sense that al-Qaeda would be biting the hand that feeds it. This being the case, there seems to be no motive in these explanations for killing Stevens and stopping the flow of money and weapons.
Even if Secretary Clinton knew that US forces were ready to defend ambassador Stevens, only the president has cross border authority.
Is there another motive that builds on the weapons exchange and the video protests that leads to Stevens alleged torture, mutilation and murder, a motive that explains most of the evidence in this case?
It has been suggested that Stevens’ death and the destruction at Benghazi were the result of a foiled plot to kidnap the ambassador and exchange him for the Blind Sheik who is held in a US prison. Then, after negotiations, both Stevens and the Blind Sheik would be exchanged, the arms shipments could continue, and Obama would be reelected. A good plan with a good outcome for many. But something went wrong. The kidnappers and Stevens did not count on resistance offered by other brave Americans who were not in the loop.
Even if Secretary Clinton knew that US forces were ready to defend ambassador Stevens, only the president has cross border authority. Clinton could not order on her own that US forces go from Italy and cross the border into Libya. Does this mean Clinton and Obama conferred before a decision was made? Obama or his agent may have given the order to stand down, and then they concocted the video story?
Some say there are militia members who were on the scene at Benghazi. They affirm that the attack on the compound was because of a video, but how can such a story be believed? Those militia members and their commander never testified to Congress under oath.
Unnamed sources say militia leaders may have helped orchestrate and directly participated in the attack—even though they were being paid, being fed, given automobiles and even allowed to swim in the consulate pool by the U.S. State Department. Fox News also has learned that the leader of the brigade, Fawzi Bukhatif, left Benghazi the day the attack ended on Sept. 12, even as the consulate and annex were still smoldering...”
As it happened, not everyone was ready to stand down during the attack. Woods, and later Doherty, thought the attack was real and they responded like the brave Americans they were. They came out shooting. This resistance was a surprise to the attackers who were planning on no resistance and an easy kidnapping. When some of the attackers were killed, things got out of control.
The attackers, many who may have had Muslim Brotherhood ties in Egypt, felt betrayed and angry. They took their anger out on Ambassador Stevens. It was this anger that may have led to Stevens’ alleged torture and death. The motive for Stevens’ murder seems to be revenge. That revenge may have been carried out by a group led by Ahmed Abu Khattala.
It was reported that in 2014, the United States had captured a militant suspected of leading the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, according to Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby.
Ahmed Abu Khattala was captured by American troops in coordination with law enforcement. Kirby said Khattala was captured…and that all U S personnel involved in the operation were safe.
Khattala, said Kirby, is now “in a secure location outside of Libya.” Has this man been brought before Congress to testify? As far as anyone knows, he has not. What is Congress waiting for? Isn’t his testimony necessary? Ought it not be made public so that this murder investigation can be closed?
But maybe Khattala is not the man we are looking for and maybe he lacks a motive for killing Ambassador Stevens. There has never been another theory of the crime at Benghazi like the failed kidnapping theory and explains all the facts that we so far know.
Once things fell apart at Benghazi, the administration made a decision to go with the cover story they already had on the shelf or were developing—blame it on the video, lie, and hope for the best.
Given the evident planning for an attack at Benghazi, the lines of communication between Ambassador Stevens, the CIA and State Department along with various factions in Libya, a planned kidnapping of a US ambassador is certainly a possibility. The failure of this plan is also the best motive we have so far for the murder of Ambassador Stevens.
You would think, after all this time, the results of any honest and complete investigation into the death of Ambassador Stevens would have answered clearly three questions: a) How did Ambassador Stevens die, b) If he was murdered, who killed him, and c) What was the motive for his murder?
Any homicide detective investigating a crime would want to answer these questions. Why can’t Congress do the same? Not to answer these questions truthfully and to get lost in a blizzard of emails seems to be an obfuscation. Yet, when it comes down to it, those emails may be the only evidence investigators have to build a case against Clinton. Even though many are troubled by her statements regarding the Incident at Benghazi, there is so far no smoking gun, so to speak.
Like Al Capone, Clinton may end up being prosecuted on a lesser charge. Many thought that Capone was guilty of murder, but he was found guilty of tax evasion, instead, and sent to prison. Perhaps the only case against Hillary Clinton will be built electronically. Still, we have to wonder why it takes so long to answer three questions common to any murder investigation. Anything else but these answers gives the impression someone is being protected. And so they may be, for the time being.
No comments:
Post a Comment