More than 3,000 people have died and many others remain unaccounted for after floods caused by Storm Daniel struck eastern Libya, an official said on Tuesday.
Libyan health minister, Othman Abdul Jalil, said that most of the victims were in the coastal city of Derna.
Other cities and towns affected by the weekend catastrophe include Benghazi, Bayda, Al Marj, and Soussa.
Jalil estimated the number of missing people in thousands, but refrained from giving an exact figure.
Earlier the Libyan Red Crescent announced that the death toll in affected regions reached 2,800, and that most people died from drowning or from the collapse of residential buildings.
Around 7,000 families remain stranded in the affected areas, and rescue operations were underway to evacuate them, the source said.
Ossama Hamad, head of the parliament-appointed government, on Monday said the death toll in Derna alone topped 2,000, and thousands were believed missing.
Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh, the head of Libya’s Tripoli-based unity government, declared all areas exposed to the deadly flooding as disaster zones, and announced three days of national mourning.
Georgette Gagnon, the UN resident and humanitarian coordinator in Libya, said she was “deeply saddened” by the severe impact of the hurricane, and tasked an emergency response team to support local authorities and partners in the region.
Initial reports indicate that dozens of villages and towns are severely affected by the storm, with widespread flooding, damage to infrastructure, and loss of life, she added.
The ‘War on Syria’ is far from being over, and it will continue until all foreign forces illegally present on Syrian soil retreat; either willingly, or defeated.
And even though the American presence in Syria has no clear and realistic political purpose other than wreaking havoc. https://transnational.live/2020/05/19/america-exists-today-to-make-war-how-else-do-we-interpret/ and making it hard for Russia to help reach a decisive victory, in a twist of fate, the focus of the Russo-American conflict in the region may soon move away from Syria.
In reality, the outcome of the ‘War on Syria’ was never expected by the initial assembly of adversaries when they launched the attack. Furthermore, they had many deep differences and nothing in common other than a shared hatred for Syria, but the unexpected turn of events has intensified their internal conflict and seemingly catapulted the strife between those former allies much further afield to a new hub in Libya.
Whilst the world and its media are busy with COVID-19, a new huge struggle is brewing, and this time, it is drawing new lines and objectives that are in reality going to be fueled, financed and executed by the former once-united enemies of Syria; but this time, it will be against each other.
An array of regional and international issues lies behind the impending conflict; and to call it impending is an under-statement. It is already underway, but hasn’t reached its peak yet, let alone making any significant news coverage.
It is a real mess in Libya now, and the short version of a long story goes like this:
Soon after NATO hijacked the UNSC mandate to enforce a no-fly-zone decision over Libya and manipulated it in a manner that ‘legalised’ bombing Libya culminating in toppling and killing Gadhafi, the Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA), based in the formal capital Tripoli on the Western side of the coast, was created.
But the ‘revolution’ against Gadhafi was launched in the eastern coastal city of Benghazi. After Gadhafi’s demise, another interim government was formed in Libya’s east under the name of National Transitional Council (NTC).
The NTC, whose flag is the flag of the ‘revolution’, did not recognize the GNA and regarded it as a Western lackey.
After a few years of squabbling, NTC strongman General Haftar decided to militarily disable the GNA.
With little concrete protection on the ground from the West, and under the guise of upholding UNSC mandates, Erdogan jumped into the existing void and the opportunity to grab Libya’s oil, and decided to send troops to support the GNA. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-51003034
But this article is not about the geopolitical hoo-ha. It is about shedding a light on what score-settling is expected to eventuate in Libya, and who is likely to end up doing the fighting against who.
Even though the Afghani Mujahedeen were purportedly the first Jihadi fighters to engage in battle in the 20th Century, their fight was against foreign USSR troops. In terms of an internal force that aimed for fundamentalist Muslim rule, there is little doubt that the first event of such insurgency in the Middle East was the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) revolt that took place in Syria in the early 1980’s and which was quashed by the then President, Hafez Assad. After their smashing defeat, the fundamentalists kept their heads low until they lit the flame again in the Palestinian refugee Naher Al-Bared Camp at the northern outskirts of Tripoli Lebanon in 2007.
There are, for those who are unaware, two cities bearing the name Tripoli on the Mediterranean coast; one is in Northern Lebanon, and it is Lebanon’s second largest city, and the other Tripoli is located on the Western side of the Libyan Coast. They are sometimes called Tripoli of the East and Tripoli of the West, respectively.
Shaker Al-Absi, leader of Fateh Al Islam, a Salafist terror organization, declared jihad and engaged in a bitter fight against the Lebanese Army. He was defeated, remained at large, but any look at Lebanon’s Tripoli after his demise displayed a clear evidence of a huge build-up of Salafist presence in the city.
When the ‘War on Syria’ started only four years later, Tripoli became a major hub for the transport of fighters and munitions from Lebanon into Syria. Nearly a decade later, and with a few Jihadi pockets left in the Idlib province now, their defeat in Syria is imminent.
But who exactly are those murderous head-chopping radical elements that we talking about; past and present?
Back then, ISIS, did not exist in the form that it became known as. Furthermore, I have always advocated that there was no difference at all between Al-Nusra and ISIS and/or any other Takfiri organizations. They are all terror-based and founded on violent readings of Islam.
In time however, and this didn’t take long, it became apparent that even though the ideologies were identical, there were two major financiers and facilitators to those many different terror organizations. One was primarily funded by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and the other by Qatar and facilitated by Turkey.
The former group is affiliated with what is known as Saudi Wahhabi Islam. They are also known as the Salafists. The latter group are the MB’s.
As the war was shifting in favour of Syria, their agendas diverged, the schism grew deeper and strong rivalries emerged; especially as the Wahhabis and their sponsors were sent home defeated. Part of this fallout was the ongoing Saudi-Qatari conflict.
But the rivalry that is least spoken about is personal. It is the one between Erdogan and Al-Saud.
They are both fighting over the leadership of fundamentalist Sunni Islam. But Erdogan also has his nationalist anti-Kurdish agenda, and of course, he is desperate to put his hands on oil supplies that he can call his own. He cannot find oil on Turkish soil or in Turkish waters, but he is prepared to act as a regional pirate and a thug and steal another nation’s oil. If no one is to stop him, he feels that he can and will.
Upon realizing that Turkey could not get in Syria either victory or oil, Erdogan is now turning his face west towards Libya. He finds in Libya a few scores that he hopes to settle after his failure in Syria. He wants a face-saving military victory, he wants to assert his position as THE Sunni leader who can reclaim glory, and he wants free oil. Last but not least, In Libya, he will find himself close to Egypt’s Sisi; the political/religious enemy who toppled his MB friend and ally, President Mursi.
On the other side, defeated but not totally out, Saudi Arabia wants blood; Erdogan’s blood.
The Saudis blame Erdogan (and Qatar) for their loss in Syria because he was more focused on his own agenda and spoils rather than the combined ones of the former alliance they had with him. They blame him for abandoning them and making deals with Russia. They hold him responsible for the breakup of the unity of Muslim fundamentalism. They fear his aspirations for gaining the hearts and minds of Muslims who regard him as a de-facto Caliph. As a matter of fact, it was Saudi Crown Prince MBS who used the borrowed word ‘evil’ first when he stated more than two years ago that Erdogan was a part of a ‘Triangle of Evil’. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-turkey-idUSKCN1GJ1WW. And how can we forget the Khashoggi debacle and the ensuing standoff between Turkey and Saudi Arabia?
We must stop and remember once again that not long ago at all, Turkey and Saudi Arabia were allies, who together, plotted how to invade Syria and bring her down to her knees. These are the heads of the two major countries that facilitated the war machine with Saudi money injecting fighters and munitions into Syria from the south, and open Turkish borders and Qatari money injecting them from the north.
The USA may accuse Syria of sending troops into Libya, but where is the proof and why should Syria do this after all? And even though the Saudis and the Emiratis are warming up relationships with Syria, the Syrian Army is still engaged in battle and is not prepared to go and fight in Libya. There is nothing for it to gain. Once the war is over, Syria will be concerned with rebuilding a war-torn nation. Syria has no interests in Libya; none what-so-ever.
The role of Russia is not very clear on the ground even though there are clear indications that Russia supports Haftar ideologically. The support began when Haftar demonstrated to the Russians that he was adamant about fighting ISIS and exterminating its presence in Libya. He lived up to this promise thus far and gained Russian respect.
How will the situation in Libya eventually pan out is anyone’s guess. That said, apart from sending regular Turkish Army units, Erdogan is not short on rounding up fighters; and he has attained much experience in this infamous field of expertise from his vicious attack on Syria. With Qatari money in his pocket, he can recruit as many fighters as Qatar can afford.
Erdogan realizes that the West is not interested in backing him up militarily in Libya. The best deal he can get from America is a tacit support. And with France, a NATO member taking part in the above-mentioned five-nation conference, he will definitely have to stand alone so-to-speak.
He has Qatar behind him, but how powerful is Qatar? A ‘nation’ of 200,000 citizens? How can such a small state play such a big role and why?
Qatar is not really a nation or even a state in the true sense. Qatar is an entity, a ‘corporation’ owned by a ruling dynasty that serves the interests of the USA and Israel. https://thesaker.is/qatar-unplugged/. This family will outlay any sum of money to guarantee its own protection and continuity.
And Erdogan, the friend-and-foe of both of America and Israel, knows the vulnerabilities and strengths of Qatar, and he is using his deceptive talents to provide the Qatari ruling family with the securities that the shortfalls that America and Israel do not provide. For example, it was he who sent troops to Qatar after the Saudi threats. And even though Erdogan will never take any serious actions against his NATO masters except in rhetoric, the weak and fearful Qataris will dance to the tune of any protector and will sell their souls to the devil should they need to.
On the other hand in Libya, if Haftar finds himself facing a huge Turkish army, he will need assistance on the ground. Where will he seek it from? His next-door neighbour Egypt? If so, will it be in the form of regular army units or hired guns?
Sisi is neither a religious nor a fundamentalist zealot, but this is not meant to be a complementary statement. He has not taken any serious black-and-white steps in regional politics. This does not mean he is a man of principles. He is probably waiting for dollar signs, and if he sees financial benefits in supporting Saudi Arabia in a proxy war against Turkey in Libya, he may opt to agree; if the price it right.
Whether or not Saudi Arabia can afford a new war, especially with current crude prices, is another story, but as the war on Yemen winds down, the gung-ho MBS is irrational enough to be persuaded. His regional enemy is no longer Assad. His current enemy is Erdogan.
To be fair to MBS, despite his vile, criminal and megalomaniac attributes, he never claims to be a religious leader, but Erdogan does, and many Sunni Muslims see in Erdogan THE leader they have been waiting for. This alone constitutes a huge challenge for MBS because neither he, nor anyone else in the whole of Saudi Arabia for that matter, is regarded anywhere in the Muslim World as a potential leader of the Sunni Muslims.
In reality, as far as Muslim leadership is concerned, the Saudis can only bank on the location of Mecca in Saudi Arabia. Apart from this, they only have wealth that enables them to buy supporters, but their oil wealth is becoming increasingly vulnerable.
In the uphill fight against Erdogan within the Muslim World, both of the Saudis and the Turks realize that the fight between them in Syria is over. Actually, the Saudis have no loyal ‘troops’ on Syrian soil left to fight anyone with. This begs the question of whether or not the Turks and Saudis are moving the battle ground and the score settling from Syria to Libya.
This time around, such a potential battle between the two lines of Jihadis may have to morph from a fight between terror organizations to a war between regular armies; the Turkish Army against the Egyptian Army. Such a battle will rage over Libyan soil, with the Turks financed by Qatar and Egypt by Saudi Arabia.
Such a war will not necessarily bring in Iran into the fight. If it eventuates, it will be a fundamentalist Sunni-Sunni war, sponsored by fundamentalist Sunni states, each fighting for and against different versions of radical Muslim fundamentalism, under the watchful eyes of the USA and to the glee of Israel.
The jihadi war that was first ignited in Tripoli Lebanon between a rogue terror organization and the Lebanese Army did not end. It kept moving theatres and objectives and changing players. Is the final score going to be settled in Tripoli Libya?
For anybody wondering why there are two links, we are trying to get into the habit of posting videos on both YouTube and Dailymotion. Since the subtitle process is different on Dailymotion than on YouTube, it may take a while to perfect it.
Translated by Sasha and subtitled by Leo.
For anybody wondering why there are two links, we are trying to get into the habit of posting videos on both YouTube and Dailymotion. Since the subtitle process is different on Dailymotion than on YouTube, it may take a while to perfect it.
Over 1,200,000 infected, 70,000 dead by COVID-19, food shortage – the US has serious problems. But the democracy peddlers from Washington don’t have time for that. Instead of fighting the epidemic, the American elite keeps trying to establish marionette regimes in the countries where they can carve up natural resources, and they soiled themselves, as it happened again in Venezuela.
The less opportunity the US has to solve problems in their customary manner – by flooding it all with money, the more often they result in all sorts of embarrassments. For instance, the recent disgrace of the supposedly 5th generation aircraft F-35. This is the very case of whatever the amount of money you pour in it doesn’t help. Because the school of engineering has degraded and the real achievements have been replaced by imitation for the sake of redistribution of billions.
The American foreign policy is in a similar situation. Washington has always relied on force, and on a usual scheme of buying out parts of the local elites, so they would help to overthrow the unwanted government. Very recently this again yielded results in the South American Bolivia. Because the overthrown president Evo Morales behaved exceedingly vegetarian. But there is also Venezuela which for the US plays the role of a bone in their throat. Our [Russian] strategic bombers fly over there. Rosneft is working there. There also sits Nicolas Maduro, whom they attempted to overthrow by force a few times but to no avail. And now we have more public self-soiling.
RIA Novosti:“On 3 May, the Interior Minister Nestor Reverol announced that a naval invasion staged by Colombian militants from the direction of La Guiara in the north of the country was thwarted. According to him, the militants tried to invade the country on high speed boats. The Speaker of Venezuelan National Assembly Diosdado Cabello clarified that 8 attackers were killed and two captured.” “He also announced that one of the captured was an agent of the US Drug Enforcement Administration. Later Cabello informed that on Monday, the military and the police in the Northern Sate of Aragua captured another 8 participants of the Sunday naval invasion, including their leader Antonio Sikea.”
The mercenaries were recruited by the Americans among the former members of Venezuelan security forces, who had deserted earlier to the side of the so-called pro-Western opposition, while their American leader has rich experience of participation in conflicts unleashed by the US; from invasion of Iraq to operations in Libya and Syria. Is it then surprising that in Washington they immediately sang denial – the man wasn’t theirs and the US had nothing to do with it?
“The American DEA denies that its operative was detained during an armed assault attempt in Venezuela, asclaimed by the country’s authorities.” “The Agency did not take any part in the events of the past weekend, stated the agency’s press service, having advised to also inquire in the State Department.”
The humor in the situation is such that the US media themselves already wrote about the US’ part in yet another attempt to overthrow Maduro.
Iron Curtain (Telegram account): “The Head of PMC ‘Silvercorp USA’ Jordan Goudreau claimed that on Sunday, 3 May he initiated the operation of overthrowing President Nicolas Maduro. However it failed. As The New York Times stated, the group was tasked with penetrating into Venezuela ‘with heavy weapons’, seizing the government buildings within 96 hours, and arresting of the country’s president Nicolas Maduro. The bet was made on ‘demoralization’ of the army, but the Venezuelans managed to defeat the mercenaries.”
It’s no matter whether the American was a DEA operative or had a different ‘roof’. It is clear that now, as he got caught, he is being retroactively removed from any US governmental structure and they will claim that it was his private initiative. Although, if the published information about his work in the White House Secret Service is correct, it is also clear that the operation was sanctioned by the highest ranks of the American state. And that the US has been trying to openly overthrow Maduro for two years is a generally recognised fact. The events demonstrate that the American capabilities for forcible influence over uncomfortable governments are withering away. And the American elites themselves contribute to it enormously while preparing for the autumn battle for the presidential post.
This is why it is not surprising that The New York Times quickly seized the topic of the failure in Venezuela. This will be presented as Donald Trump’s failure and he, in turn, will surely remind the Democrats their disgrace in Benghazi, where during Obama, the American nurtured terrorists killed US citizens. In general, they keep gnawing on each other in Washington. In the meantime, the star-stripped hegemony weakens month by month. And this is good, because the world will be able to breath more freely, when the democracy exporters will spend all their efforts on fighting each other inside their own state.
A key British parliamentary committee has said former Prime Minister David Cameron’s military intervention in Libya was misguided and helped spur the rise of the extremism there.
The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee said Wednesday the 2011 decision to intervene was based on “erroneous assumptions” and an “incomplete understanding” of the ramifications of removing Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
The disastrous results were “political and economic collapse”, tribal warfare, the refugee crisis, widespread human rights abuses and the rise of Daesh [Arabic Acronym for the terrorist “ISIS”/ “ISIL” group] in North Africa, fuelled by weapons abandoned by the Gaddafi regime.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee concludes: “Through his decision-making in the National Security Council, former Prime Minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”
The oil-rich North African country descended into chaos after the intervention and parts of it have become a bastion for Daesh extremists.
The parliamentary report criticizes Cameron for turning an operation designed to protect Libyan civilians in the port of Benghazi into a full-scale push for regime change.
Cameron stepped down as prime minister in July and resigned from Parliament this week.
Does Hillary Clinton possess the integrity and honesty to be president of the United States? Or are those quaint and irrelevant considerations in electing a head of state in 21st-century America?
These are the questions put on the table by the report from FBI Director James Comey on what his agents unearthed in their criminal investigation of the Clinton email scandal.
Clinton dodged an FBI recommendation that she be indicted for gross negligence in handling U.S. security secrets, a recommendation that would have aborted her campaign. But Director Comey dynamited the defense she has been offering the country.
Comey all but declared that Clinton lied when she said she had State Department approval for the email server in her home.
He all but declared that she lied when she said she had only one server, and that no classified or secret material was transmitted. He also implied that she lied when she said she had used only one device and had turned over all of her work-related emails to State. The FBI found “several thousand” more.
Clinton said her emails were stored in a secure area. This, too, was false. Hostile actors and hostile regimes, said Comey, had access to email systems of those with whom she communicated.
Comey said he found no criminal “intent” in what Clinton did.
Yet, he charged her with having been “extremely careless” with U.S. national security secrets, a phrase that seems synonymous with the gross negligence needed to indict and convict.
While recommending against prosecution, Comey added,
“This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequence. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”
Translation: Were Clinton still the secretary of state and were such recklessness with secrets to be discovered, she could have been forced to resign and stripped of her security clearance forever.
Yet if Clinton is elected president, our commander in chief for the next four years, and her confidantes Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, will all be individuals the FBI has found to be reckless and unreliable in the handling of national security secrets.
We will have security risks running the armed forces of the USA.
Nor is this the first time Clinton’s truthfulness has been called into question. Twenty years ago, she fabricated a tale about crossing a tarmac in Bosnia “under sniper fire,” and running with “our heads down.” Photos showed a peaceful arrival featuring a smiling little girl.
Family members of the dead heroes of Benghazi’s “13 Hours” say Clinton told them she would see to it that the creator of the anti-Islamic video that incited the mob that killed their sons would be run down, all the while knowing it had been a planned terrorist attack.
In 1996, the New York Times’ William Safire went over all of the statements Clinton had made in Whitewater and related scandals of Bill Clinton’s first term, compared them with subsequently revealed truth, and pronounced Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar.”
She has claimed she tried to join the Marines in 1975, and long contended she was named for famed mountaineer Edmund Hillary, who conquered Mount Everest. Only Sir Edmund climbed Everest when Hillary was 6 years old. The perfect running mate for this serial fabricator would be the Cherokee lass Elizabeth Warren.
Still, a question arises as to Comey’s motives in airing the findings of an FBI investigation. Normally, the bureau passes on the evidence it has found, along with its recommendation, to the Justice Department. And Justice decides whether to prosecute.
Instead, Comey called a press conference, documented the charge that Clinton was “extremely careless,” contradicted, point by point, the story she has told the public, then announced he was recommending against prosecution.
What was behind this extraordinary performance?
By urging no prosecution, but providing evidence for a verdict of criminal negligence in handing classified material, Comey was saying:
I am not recommending prosecution, because, to do that, would be to force Hillary Clinton out of the race, and virtually decide the election of 2016. And that is not my decision. That is your decision.
You, the American people, should decide, given all this evidence, if Clinton should be commander in chief. You decide if a public figure with a record of such recklessness and duplicity belongs in the Oval Office.
Comey was making the case against Clinton as the custodian of national security secrets with a credibility the GOP cannot match, while refusing to determine her fate by urging an indictment, and instead leaving her future in our hands.
And, ultimately, should not this decision rest with the people, and not the FBI?
If, knowing what we know of the congenital mendacity of Hillary Clinton, the nation chooses her as head of state and commander in chief, then that will tell us something about the America of 2016.
And it will tell us something about the supposed superiority of democracy over other forms of government.
Read more
In what may be the pinnacle of hypocrisy, Hillary Clinton, while speaking live on national security and addressing the Orlando shooting took some time from her constant bashing of the Second Amendment and calling for a ban on assault rifles, to say some less than kind words about Saudi Arabia which it said continues to support terrorists. This is what she said:
“The third area that demands attention is preventing radicalization and countering efforts by ISIS and other international terrorist networks to recruit in the United States and Europe. For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris and the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism. We also have to use all our capabilities to counter “jihadist” propaganda online. This is something that I spend a lot of time on at the State Department.”
There is nothing wrong with that statement, as it is the whole truth – Saudi Arabia’s involvement in supporting terrorism stretches from Sept 11 all the way through to Daesh [Arabic acronym for “ISIS” / “ISIL”] – however, where there is a big, and potentially law-breaking, problem is what Jordan’s official news agency, Petra News Agency, reported on Sunday citing the Saudi crown price, namely that Saudi Arabia is a major funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next president of the United States.
As MEE notes, the Petra News Agency published on Sunday what it described as exclusive comments from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman which included revelations that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to the prospective Democratic candidate’s campaign.
The report was later deleted and the news agency has not responded to requests for comment from Middle East Eye. However, the deletion took place too late, as the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs managed to capture the report and has re-published the original Arabic Petra report, which quoted Prince Mohammed as having said Saudi Arabia had provided with “full enthusiasm” an undisclosed amount of money to Clinton.
Below is a screenshot of the English report published, and then quickly deleted, by the Petra News Agency:
As a reminder, It is illegal in the United States for foreign countries to try to influence the outcome of elections by funding candidates. That appears not to have stopped the Saudis, however.
“Saudi Arabia always has sponsored both Republican and Democratic Party of America and in America current election also provide with full enthusiasm 20 percent of the cost of Hillary Clinton’s election even though some events in the country don’t have a positive look to support the king of a woman (sic) for presidency,” the report quoted Prince Mohammed as having said.
According to the US Federal Election commission, over the past two years Clinton has raised a little more than $211.8 million. 20% of this sum is $42.4 million.
The report was published [and then mysteriously deleted] on the eve of Prince Mohammed making an official visit to the United States. The Saudi Press Agency reported on Monday that the senior royal was due to fly to Washington where he will meet officials to discuss US-Saudi ties.
He will remain in the American capital until 16 June, when he will travel to New York for meetings with financial companies, the Saudi Gazette reported.
Links between Saudi Arabia and the Clinton family, including with Hillary’s campaign, are well reported. In 2008, it was revealed that the Gulf kingdom had donated between $10m and $25m to the Clinton Foundation, a charity set up by Hillary’s husband and former US President Bill Clinton.
Last year the Centre for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court paid public relations firm the Podesta Group $200,000 for a month-long project to provide “public relations services”.
The Podesta Group was founded in 1988 by brothers John and Tony Podesta. John Podesta is the chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next US president.
Finally, in connection to the Orlando shooting, the WSJ reported that according to a spokesman for Saudi Arabia’s interior ministry, the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen visited the kingdom twice.
Mateen visited Saudi Arabia in 2011 and again in 2012 to perform umrah, a religious pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca. The trips lasted eight and 10 days each.
Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team
14-06-2016 | 10:44
Related Videos
Saudi’s are FUNDING Hillary Clinton 2016 with 9/11 BLOOD MONEY 28 Pages Congressional Report on 9/11
Saudi Arabia and UAE fund Hillary Clinton’s Foundation
Hillary’s Private Emails Show Saudi Arabia Funded Benghazi Attack
The BRICS Post recently interviewed Rosenthal about developments in Syria.
TBP:The Syrian military delivered ISIL it’s greatest defeat in two years by recapturing the ancient city of Palmyra on March 27. But Robert Fisk criticized Western powers for not cheering ISIL’s demise in Palmyra.
Coming a week after ISIL’s brutal attack in Brussels, shouldn’t the EU at least have seen this as payback?
Rosenthal: Like the United States, the major European powers have put themselves in an impossible position. For five years now, they have been telling us that Bashar al-Assad and the Assad “regime”, as they say, are the root of all evil in Syria – so awful that it was even worth facilitating the rise of openly jihadist forces in Syria, in order to hasten the regime’s demise.
The most extreme variant of this “root-of-all-evil” hypothesis is the idea that the Assad regime itself was responsible for the rise of ISIL and has continued, in one form or another, to collude with it.
This idea has become commonplace on both sides of the Atlantic. If ISIL is responsible for the Brussels attacks, as it claims, then, of course, Western leaders should be celebrating ISIL’s defeat at Palmyra.
But since that defeat has come at the hands of regime forces, this would be to admit they were wrong. And one thing these people will never do is admit they are wrong.
Hence the embarrassed silence vis-à-vis Palmyra.
There has been much criticism in the past few years of how Western press have covered the Syrian civil war.
As a journalist who has written about the conflict, is this criticism warranted?
Absolutely. In fact, even though my writing is 99 per cent just factual, I was less and less able to write about the conflict, because the media did not want to publish the facts in question.
One of the publications to which I had been a regular contributor – National Review Online, the website of the American conservative weekly National Review – went so far as to “bar” me from publishing.
In other words, they blacklisted me. At least this is what the journalist Michael Weiss claims, and I think Weiss is right.
The editors at National Review did not tell me I was “barred,” but they never again accepted a submission from me and eventually ceased responding altogether.
Weiss, incidentally, is one of the main American proponents of the “Assad-as-root-of-all-evil” view of the Syrian conflict, and he clearly believes that my barring was well deserved.
The reason for my barring was an article I published in June 2012 on the Houla massacre. The massacre represented a major turning point in the Syrian conflict.
Responsibility was almost instantaneously attributed to regime forces and/or affiliated militias, and Western governments responded by cutting off diplomatic relations with Damascus.
Two weeks later, however, Germany’s paper-of-record, Die Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, published a report suggesting that these initial attributions were mistaken and that the perpetrators of the massacre were in fact rebel forces.
I am a specialist in European languages and politics, and it struck me as normal, under the circumstances, to try to make the gist of this report accessible to the English-speaking public.
But very quickly I heard from a contact at National Review that my sources were suspected of being “beholden to Assad”.
The notion that the leading paper of Europe’s richest and most powerful nation is somehow “beholden to Assad” is downright laughable.
But it is a measure of the parochialism of some of America’s would-be “opinion-makers” that it appears to have been taken seriously by the editors at National Review.
Such insinuations – and, I suppose, the fact that I had the temerity to defend the credibility of the report against irrelevant smears – was enough to get me barred.
Father Frans’s death made headlines around the world and he was widely eulogized for his good works in Syria. Examining Father Frans’s publications in Dutch, however, I discovered that his own first-hand observations of the beginnings of the anti-Assad rebellion contrasted sharply with the standard view in the Western media.
Undoubtedly most significantly, Father Frans insisted that the protests that sparked the rebellion in 2011 were not strictly peaceful, as they have been almost universally presented to the Western public, but rather contained an armed and violent element from the start. He also accused rebel forces of committing atrocities and then blaming them on the regime.
By this time, needless to say, I could not even have dreamed of pitching an article on Father Frans’s observations to National Review. But I could not place one in any other Stateside outlet either, including venues with which I had an established relationship.
Despite their obvious relevance and newsworthiness – or rather: precisely because of the latter – Father Frans’s views were taboo.
If he had still been alive and his observations had become known, he would surely have been attacked as an Assad “propagandist” – as other Syria-based Christian clergy who made similar observations in fact have been.
I could give numerous other examples.
Once Washington and its European allies had established the terms of the politically “correct” narrative of the Syrian crisis, facts that failed to jibe with that narrative were unwanted and anyone who tried to report them was inevitably attacked as “pro-Assad”.
European intelligence services are now chasing ISIL veterans who returned from the Middle East to roost at home.
You’ve been writing about these networks and how ill informed European agencies have been about their sheer numbers.
Could the Brussels attack have been thwarted?
A publicly distributed picture from the Aleppo Media Centre shows rebel fighters evading government troops [AMC via AP]
Well, if we consider just the immediate background to the attacks, it is hard to say. There is some evidence that these guys acted when they did precisely because they believed they were about to be caught.
Obviously, one cannot say that Belgian authorities have been incredibly efficient about breaking up terror plots. But neither can one say that about the French.
Although it tends to escape notice, a major component of the November Paris attacks – namely, the attack on the Bataclan Theatre – was a strictly French operation. And, of course, there was the Charlie Hebdo attack and numerous other recent attacks in France – almost all of them carried out by French jihadists.
But if we take a longer view, the answer is already implicit in your question, and I’m afraid your formulation is entirely apt. These guys have indeed come home to roost.
With the sole exception of Salah Abdeslam, all the known perpetrators of the November Paris attacks were returnees from Syria.
Four of the five suspected perpetrators of the Brussels attacks are known to have either been in Syria or attempted to get there.
By providing moral and diplomatic and, in some cases, material support to the anti-Assad jihad in Syria, and by allowing jihadist safe havens to be carved out of Syrian territory, the European powers helped to create the most important incubator of terror that the world has yet seen.
Obviously, Belgium bears less responsibility in this regard. It is not small states like Belgium that lay down the broad lines of European foreign policy. It is the major EU powers: France, Germany and, for the moment, the UK.
The problem is not one of nuts-and-bolts counter-terrorism. The problem is one of policy. By fomenting jihad in Syria, the European powers and the US have been playing with fire.
Citizens of Europe are now paying the price.
How does media coverage of Syria compare with coverage of before/after the 2003 Iraq war?
At least as concerns the US media, the situation today is incomparably worse. There was a long debate in the run-up to the war, and in the aftermath no one had any problems questioning the grounds for intervention or even indeed outright accusing the Bush administration of having lied.
This became entirely commonplace. The stifling of debate and the homogenization of the media as regards hot-button foreign policy issues really began under the Obama administration: most notably, in the context of the Libyan war.
But at the time, it was at least still possible to bring up conflicting information in “new” media and indeed in some conservative media.
I published numerous articles on the Islamist roots of the Libyan rebellion and the presence in it of Al-Qaeda-linked militants precisely at National Review Online.
In the aftermath of the war – i.e. when it no longer mattered to policy – even the mainstream US media would to some extent acknowledge this presence; and then, of course, the US experienced its own sort of “chickens-coming-home-to-roost” moment in the form of the September 2012 attack on the US mission in Benghazi.
I suppose it is because the Syrian “playbook”, so to speak, so closely resembled the Libyan one that the screws had to be turned even tighter.
“Missing Clinton E-Mail Claims Saudis Financed Benghazi Attacks”:
“Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn’t want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation?“
And note: “Is Guccifer being extradited now in order to testify to the grand jury that the screengrab with the missing e-mail is real?”
“Uproar Over Hillary’s Role in Honduran Coup Grows as Her Campaign Denies Connection”
“Zionist Desperation and the Coming Societal Pivot” “Inside the twisted, racist, anti-Semitic mind of the Jewish Daily Forward”
“United Against Common sense” (Atzmon). One of the great things Jews have going for them is that they have no shame at being whining pussies.
“Netanyahu bet the future of US-Israel relations on the GOP. Now he has a Trump problem – Zack Beauchamp/Vox” “The Sea Island Conspiracy”
“CNN IS SHOCKED: THE MAN WHO GROPED THE FEMALE REPORTER IN GERMANY IS NOT ARAB OR MUSLIM” Attempts to create mass hatred against the refugees has inadvertently revealed a huge German problem with sexual violence.
“Moscow, a rampart against the jihadists” “Could Russia Still Become an Ally of the West?” An international alliance against Wahhabism/Zionism, i.e., terrorism, would do the trick.
“What does a “killer nanny,” Roman Melov anti-police Apple app, glavnewsorg, and anti-Muslim PR have in common?” Really, really, really looks like a color revolution stunt.
“Although Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored Bernie Sanders by 17%”
“Leftist party members escalate calls to replace Tom Mulcair as NDP leader” Who knew the socialist party in Canada had ‘leftist elements’? It reads like some sort of old-fashioned conspiracy, like he takes a vacation in Mexico and gets icepicked.
“Eagles of Death Frontman Seems to Think Bataclan Security Knew About Paris Attacks”:
“When I first got to the venue and walked in, I walked past the dude who was supposed to be the security guard for the backstage. He didn’t even look at me. I immediately went to the promoter and said, ‘Who’s that guy? I want to put another dude on,’ and he goes, ‘Well, some of the other guards aren’t here yet.’ And eventually I found out that six or so wouldn’t show up at all.”
No doubt hungover from staying up late drinking at an illegal nightclub.
February 16, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar – NEO) – Every villain needs a safe house and the Islamic State (IS) is no exception. Luckily for IS, it has two, possibly three waiting for it, all of them courtesy of NATO and in particular the United States.
The war in Syria has been going particularly poor for IS. With Russian air power cutting their supply lines with Turkey and the Syrian Arab Army closing in, it may soon be time for them to shop for a new home.
If the war is going bad for IS, it is going even worse for the supporting powers that have armed and funded them. To understand where IS might go next, one must first fully understand those supporting powers behind them. The premeditated creation of IS and revelations of the identity of their supporters were divulged in a Department of Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo first published in 2012.
It admitted:
If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).
The DIA memo then explains exactly who this “Salafist principality’s” supporters are (and who its true enemies are):
The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.
Before the Syrian war, there was Libya…
The DIA memo is important to remember, as is the fact that before the Syrian conflict, there was the Libyan war in which NATO destroyed the ruling government of Muammar Qaddafi and left what one can only described as an intentional and very much premeditated power vacuum in its place. Within that vacuum it would be eventually revealed through the death of US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens that from the Libyan city of Benghazi, weapons and militants were being shipped by the US State Department first to Turkey, then onward to invade northern Syria.
And it appears the terrorists have been moving back and forth both ways through this US-sponsored terror pipeline.
IS has since announced an official presence in Libya, and Libya now stands as one of several “safe houses” IS may use when finally pushed from Syria altogether by increasingly successful joint Syrian-Russian military operations.
Before Libya, there was Iraq… Iraq, devastated by a nearly decade-long US invasion and occupation, has teetered on the edge of fracture for years. Sectarian extremism is eagerly promoted by some of the US’ strongest regional allies, particularly Saudi Arabia. The US itself has been cultivating and encouraging the separatist proclivities of select Kurdish groups (while allowing Turkey to invade and torment others) in the north, while Wahhabi extremists seek to dominate the north and northwest of Iraq.
IS itself has made its way into all of these trouble spots, coincidentally. And should the terrorist organization be flushed for good from Syria, it may find these spots yet another “safe house” that surely would not have existed had the US not intervened in Iraq, divided and weakened it and to this day worked to keep it divided and weak.
Before Iraq there was Afghanistan..
Of course, and perhaps the most ironic of all of IS’ potential “safe houses,” there is Afghanistan. Part of the alleged reasoning the United States embarked on its war in Afghanistan, stretching from 2001 to present day, was its supposed desire to deny terrorists a safe haven there.
Yet not only are terrorists still using the country as a safe haven, as pointed out in great detail by geopolitical analyst Martin Berger, the US intervention there has created a resurgence of the illegal illicit narcotics trade, and in particular a huge resurgence of opium cultivation, processing and exporting. This means huge financial resources for IS and its supporters to perpetuate its activities there, and help them project their activities well beyond.
Berger’s analysis lays out precisely the sort of narco-terrorist wonderland the US intervention has created, one so perfect it seems done by design, a blazing point on a much larger arc of intentionally created instability.
Where Russian bombs cannot follow… Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan would be ideal locations to move IS. Libya’s state of intentionally created lawlessness gives the US and its allies a fair degree of plausible deniability as to why they will be unable to “find” and “neutralize” IS. It will be far more difficult for Russia to organize military resources to effectively strike at IS there. Even in Iraq, Russia has significant hurdles to overcome before it could begin operating in Iraq to follow IS there, and only if the Iraqi government agreed.
Afghanistan would be problematic as well. The ghosts of Russia’s war in Afghanistan still linger, and the US is already deeply entrenched, allegedly fighting a terrorist menace that seems only to grow stronger and better funded by the presence of American troops.
But while IS will be safe from complete destruction in Syria, where it looks like finally Damascus and its allies have begun to prevail, relocating outside of Syria and its allies arc of influence in the Middle East will drastically reduce its ability to fulfill its original purpose for being, that is, the destruction of that very arc of influence.
Furthermore, its reappearance elsewhere may change regional geopolitical dynamics in unpredictable ways. It is very unlikely IS’ new neighbors will wish to sit idly by while it broods. Libya’s neighbors in Egypt and Algeria, Afghanistan’s neighbors in Pakistan, China and Iran, and Iraq itself along with Syria and Lebanon, all may find themselves drawn closer together in purpose to eliminate IS in fear that it may eventually be turned on any one of them as it was on Syria.
What is least likely is that those “supporting powers” realize this is a trick tried one time too many. While that is certainly true, it appears to be the only trick these powers have left. They will likely keep IS around for as long as possible, if for no other reason but to exhaust its enemies as they attempt to chase it to the ends of the earth.
Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Thanks to an advantageous geographical position set between the world’s two major oceans, Americans have been in large measure immune to the consequences of war, upheaval and terror in the Eurasian Great Game. Since Vietnam the United States military-industrial complex has managed to prosecute expeditionary wars across the span of the globe while maintaining losses at a level acceptable to an American citizenry manipulated through its patriotism and distracted by an entire synthetic universe of amusements. Yet on occasion, even in a disneyfied haze of pornography, sports, and television, moments of clarity on America’s mission in the world do arrive, even from the most unexpected quarters. Director Michael Bay’s 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, a film portrayal of the September 11th, 2012 Benghazi disaster, is one such instance.
Bay, known for his love for combining cartoonish explosions, high-tech firepower, and swimsuit models, wouldn’t likely be the first man on anyone’s radar to deliver a hard-hitting indictment of Washington’s foreign policy in the Middle East. His ridiculous Transformers series, after all, has enjoyed enormous popularity with both adults and children, with its content paralleling the fantasies of your average third-grader. But Bay must be commended for his work on 13 Hours, and not only for a skillful reiteration of the jihadist attacks on US facilities in Benghazi and the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Telling the story through the eyes of the CIA security contractors who fought to protect their fellow countrymen that day, Bay convincingly shows the seeming purposelessness of US Middle East policy. The contractors, hard men who have already served in the military as special operators, are thrown into a cauldron of revolutionary tumult, corruption, and double-dealing, all in the midst of a firefight with terrorists who seemingly came from nowhere to unleash hell. In truth, hell had been unleashed by their very employers, the policymakers, strategists, and covert operations planners who set the celebrated Arab Spring, an ostensible chain of “people-power” revolutions, into motion.
Throughout 13 Hours, the maelstrom builds as jihadist gangs, without any real explanation, go about their murderous work and lay siege to the US consulate and a CIA operations base. (It must be noted that no mention is made of CIA arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to Syrian rebels – jihadists – run with the assistance of Turkish intelligence, a likely factor in the attacks.) Many of these urban guerrillas are cut down with cold precision by the veteran contractors, but Bay isn’t making a case for chest-thumping American “exceptionalism” or further misadventures abroad. Rather, these brave men with families at home are fighting and dying in “a country they know nothing about for reasons they don’t understand.”
As they withstood wave after wave of frontal assaults, it is unlikely the contractors were aware of the whole sordid history of US intelligence’s support of jihadist movements from the 1970’s onward for strategic advantage, beginning with Zbigniew Brzezinski’s carefully-laid Afghan bear trap. They probably didn’t know the full extent of Langley and the Pentagon’s continual use of Al Qaeda in Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Balkans, and the Middle East over decades and right up to today, all in the quest to dominate Eurasia and its resources. With Libya overrun by Islamic extremist militias sponsored by none other than NATO after the unjust overthrow and murder of Muammar Gaddafi, a year later the American operators came face-to-face with the monster their masters had created. So often treated to propaganda for the next war, Americans should see 13 Hours not just as a well-executed action movie, but a sobering, much-needed call for non-interventionism.
Terror, conflict, and chaos – these are the fruits of the Arab Spring. What Bay depicts so well in 13 Hours needs intellectual grounding, however. The chaos that so characterizes the film was the ultimate result of years of planning and preparation, a design to “manage” the Middle East in accordance with the interests of Western oligarchic elites. No better work can be found on the subject than Christopher L. Brennan’s book The Fall of the Arab Spring: From Revolution to Destruction, both a comprehensive geopolitical analysis and cautionary tale to would-be revolutionaries.
In detail Brennan lays out a larger strategic framework for why the Arab Spring was fomented, from the Maghreb to the Levant, and how. Beginning with public-private partnerships between the State Department, multinationals, and a constellation of NGOs and transitioning to support of the Muslim Brotherhood, arming jihadist groups, and direct military intervention, a series of supposedly popular uprisings across the region was choreographed from its very inception with varying degrees of connivance by regional players such as Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Countries like Egypt just barely survived the experience, while Libya did not. Syria is fighting for its life, and the lives of millions have been ruined in the name of democracy. Liberalism is long the international financial priesthood’s favored instrument of subversion across cultures, and whether it’s paired with neo-fascism in Ukraine or jihadism in the Middle East, the final objective of all such veiled coups is a form of control only afforded to the gods: the power to rape and plunder nations at will, to wipe a people from the face of the earth. Brennan rightly denounces the postmodern imperial enterprise and its hipster revolutions as a destructive fraud:
For the Arab world, the romantic illusions of ‘democracy’ and ‘dignity’ – platitudes sold by the West – were shattered, and much of the region degenerated into the breakdown of state and society. This was the chaotic self-fulfilling prophecy of “Lebanonization,” unleashing the forces of sectarianism and balkanization. In the major states where regime change succeeded – Egypt and Libya, for example – the process accelerated. Egypt saw inter-confessional tensions between Copts and Muslims following the seizure of power by the Western-backed Muslim Brotherhood; Libya was most palpably reduced to status of an outright failed state. These are painful, but nonetheless immediately salutary lessons for would-be Arab youth revolutionaries, the primary participants on the ground. Rather than credulously accepting vacuous ideals offered by self-interested Western powers, the outlook of Realpolitik is more instructive and practical. Following a wave of foreign-sponsored “revolutions” that swept Europe, Germany’s Otto Von Bismarck – exemplar of statecraft in the 19th century – remarked that the age of romantic idealism was over; the future would be decided not by romantic notions or assemblies, but throughblood and iron. It is incumbent upon the would-be revolutionaries of the Arab world and beyond to come to a similar conclusion. Ultimately, having a repressive, authoritarian, or autocratic state is better than having no state at all. In reality, political reforms cannot exist without a functioning national state. This is the fundamental condition all considerations are subordinated to.
Both Bay’s film and Brennan’s thoroughgoing analysis in Fall of the Arab Spring are especially timely, as the destabilization of the Muslim world is merely the first phase of a more radical transformation underway. Decadent Europe is the following target as population displacement from the Middle East is shifted onto the Continent, itself the central arena for spiritual, psychological, and demographic warfare.The chaos is programmed.
Americans or Libyans, Russians or Syrians, Germans or Turks: all are worthy sacrifices on the oligarchy’s altar of Mammon, readied for the ascent of the World State. Injustice lies to itself, the psalmist tells us, and the presumptive world controllers can only continue their drive to annihilation for so long. Faith, sovereignty, and identity are embattled values, yet as all the nations shall stand at the Last Judgment, so too must they – and we – endure. Future deceptions will doubtless be grander in scale and more refined; may the case of the Arab Spring be a harsh lesson for the trials ahead.
Against the newly released secret Hillary Clinton tapes of Libya found by, and reported by, The Washington Times, we can review the material within The Benghazi Brief for context. What we find is the brief is factually affirmed with the additional reporting from theHillary Tapes.
Here’s The Full Benghazi Brief
Grab a cup of coffee because it’s a long read with over 350 citations and reference source links for confirmational material. We think you’ll get hooked and find 95% of your Benghazi questions answered. And if you can find a factual flaw I’ll buy the coffee.. SD
We know from the Bret Baier interview with Hillary Clinton that she was physically located at her 7th floor office in Washington DC on the night of the attack. Unfortunately we also know during the November 2012 Thanksgiving holiday a mysterious fire took place in that building. Well, actually directly above her exact office – cause undetermined.
A “fire” which preceded an unfortunate slip and fall for the Secretary, resulting in a concussion, which led to the discovery of a blood clot, that ultimately delayed her congressional testimony before a Senate Hearing into the events of the night in question.
We know the Libyan uprising began on February 10th of 2011, and we also know that sometime around the end of February 2011 President Obama signed a presidential directive authorizing the State Dept and CIA to begin a covert operation to arm the Libyan “rebels”.
We also know of a Second Presidential Finding Memo authorizing additional CIA covert action in 2012, this time in Syria. However, unlike the 2011 Libyan operation we do not know the operational name of the second action in 2012 Syria.
We know the Libyan “rebels” were positioned in two strategic places. Benghazi, and the port city of Darnah, both located in Northeastern Libya.
We know this 2011 Libyan covert operation came to be known as “Operation Zero Footprint“, and fell under the military command authority of NATO not (important to repeat), NOT, the U.S. Military.
We know by the time operation “Zero Footprint” began, AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham was removed from OPSEC oversight in the Libyan campaign and NATO commander Admiral James G. Stavridis was in charge.
Stavridis was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) at the time of the Libyan uprising. He retired as SACEUR in 2013
In 2011, 57-year-old Stavridis was the perfect pick for NATO Libyan intervention considering he is the son of Turkish immigrants. Turkey played a key role in what might be the most politically dangerous aspect of the events to the White House once the goals changed to redirection of the weapons from Operation Zero Footprint.
We know Operation Zero Footprint was the covert transfer of weapons from the U.S to the Libyan “rebels”. We also know the operation avoided the concerns with congressional funding, and potential for public scrutiny, through financing by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
We also know that officials within the government of Qatar served as the intermediaries for the actual transfer of the weapons, thereby removing the footprint of the U.S. intervention.
We know the entire operation was coordinated and controlled by the State Department and CIA. We also know (from the Senate Foreign Relations Benghazi hearings) that “Zero Footprint” was unknown to the 2011 Pentagon and/or DoD commanders who would have been tasked with any military response to the 9/11/12 attack – namely AFRICOM General Carter Ham.
However, it would be implausible to think that then Defense Secretary Bob Gates or Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral McMullen were completely unaware of the operation, this aspect remains murky.
Both Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chair McMullen were in place when Operation Zero Footprint began but retired from their jobs in Sept of 2011, and were replaced by Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey respectively.
Leon Panetta was CIA Director at the beginning of Operation Zero Footprint (March 2011) and was replaced by CIA Director David Petraeus in the fall of 2011 as Panetta replaced Bob Gates and became Secretary of Defense.
However, Panetta (now as Def Sec) and JC Martin Dempsey were the two who initially briefed President Obama on the night of Sept 11th 2012. Because of his previous role in constructing Zero Footprint, Leon Panetta definitely had knowledge of the intents of the joint State Dept/Cia mission in Benghazi, Dempsey may not have.
We know the White House appears to have followed “The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980” in informing the congressional “Gang of Eight” of Zero Footprint.
The Gang of Eight in 2011 would have included: Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.
From Hillary interviews we also know the White House liaison for Secretary Clinton and CIA Director Leon Panetta during Operation Zero Footprintwas National Security Advisor To the President, Tom Donilon.
With this information we can assemble a cast of people “IN THE KNOW” of Operation Zero Footprint on two specific date blocks. March 2011 through Pre 9/11/12 attack – and – Post 9/11/12 attack forward.
March 2011 through Pre 9/11/12 attack: Who knew of Operation “Zero Footprint”?:
President Obama and Vice President Biden (both Dems)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Dem)
CIA Director Leon Panetta (March 2011 – June 2011)
*CIA Director General David Petraeus (?) (Sept 2011 – Nov 2012)
NATO Commander, James G Stavridis
White House National Security Advisor Tom Donilon (Dem)
White House National Security Spox Tommy Vietor (Donilon aide)
White House National Security Advisor John Brennan (Dem)
Speaker of the House John Boehner (Rep)
Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi (Dem)
House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers (Rep)
Minority House Intel Committee – Charles Ruppersberger (Dem)
[State Dept] U.S. Libyan Ambassador – Chris Stevens
[State Dept] U.S. Asst Secretary of State – Andrew Shapiro
[State Dept] Senior Head of U.S. Weapons Office – Mark Adams
Along with whomever inside each nation’s state government that was involved in either the finance (UAE), or the logistics (Qatar). [and later, 2012 Turkey]
Obviously the “know” crowd would include the ultimate end destination users, “The Libyan Rebel Commanders”:
Rebel Leader (Islamic Fighting Group) Abu Sufian Ibriham Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu – Darnah Brigade – Ansar Al Sharia
Rebel Leader (Islamic Fighting Group) Abu Khattala – Commander of an Islamist militia group called the Abu Obaida bin Jarrah Brigade (17th Feb Brigade) Benghazi – Ansar Al Sharia
*NOTE* Both of these individuals were labeled as officially recognized State Dept. terrorists in December of 2013. Khattala recently having been arrested.
In addition, the “political face” of the Libyan Transitional Government Justice MinisterMustafa Abdel Jalil, should also be included in this list of people who knew of operationZero Footprint while it was underway.
Justice Abdel Jalil served as the international face of, and spokesperson for, “the rebels” in 2011/12. He worked closely with Chris Stevens and highly visibly with Secretary Hillary Clinton – However, in my opinion – after extensive research- Jalil was a total patsy. He was paid well to present a comfortable face of the movement, but once Gaddaffi was killed Jalil was quickly dispatched.
This Brings us to who knew about “Operation Zero Footprint” post Benghazi 9/11/12 attack:
To wit you can easily add:
CIA Director General David Petraeus
Adjunct, and Interim, CIA Director – Mike Morrel
U.S. Attorney General – Eric Holder
President Obama Advisor and now Chief of Staff – Denis McDonough
President Obama Advisor and now Treasury Sec – Jack Lew
President Obama Advisor and now National Security Advisor – Tony Blinkin
Former UN Ambassador and now Senior Nat Sec Advisor – Susan Rice
Chief White House Communications Director – Ben Rhodes
Focusing on the post 9/11/12 team for a moment:
This photo was taken on 9/11/12 at 1:28am Benghazi time. [7:28pm DC] Following a one hour phone call between POTUS, V-Potus, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Jack Lew (far right) was Obama’s Chief of Staff. Donilon and McDonough had just left Tommy Vietor in the situation room to update POTUS in the Oval Office. POTUS and VPOTUS had just hung up the phone.
We know McDonough and Donilon were in the immediate loop on the night of 9/11/12 because they were photographed updating President Obama at 7:30pm in the Oval Office along with a curious Jack Lew who was Chief of Staff at the time.
In addition we know from former White House National Security spokesperson Tommy “dude” Vietor, that President Obama was not in the situation room where Vietor and his boss Tom Donilon were keeping up on events.
Here’s where it gets interesting:
Leon Panetta was the CIA Director when Operation Zero Footprint was authorized and began, but he left the CIA about 4 months later (June 30th, 2011) and was replaced by General David Petraeus (August/Sept 2011).
[*Note* it is important to remember when the 2nd authorized CIA program began in 2012 for Syria Petraeus would have been included]
Under this principle you can see that General Petraeus had ZERO liability for the origin of the Benghazi weapons deals – it was a joint State Dept/CIA program already being conducted when Petraeus arrived. If it blew up, it was not his political problem – THIS MADE PETRAEUS A RISK.
We know that during the summer of 2012 “a whistleblower” popped up and gave House Republican Leader Eric Cantor a tip about CIA Director General Petraeus being in an extramarital affair with a reporter named Paula Broadwell; along with rumors Petraeus may have shared classified information with Broadwell during pillow talk etc.
However, we also know that neither Holder nor Mueller (nor Cantor) informed anyone in congress this investigation of Petraeus was taking place. That investigation included Broadwell turning over her computer to the FBI in the same summer, and later a search of her home which did reveal confidential information supposedly leaked from Petraeus.
Sometime in October of 2012 Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had a conversation with Petraeus urging him to leave.
Immediately after the election of 2012 CIA Director David Petraeus resigned (Nov 9th) and interim CIA Director Mike Morrel took over. This is why Petraeus never testified to the Senate, and Morrel took his place.
We also know this timely switch was beneficial to both the Clinton and Obama camps because Morrel was more politically connected to them than Petraeus.
Given the risks of exposure to both “Operation Zero Footprint”, and worse, the buy-back/redirection to Syria, it’s understandable the risk to Clinton that Petraeus carried. However, Petraeus was not of any risk himself; maybe Leon Panetta would be, but not Petraeus – who, it’s important to add, came from the Defense Department to the office of CIA.
Petraeus’s replacement, interim CIA Director Mike Morrel, and White House Communications Director Ben Rhodes, were the two men who constructed the infamous “Susan Rice” talking points.
After Morrel testified to congress about the CIA involvement around Benghazi, and the issues of terrorism vs. Islamic movie (happy squirrel chase) etc. Morrel was replaced at the CIA by John Brennan.
We know that both Hillary Clinton and CBS immediately hired Mike Morrel. CBS News President David Rhodes -who hired Morrel- is the brother of the White House’s Ben Rhodes; who Morrel coordinated the Clinton friendly, albeit controversial, talking points with.
While it may seem suspect to jump to conclusions, the fact that Eric Holder did not inform either Intelligence Committee of the FBI Petraeus investigation -which is generally standard procedure- lends plausible suspicion to an outline that the events were used as leverage to remove Petraeus; and all of the subsequent risk he represented.
If you accept that Petraeus’s knowledge of, but non-involvement in, “Operation Zero Footprint” represented a potential risk to Hillary and Obama; you’d have to admit that Mike Morrel was by far the more White House friendly person talking about the CIA involvement around the joint State Dept/CIA Benghazi objectives.
Also, it would be disingenuous to ignore the fact Morrel’s loyalty therein was rewarded financially.
Lastly, one of the more slippery people to pin down on the Benghazi attack, and subsequent issues, has been Leon Panetta. If you think about Panetta’s role in the origin of Operation Zero Footprint his comment avoidance makes perfect sense.
Trey Gowdy needs to subpoena Panetta for the Special Committee.
OK, sorry that was more than a moment – but was needed.
Now back to Libya 2011/2012 and the Rift Between State/CIA and DoD/Pentagon over the arming of the “Rebels”. THIS IS REALLY QUITE IMPORTANTbecause it explains how far out Hillary Clinton had put herself in this covert op “Zero Footprint”.
A few reminder articles will outline and refresh why the White House kept DoD and The Pentagon at arms length throughout their covert operation:
[…] defense leaders in Washington [March 2011] slammed the brakes on the extent of US help to the rebels. Top officials said that some country other than the US should perform any future training and equipping of the Libyan opposition groups. Under withering congressional probing and criticism of what was described as an ill-defined mission to aid a rebel force that officials know little about, Robert Gates, the US defense secretary, sketched out a largely limited role for the US military going forward.
Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told members of the House Armed Services panel that many other countries have the ability to train and support the rebels. “My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates. “Somebody else should do that.” Gates and Mullen told Congress that future US participation will be limited and will not involve an active role in airstrikes as time goes on. (link)
From a New York Times article about the same hearing -AND- the discussion of the CIA involvement. Again, remember this is 2011 – you have Secretary Gates, Joint Chiefs Mullen, and CIA Director Panetta:
2011 […] Gates and Mullen were testifying before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in the wake of revelations that small teams of CIA operatives are working in Libya. Gates declined to comment on the CIA activities in Libya. US officials have acknowledged that the CIA has sent small teams of operatives into Libya and helped rescue a crew member of a US fighter jet that crashed.
The CIA’s precise role in Libya is not clear. Intelligence experts said the CIA would have sent officials to make contact with the opposition and assess the strength and needs of the rebel forces in the event Barack Obama, the US president, decided to arm them. (link)
In hindsight we are now fully aware that unknown to both Mullen and Gates -at the time they were speaking- was President Obama having authorized Operation Zero Footprint several weeks earlier, and Panetta carrying it out.
The State Dept (Hillary) and CIA (Panetta) were now in the execution mode of the covert op.
We now know against the March/April 2011 backdrop of growing information about al-Qaeda’s presence within the rebel units – there was a genuine difference of opinion on whether even getting involved was a good idea.
The Defense Department (Gates, Mullen) was saying no, the State Department (Clinton, Rice), was saying yes.
Remember too, this covert operation was going to require NATO Admiral James Stavridis to allow the weapons into Libya. So lets look at what he was quoted saying around the same timeframe as Mullen and Gates, *knowing Stavridis was one of the actual key figures to make the weapons delivery possible*:
2011 – […] Now, as the White House and NATO continue to debate the possible ramifications of arming the Libyan opposition, the Haqqani network-linked Afghan commander says Libyan al Qaeda affiliates seem to be more “enthusiastic” about the war against Gaddafi every day.
And from what the Afghan Taliban commander has seen, there appears to be more than “flickers” of al Qaeda’s presence in Libya, the description given by NATO commander Admiral James Stavridis. (link)
There is Stavridis playing down the possibility of al-Qaeda ideology within the make-up of the Islamic Fighting Group – which is important because by the time this quote was attributed Stavridis was already part of the team coordinating the shipments.
Also, remember R2P? This March/April 2011 timeframe is when “Responsibility To Protect” came up as a justification for our engagement. Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton all wanting to fully support “the rebels”.
Ultimately Obama/Jarrett (The White House) agreed with Hillary Inc (State Dept); hence “Zero Footprint” got the nod – well, let’s be really accurate: it “sort of” got the nod.
Think about it. President Obama authorized arming the Libyan rebels, but the covert nature of Zero Footprint actually reflects the political filter through which all Obama White House decisions are made. A White House team that always looks for an escape hatch in case any decision is ever publically wrong.
If the rebels were al-Qaeda, the covert op lends plausible deniability.
Isn’t it strange how in 2014 hindsight you can clearly see exactly what we now know as the “Benghazi narrative”; the use of their exact escape hatch because they were al-Qaeda, and it did go horribly and publically wrong.
Operation Zero Footprint Becomes Political and Legal Risk
It should be noted, and actually emphasized, that Operation Zero Footprint, at least in 2011, was not illegal. Indeed, all indicators are that President Obama followed his constitutional responsibility as he carried out his executive authority.
We know in late February 2011 President Obama signed a Presidential Finding Memo authorizing the State Department and CIA to engage in actions within Libya to identify a course of action.
We know in March 2011 when Hillary Clinton (State Dept) and Leon Panetta (CIA) constructed “Operation Zero Footprint” that President Obama approved the covert action and then informed the Gang of Eight of the weapons transfer operation.
Both of those known facts speak well to the Executive Office following a legally outlined process. This does not, however, dismiss the concern, which became the reality, that the action itself was terribly flawed and horridly imprudent.
During March, April and May 2011 there was enough intelligence information flowing to the White House informing them of exactly who would be the beneficiaries of U.S. Libyan involvement and specifically providing weapons. It did not take long to identify the Benghazi and Darnah “rebels” were actually affiliates of al-Qaeda.
While no-one reporting in 2011 was aware of Operation Zero Footprint, there were literally hundreds of media reports showcasing the ideology of the Libyan “rebel” uprising. Indeed there were numerous reports in mainstream media outlets of al-Qaeda fighters (numerous factions) flowing to Libya to oust their life-long nemesis, Gaddaffi.
From a policy standpoint it will have to be left up to historians to pore over the facts and ultimately decide what was *this* White House goal in the entire region.
Ben Ali removal -Tunisia- seemed OK to the administration, Obama and Clinton.
Hosni Mubarak removal -Egypt- seemed even more ok to Obama and Clinton.
Both of the above were viewed as potential sources for favorable policy outcomes. Indeed the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt -and election of President Morsi- did not seem to be a concern for the White House.
However, when you get to Gaddaffi’s removal -Libya- you see a serious split between ideologies within the U.S. political class as Obama/Clinton actually pushed the outcome. The U.S. defense department saying they were apprehensive about this outcome, and Obama/Clinton going “all in” for Gaddaffi ouster with French President Sarkozy.
The same interventionist Obama/Clinton motivation was evident with Syria’s Assad as yet another uprising surfaced in yet another Mid-East nation – again in March/April 2011.
We know on October 20th 2011 Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddaffi was finally captured, then killed by “the rebels”.
From the standpoint of “regime change” operation Zero Footprint was a success.
The Libyan Transitional National Council was now in control. Well, maybe in charge, or, well, sort of.
The TNC (pictured below 4 days later) may have been the face of Libya the Obama/Clinton team wanted to portray. But they were merely just that, a face.
We know Eastern Libya was then (2011), and is now (2014), a hotbed of radical Islam controlled by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Groups, the very people who benefitted from the arms that were part of Zero Footprint.
We know by the Fall/Winter of 2011 the U.S. State Dept and CIA were joined and trying to re-secure the same weapons they provided in the Spring/Summer.
“Assistant Secretary of State Andrew J. Shapiro raised the American desire to arrange a purchase program in a meeting this month with Libya’s new defense minister, according to American officials familiar with the proposal.
The United States has committed $40 million to secure Libya’s arms stockpiles, much of it to prevent the spread of Manpads. No budget has been designed for a purchase program, and the price to be paid for each missile and its components has not been determined, the official said. (link)
We know from a speech delivered by Asst. Secretary of State Shapiro in Feb of 2012 the actual program to recapture the Zero Footprint weapons began in August of 2011 about two months before Gaddaffi was killed:
“Once the stalemate broke and the fighting rapidly shifted in the TNC’s [Libyan Transitional National Council] favor in August, we immediately deployed a State Department expert from the MANPADS Task Force to Benghazi.
Mark Adams, who you will hear from shortly on the panel, is the head of our MANPADS Task Force and spent considerable time on the ground in Libya.
[… ] The initial primary objective was to reach an agreement with the TNC to set up a MANPADS control and destruction program that would enable us to set up what we call our Phase I efforts.
Phase I entailed an effort to rapidly survey, secure, and disable loose MANPADS across the country. To accomplish this, we immediately deployed our Quick Reaction Force, which are teams made up of civilian technical specialists.”
We know those “civilian technical specialists”, being talked about in August 2011, were contractors, CIA contractors, hired by the State Department to recapture the weapons – some of which they provided as a specific consequence of Operation Zero Footprint.
If the story ended there it would be bad enough. A flawed policy, a secret mission arm the Libyan “rebels” without a great deal of thinking through the longer term consequences. A flawed policy with political consequences.
But when you think about the larger picture you understand why the details of the covert weapons operation Zero Footprint were so tightly guarded among select members of Congress (the Gang of Eight), the CIA (Panetta), the State Department (Clinton) and the White House (Donilon).
Each of them was trying to manage a covert operation that would expose a U.S. policy decision to arm al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist militias.
But that’s only “IF” the story ended there, in Libya, at the end of 2011 into the beginning of 2012. It didn’t, the decisions got worse – much worse.
The uprising in Syria was only a few months behind the uprising in Libya. Arguably if the timing were reversed you could ponder that Assad would have met Gaddaffi’s fate, and Gaddaffi would be as alive today as President Assad.
Whichever rebel group got the attention of the R2P crowd was sure to be the first to get assistance. The Obama R2P Doctrine is so tenuous, and so lacking in political principle, it’s subject to change based on the political whims of capitol hill at any given moment.
The Libyan “rebels” got all the weaponry love – the Syrian “rebels”, not-so-much. At least in 2011; by mid 2012 that sentiment appears to have changed.
Enter Hillary Clinton. As she reiterated vehemently to Greta Van Sustern during a recent interview, it was Hillary who wanted to help the Syrian rebels when no-one else wanted to assist them. Secretary Hillary Clinton wanted early and direct interventionist action in Syria to topple Assad just like Gaddaffi.
Obviously consequences from the first covert weapons mission in Libya made a stark case for not repeating it in Syria. Another huge factor against helping the FSA was Israel. Ultimately Israel could not afford to be put into such a risky position if Syrian rebel forces were given arms that ultimately might be used against them.
Additionally, you would think there’s no way congress, in an election year, would approve of funding Syrian rebels against the possibility of it hurting Israel; And the White House was not about to do a known and official covert operation which had a great potential to go sideways, and become far too politically dangerous. 2012 was an election year.
But they did.
Who wanted to aid Syria more? President Obama or Hillary Clinton? That is a question for later year historians. Regardless of how the idea came up, we know a decision was made to do it, and to do it covertly.
Arming the Benghazi Darnah rebels was, well, stupid. It was actually stupid, and politically stupid, but it was not illegal.
Arming jihadist fighters in Syria likewise ended up being stupid but by all appearances NOT illegal.
In August 2012, one month before the attack on the Benghazi Compound, the followingReuters article appeared. This is how we find out about the SECOND presidential findingwhich again authorized covert CIA involvement, this time in Syria:
WASHINGTON, Aug 1 [2012] (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed asecret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad’s armed opponents – a shift that intensified following last month’s failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.
The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.
But U.S. and European officials have said that there have been noticeable improvements in the coherence and effectiveness of Syrian rebel groups in the past few weeks. That represents a significant change in assessments of the rebels by Western officials, who previously characterized Assad’s opponents as a disorganized, almost chaotic, rabble.
Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.
The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment.
‘NERVE CENTER’
A U.S. government source acknowledged that under provisions of the presidential finding, the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.
Last week, Reuters reported that, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey had established a secret base near the Syrian border to help direct vital military and communications support to Assad’s opponents.
This “nerve center” is in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles (100 km) from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence.
Turkey’s moderate Islamist government has been demanding Assad’s departure with growing vehemence. Turkish authorities are said by current and former U.S. government officials to be increasingly involved in providing Syrian rebels with training and possibly equipment.
European government sources said wealthy families in Saudi Arabia and Qatar were providing significant financing to the rebels. Senior officials of the Saudi and Qatari governments have publicly called for Assad’s departure.
On Tuesday, NBC News reported that the Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen surface-to-air missiles, weapons that could be used against Assad’s helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Syrian government armed forces have employed such air power more extensively in recent days.
NBC said the shoulder-fired missiles, also known as MANPADs, had been delivered to the rebels via Turkey.
On Wednesday, however, Bassam al-Dada, a political adviser to the Free Syrian Army, denied the NBC report, telling the Arabic-language TV network Al-Arabiya that the group had “not obtained any such weapons at all.” U.S. government sources said they could not confirm the MANPADs deliveries, but could not rule them out either.
Current and former U.S. and European officials previously said that weapons supplies, which were being organized and financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, were largely limited to guns and a limited number of anti-tank weapons, such as bazookas.
Indications are that U.S. agencies have not been involved in providing weapons to Assad’s opponents. In order to do so, Obama would have to approve a supplement, known as a “memorandum of notification, to his initial broad intelligence finding.
Further such memoranda would have to be signed by Obama to authorize other specific clandestine operations to support Syrian rebels.
Reuters first reported last week that the White House had crafted a directive authorizing greater U.S. covert assistance to Syrian rebels. It was unclear at that time whether Obama had signed it. (read more)
Note how the FSA says they didn’t get missiles, and yet missiles were shipped. This is important against the backdrop of the reality the extreme elements we now call ISIL were operating in Syria and openly laughing at our inability to identify them:
(JULY 2012) As they stood outside the commandeered government building in the town of Mohassen, it was hard to distinguish Abu Khuder’s men from any other brigade in the Syrian civil war, in their combat fatigues, T-shirts and beards.
But these were not average members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.
According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. “We meet almost every day,” he said. “We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations.” Abu Khuder’s men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added.
[…] Abu Khuder split with the FSA and pledged allegiance to al-Qaida’s organisation in Syria, the Jabhat al Nusra or Solidarity Front. He let his beard grow and adopted the religious rhetoric of a jihadi, becoming a commander of one their battalions.
“The Free Syrian Army has no rules and no military or religious order. Everything happens chaotically,” he said. “Al-Qaida has a law that no one, not even the emir, can break.
“The FSA lacks the ability to plan and lacks military experience. That is what [al-Qaida] can bring. They have an organisation that all countries have acknowledged.
“In the beginning there were very few. Now, mashallah, there are immigrants joining us and bringing their experience,” he told the gathered people. “Men from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq and Jordan. Yemenis are the best in their religion and discipline and the Iraqis are the worst in everything – even in religion.”
At this, one man in the room – an activist in his mid-30s who did not want to be named – said: “So what are you trying to do, Abu Khuder? Are you going to start cutting off hands and make us like Saudi? Is this why we are fighting a revolution?”
“[Al-Qaida’s] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state,” he replied. “Those who fear the organisation fear the implementation of Allah’s jurisdiction. If you don’t commit sins there is nothing to fear.” (link – more)
Against the backdrop of ISIL 2014 does this Sound familiar ?
We know the basic set up to arm the Syrian rebellion was generally not too complex.
Turkey would be used as the distribution hub, and the U.S. had Sunni friends in Saudi Arabia, and Qatar -who were more than willing to see Assad removed- and financially assist in arming the Syrians without too great a concern for what could happen to Israel.
For Obama/Clinton to get weapons to the Syrians, against the shadow of Operation Zero Footprint, without going extensively through congress, could be done covertly and easily. Either ship weapons just like Operation Zero Footprint, Saudi ==> Qatar ==> Turkey ==> Syria, OR, buy back the weapons already floating around from Operation Zero Footprint and redirect them to Syria through Turkey.
OR both.
The Saudis would be a willing financier if the State Dept needed additional money to facilitate the transfers.
We know Ambassador Chris Stevens set up a formal U.S. Embassy consulate in Tripoli around May 26th of 2012; and we know the State Dept and CIA set up their joint operations in Benghazi around the same time. We also now know this is around the EXACT time of the second Presidential CIA Directive.
Looking at the historical timeline, and knowing the contacts developed, gives a great perspective into what would have spurred the CIA/State Department to set up a more expansive presence and operation in the coastal region of Eastern Libya May/June 2012.
The official U.S. State Dept Libyan presence was vacated on Feb 25th of 2011 when the embassy personell were evacuated. Stevens was re-establishing the diplomatic office and acting as Ambassador to Libya during the 2012 reconstruction phase.
What we did not know at the time was that Chris Stevens was also acting as the facilitator for U.S. arms shipments OUT OF LIBYA, through Turkish diplomatic couriers and into Syria. While coordinating a second covert action to arm the Syrian resistance.
A very strong argument can easily be made that Chris Stevens was a CIA operative inside the State Department. Many people within the State Department are CIA personnel using the State Dept as part of their visible cover.
In Eastern Libya June, July, August 2012 – Obviously the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Ansar Al Sharia, aka 17th Feb Brigade, and all of their commanders knew of the U.S. Benghazi weapons programs. Both the 2011 distribution, and the 2012 repurchase.
Considering the redeployment to Syria – for the most part the Benghazi and Darnah brigades would have been in alignment with their Jihadist brethren in Syria being the beneficiaries of any additional shipments.
But there was in 2011/2012 – as noted in the above articles – an ideological rift between the newly emboldened Muslim Brotherhood and the ‘more initially moderate’ Free Syrian Army (FSA). As the Libyan conflict rolled on through the summer of 2011 more al-Qaeda elements flocked from other engagements into the Syrian fight. Moderates were replaced by extremists.
By the time of the second presidential directive, as Hillary and Chris Stevens were working on support for Syria, Summer 2012, the radical Syrian opposition was embedded inside the FSA. Arguably in hindsight they were the majority element.
The Syrian opposition had three al-Qaida arms operating within it. Including one that also operated in Libya:
Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese;
Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and operating in Yemen and Libya;
Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.
It would be into this eclectic mix of Jihadist ideologues, which later became ISIL, that any diverted U.S. arms would flow. It’s no wonder that Senator John McCain was so confused when he was calling them “moderates” in 2012/2013. Almost no-one knew the severe elements in Syria would rise to the surface and become the modern ISIS now capturing all of the global attention.
And…. If you just realized…. Yes, ISIS or ISIL currently on the march in Iraq, came from Syria, fought in Syria and more than likely was armed by the U.S. inside Syria and Turkey. They were more likely trained, in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles (100 km) from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence; by the same CIA operatives used by the State Dept to send Syria weapons from Benghazi and Darnah back in Libya.
If Operation Zero Footprint in Libya was stupid, arming the Syrian branches of al-Qaeda two years after the FSA was thoroughly corrupted by al-Qaeda, is infinite degrees beyond stupid.
But that’s hindsight for ya….. or as Secretary Clinton would say “Whether they were, … at this point, what difference does it make?”
By June of 2012 the New York Times was reporting that the CIA is operating a secret arms transfer program to Syria that sounded exactly like the re-diversion plan Clinton developed with Panetta/Petraeus. According to the Times suddenly, there is: “…an influx of weapons and ammunition to the rebels.”
We know on September 5th 2012 – A Libyan flagged ship called Al Entisar (“The Victory”) docks in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It is carrying 400 tons of cargo including many weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) destined for Syrian rebels 35 miles away from Iskenderun.
In response to the Times of London report, and in a generally dismissed part of her congressional testimony, Senator Rand Paul asked outgoing Secretary Hillary Clinton a very specific question – (See @2:20 of this video and pay attention to the “duping delight”):
Which would bring us to a series of now reconcilable questions surrounding the joint State Dept. and CIA Benghazi Mission.
The entire weapons operation 2011 was labeled “Operation Zero Footprint”. The intent is outlined in the operational title – to leave no visible record of U.S. involvement in arming the Libyan “rebels”. No visible footprint.
We know from congressional inquiry Ambassador Chris Stevens had asked for more security in the months prior to Sept. 11th 2012. Requests sent to the State Dept that were denied.
We also know that NO MARINE DETACHMENT was ever put in place to defend the Benghazi Mission.
We also know the Benghazi Mission was initially, and mistakenly by media, called “a consulate”, or a “consulate outpost”. But there was no State Dept record of any consulate office in Benghazi.
All of these seeming contradictions can be reconciled with the simple understanding that this “Mission” in 2011 was unofficial. Remember the goal – No visible footprint.
We also know the Second Operation, in 2012, to arm the Syrians’was also covert – No visible footprint.
Why were security requests denied? Remember the goal – No visible footprint.
We know from General Carter Ham (AFRICOM Commander now retired) the Department of Defense was not even aware the State Dept was operating a mission in Benghazi during 2012. Remember the goal – No visible footprint.
How could Hillary Clinton, Charlene Lamb, or Patrick Kennedy approve or request a marine security detachment knowing the entire mission around both Benghazi operations was covert?
Such a request would have travelled outside the small group of State/CIA insiders. The request would have gone to DoD. Short answer, they couldn’t.
Hence the disconnect between what seemed to be obvious and/or simple questions and the inability to accurately discuss in the public venues of congressional inquiry.
To the public Chris Stevens was a U.S. ambassador, a diplomat. To the folks inside the State Dept and CIA, Chris Stevens was a U.S. Ambassador, AND a CIA operative coordinating covert arms sales.
In 2011 those arms shipments were to aid the Libyan rebels, in 2012 those same arms were redirected to aid the Syrian rebels.
Even after death the public face of Chris Stevens, the official role, was the only role able to be discussed. The covert, or unofficial role, was not. Again, we see the disconnect between inquiry that could be answered, and inquiry that could not be answered. Many irreconcilables surface because of this intelligence role – even through today.
The second role of Stevens, the covert and CIA aspect, still causes problems for people trying to understand the “why not” questions. The broader public asking why have we not seen, or heard from the survivors of the attacks?
The short answer is, we have not heard from the survivors – but the intelligence community has.
Twice some of the survivors have given testimony to congress. The problem for the public is that those hearings are closed door, classified, intelligence hearings – led by Chairman Mike Rogers and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Again, go back to the beginning of Operation Zero Footprint and you see the congressional Intelligence Gang of Eight were fully aware of the intents.
The Gang of Eight in 2011 / 2012 was: House Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.
Why was Speaker Boehner reluctant to establish a Select Committee on Benghazi ?
Simple, again he is one of the Gang of Eight – and he was briefed on both operations. How is he going to call for a select committee when he knows the substance of the committee investigation is classified under national security. Such a committee would not, because it could not, deliver what the public was requesting, sunlight.
The only reason Trey Gowdy was finally assigned the task of a Select Committee, was simply because the public lies of the White House and administration were contradicting themselves.
The White House “talking points“, which was/is a ridiculous squirrel hunt, were created to reconcile the problem faced when unable to discuss a covert operation.
It is far easier to look at the reality of the problem faced by the White House and CIA than any nefarious intention.
Unfortunately for the administration they are not that good.
Team Obama was so committed to keeping the covert operations “Zero Footprint” a secret (because of the political embarrassment from factually arming al Qaeda) that the cover story they manufactured (on the fly) was fraught with contradictions.
How could President Obama dispatch help to the Benghazi team, when DoD was not even aware of it’s existence? Sending help would have compromised OpSec, Operational Security.
The dispatch of F.E.S.T. would lead to increased knowledge of a covert operation.
Hopefully you are beginning to see the root of the contradictions. Once you understand the truth of what was going on within the backstory – there’s almost nothing left which would dangle as an unanswered question. It all reconciles.
Back to the FALL of 2012 – On September 5th/6th 2012 the Turkish vessel “Al Entisar” docked in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. 400 tons of serious cargo including weapons destined for Syrian “rebels”.
In the U.S. that September 5th night former President Bill Clinton was introducing Candidate Barack Obama at the DNC convention in Charlotte North Carolina. In Afghanistan that night something happened that had already become a serious concern for the operatives within “Operation Zero Footprint”.
At the exact time Clinton was speaking in North Carolina, halfway around the world in Afghanistan Army Chief Warrant Officers Thalia S. Ramirez, 28, of San Antonio and Jose L. Montenegro Jr., 31, of San Juan, in the Rio Grande Valley, were killed while flying an OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, a Defense Department news release stated.
On September 5th 2012 – A U.S. organized ship loaded with weapons including missiles was offloading at a Turkish port. Bill Clinton was introducing Barack Obama, and the first black female combat pilot was shot down and killed by a shoulder fired missilein Afghanistan.
The relationship between the three events reflects the absolute political fear that revolved around Operation Zero Footprint.
The CIA and Intelligence community had stated earlier the biggest concern anyone held about arming the Libyan Rebels was the possibility those weapons might leave the Libyan conflict and travel to other locations where they would be used against our own soldiers. More and more evidence of this happening was growing.
In 2011 a total of four air assets were destroyed by enemy fire in Afghanistan. Two of those helicopters happened at the same time in August 2011 when we lost the Navy Seal unit that killed Osama Bin Laden. 22 Americans killed.
We had been in close quarter full combat operations in Afghanistan for 10 years, and we never had a problem with close air support. We had never faced the concern of our enemy having MANPADS. 2002 through 2010 saw zero occurrences of SAMS, Stingers, or MANPADS in general.
Within months after delivering weapons to the Benghazi and Darnah rebels (May, June and July 2011) we began facing MANPADS in Afghanistan.
Four instances in late in 2011 including the 22 lives lost in what came to be known as Operation “Extortion 17″.
A combined patrol discovered a weapons cache containing three shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles, three anti-tank mines, 423 RPGs, 118,600 7.62 mm rounds, 30 rifles and other ordnance in the Tarin Kot district of Uruzgan province. The cache’s contents were destroyed.(link)
By September 5th 2012 in the preceding nine months we had lost 11 helicopters to shoulder fired missiles in Afghanistan. The following headline hit the media:
One of the incidents revealed details of what was being faced. The July 25th 2012 downing of a CH-47 which was found to have been hit with a “new generation” stinger missile. The risks were no longer mere worries, they were real:
[O]n July 25, 2012, Taliban fighters in Kunar province successfully targeted a US Army CH-47 helicopter with a new generation Stinger missile.
They thought they had a surefire kill. But instead of bursting into flames, the Chinook just disappeared into the darkness as the American pilot recovered control of the aircraft and brought it to the ground in a hard landing.
The assault team jumped out the open doors and ran clear in case it exploded. Less than 30 seconds later, the Taliban gunner and his comrade erupted into flames as an American gunship overhead locked onto their position and opened fire.
The next day, an explosive ordnance disposal team arrived to pick through the wreckage and found unexploded pieces of a missile casing that could only belong to a Stinger missile.
Lodged in the right nacelle, they found one fragment that contained an entire serial number.
The investigation took time. Arms were twisted, noses put out of joint. But when the results came back, they were stunning: The Stinger tracked back to a lot that had been signed out by the CIA recently, not during the anti-Soviet jihad.
Reports of the Stinger reached the highest echelons of the US command in Afghanistan and became a source of intense speculation, but no action.
Everyone knew the war was winding down. Revealing that the Taliban had US-made Stingers risked demoralizing coalition troops. Because there were no coalition casualties, government officials made no public announcement of the attack.
My sources in the US Special Operations community believe the Stinger fired against the Chinook was part of the same lot the CIA turned over to the Qataris in early 2011, weapons Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department intended for anti-Khadafy forces in Libya.
They believe the Qataris delivered between 50 and 60 of those same Stingers to the Taliban in early 2012, and an additional 200 SA-24 Igla-S surface-to-air missiles. (link)
In Afghanistan the DoD field response was immediate; all Close Air Support was cancelled.
The White House had a problem – “Operation Zero Footprint” missiles were now being used against us, but DoD didn’t know the origin because the Defense Department did not know about Zero Footprint, the State Department and CIA did.
The killing of Army Chief Warrant Officers Thalia S. Ramirez, 28, and Jose L. Montenegro Jr., 31, might not have been the final straw – but their September 5th 2012 deaths coincided with an absolute change in direction.
While the ISIS-minded Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and the Free Syrian Army werearguing over who gets what from aboard the Turkish vessel, back in Benghazi, Libya it was obvious the ideology of the Syrian factions were too extreme and the CIA could no longer control who would use such weapons.
God forbid DoD ground commanders in Afghanistan find out the MANPADS they were facing originated by our covert efforts in Libya.
Strangely one must give credit to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. As unbelievable as it might sound he was the lone Islamic voice in March 2011 saying “don’t arm the Benghazi rebels“:
March 2011 – Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, has said he does not support the idea of arming Libyan rebels fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power.
Speaking at a joint news conference with David Cameron, the British prime minister, in London, Erdogan said: “Doing that would create a different situation in Libya and we do not find it appropriate to do that.”
Erdogan also said that that sending weapons to Libya could feed terrorism, saying such weapons shipments “could also create an environment which could be conducive to terrorism”. (read more)
Erdogan and U.S. Defense Secretary Bob Gates were of the same mindset.
“My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates. “Somebody else should do that.” (link)
However, for Syria in 2012 Erdogan had a divergent opinion. He was all for arming the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. This article, again from August 2012 – one month prior to the attack against Chris Stevens, outlines the goal of both Erdogan and President Obama:
(August 2012) President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke by telephone Monday “to coordinate efforts to accelerate a political transition in Syria,” the White House said.
This “would include the departure of (Syrian leader) Bashar Assad and be responsive to the legitimate demands of the Syrian people,” the statement said.
Obama and Erdogan shared their concerns over the Syrian regime’s crackdown on opposition “and the deteriorating humanitarian conditions throughout Syria as a result of the regime’s atrocities.”
Both [Obama and Erodgan] promised to coordinate efforts to help the growing numbers of Syrians displaced by the violence within Syria or forced to flee over the border to take refuse in Turkey or other nations in the region.
The statement said US and Turkish teams “would remain in close contact on ways that Turkey and the United States can work together to promote a democratic transition in Syria.” (link)
Alas, given the backstory of DoD not wanting to arm the rebels, and given the unintended consequences of 2011/2012 from Operation Zero Footprint, and given an upcoming election in November 2012, you can see why in post September 11 of 2012 the Obama administration would want to discontinue this operation and throw a bag over the events of the past 17 months.
Perhaps following the fiasco at the Port of Iskenderun a week earlier, Turkish Diplomat Consul General Ali Sait Akin arrives at the Benghazi Mission on Sept 11th 2012 to talk about the ongoing efforts to support Syria.
Perhaps, the conversation was about the increasing risk of arming a rising group of radicals against the backdrop of MANPADS being used against U.S. forces in other fields of combat.
Regardless of motivation Ali Sait Akin and Stevens were most certainly discussing the current situation with Turkey suffering the consequences and pushing a greater sense of urgency.
Indeed Turkey’s border region was filled with historic numbers of Syrian refugees fleeing the fighting which was completely out of control. The Scale of the crisis was staggering and out of control. Over 500,000 Syrians were now seeking shelter in Turkey.
Meanwhile the ideology of the radical elements controlling the arms shipments was openly becoming a danger to the entire region, and especially U.S. interests beyond Syria.
This would have put Stevens (U.S.) and Akin (Turkey) as opposing ends of the issue.
What we now know as ISIS – originated inside this group of Zero Footprint recipients, and Erdogan while willing to see Assad removed, was also well aware that these elements do not believe in borders. These rabid ideologues (now known as ISIS-2014) were quickly evolving into a risk for the region.
The U.S. policy team would have viewed the risk far differently than Turkey.
As the New York Times reported in an Oct. 14 2012 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”
We can only imagine the conversation within the Benghazi compound as both Ali Sait Akin and Chris Stevens parted ways for the final time on September 11th 2012.
Outside the compound walls, the 17th Feb Brigade – Ansar Al Sharia – were also assembled to deliver their final goodbyes.
The Turkish delegation was able to navigate the roadblocks without issue. And within 30 minutes of Consul Akin leaving the venue, Ansar Al Sharia executed their attack.
The Benghazi and Darnah Brigades already knew the compound inside and out, as well as the CIA ANNEX compound, a kilometer away, which contained four warehouse type buildings used by the CIA during the collection, distribution and delivery of Zero Footprint’s objectives over the past 17 months.
In June of 2009 the primary Benghazi Mission compound looked like this:
In March of 2011, when Operation Zero Footprint began, the Tactical Operations Command building (TOC) was added and it looked like this:
.
In December of 2005 the area which became the CIA Annex compound held two buildings:
.
In 2009 two more buildings were added bringing the total to FOUR:
.
By the time the CIA took over 2011, and when the compound came under mortar fire 2012, it looked like this:
Author’s notes:
The primary reason for outlining this brief is to deliver a greater understanding of why things happened the way they did in the post 9/11/12 attack media frenzy.
If you understand what took place from March 2011 through the night of the attack itself all of the contradictions reconcile, and most of the questions become answered.
Factually, I would challenge anyone who reads this brief to actually have a question left unanswered.
The events of the attack itself are gut wrenching and troubling. Our brave operations folks had to fight their way out of a situation where they literally were on their own due to the political risks inherent in carrying out their objectives.
However, they knew they were beyond the wire – they knew there was no manner, method or possibility of protection…. And this is the point everyone seems to miss:
THEY KNEW THE DoD WAS IN THE DARK ABOUT THEIR ACTIVITY. There was NOTHING the Pentagon could have done to help them. Those people inside the Eastern Libya City of Benghazi, operating on behalf of the administration, were, for all intents and purposes, GHOSTS. They did not “technically” exist.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the mission they were tasked to carry out, there is no doubt they worked honorably to serve their nation. Ultimately the leadership within the State Department, The CIA, and the White House are responsible for the outcomes of policy.
Our hope is that this outline will stimulate journalists to question those who were at the heart of these two operations. Ultimately the Trey Gowdy select committee will find there is no venue to discuss intelligence operations with public sunlight. While both Zero Footprint in 2011, and the Unnamed CIA operation in 2012 were flawed policy – they were not necessarily illegal.
There is a matter of an unidentified State Dept $6 billion contractor fund missing from Hillary’s term as Secretary of State; that might bear investigation. However, beyond those smaller questions there is little if anything to gain.
FUBAR.
~ Sundance
Common Questions: The AFTERMATH – “The Cairo Protest VS The Benghazi Attack”
Here is where people get confused – because the U.S. State department wanted people to get confused.
On 9/11/12 the State Department was originally trying to deflect attention away from the Cairo Embassy Protest.
CNN correspondent Nick Robertson interviewed Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Al Zawahiri on the morning of the planned Cairo protest 9/11/12. Zawahiri and team told Robertson they were rallying and protesting for the release of the Blind Sheik.
The protest turned violent and the U.S. Embassy was overrun by extremists who eventually hoisted the black flag of al-Qaeda within the compound.
The State Dept was trying desperately to cover their ass and frame the narrative so the optics of the al-Qaeda onslaught to the Embassy could be controlled.
To hide the intentions of the protesting mob (release of the Blind Sheik) the U.S. State Department fell back on a story about the Mohammed video – which they found out about two days earlier.
Against the backdrop of an upcoming election, and with Republicans beating up Democrats over the short-sighted foreign policy, the State Dept did not want the Muhammed Al Zawahiri narrative. The compound being overrun was a political embarrassment so they used the silly video to explain the protest:
(Remember this is all early in the day – prior to the Benghazi attack)
However, Mitt Romney jumped on this State Dept. Press Release to make the case that the U.S. appeared weak and apologetic. It created an immediate stir.
Unknown at the time was an UNRELATED attack was taking place at the Benghazi compound. The attack at Benghazi Libya had nothing to do with the protests at the Cairo embassy.
However, once the Benghazi attack took place, the State Dept needed a cover story which would sell to the U.S. electorate to explain the Benghazi issues. What Hillary and team did was sell/use the Cairo story as an explanation for Benghazi.
This is how the U-Tube video came into play.
The U-Tube video had nothing to do with the Cairo Embassy Protest.The U-Tube video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack.
Nothing about the U-Tube story was correct. It was all manufactured excuse-making, strategically put into the media cycle to protect the administration from the reality of flawed policy.
The U-Tube video had nothing to do with the Embassy protest in Cairo, nor the Benghazi attack in Libya. By now I think everyone would concur, albeit the media never went back to the Cairo motive to discuss because it became a secondary issue.
Did the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in Cairo, or specifically Muhammed Al Zawahiri, coordinate in some way with Ansar al Sharia in Libya, specifically on 9/11/12?
That’s a good question – unfortunately however, it’s a question without a factual answer. I don’t know; and an argument can be made that given all of the players and the influx of their communication it’s quite possible there was some coordination of effort.
What is factually certain is any communication they did have had nothing to do with a ridiculous U-Tube video.
The Cairo protest was 100% certain to be about the release of the Blind Sheik.
Was the Benghazi attack related in some effort to gain a hostage (Chris Stevens) as leverage toward that Al Zawahiri effort? Possible. I’ve seen that argument made, but have not been able to definitively connect the two.
It is a hard question to answer because the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammed Al Zawahiri (the brother of al-Qaeda’s #1 Ayman Al Zawahiri), and the leadership of Ansar Al Sharia were not necessarily telling the foot soldiers the plans or larger objectives.
I do, however, believe the answer, if known, would be known by Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt and his team of military and intelligence people. The most reasonable approach is to listen to the Egyptian intelligence leadership on this point.
If true, this latest dossier produced by Dr. Jerome Corsi validates a number of our past reports on this subject published here at 21WIRE.
In addition to al Qaeda, AQIM, and AQAP, this story also connects the CIA and all relevant political players, including Hillary Clinton and John McCain, directly to ISIS, or the ‘Islamic State’, currently terrorizing Iraq and Syria. The CIA worked through a series of ‘cut-outs’ based in Qatar and in other locations in the Middle East (see full report below).
If you believe all of the pre-packaged government and corporate media propaganda, then you might think that ISIS is just another evil, grassroots Salafist militant movement, one with no connections at all to foreign intelligence agencies like the CIA, Britain’s MI6, Turkish (NATO) intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Israeli intelligence, or Pakistan’s ISI.
Well, you might just be wrong…
PARTNERS IN CRIME: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spoke at the funeral of Chris Stevens and others who perished at Benghazi.
NEW YORK – The Obama White House and the State Department under the management of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “changed sides in the war on terror” in 2011 by implementing a policy of facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-dominated rebel militias in Libya attempting to oust Moammar Gadhafi from power, the Citizens Commission on Benghazi concluded in its interim report.
In WND interviews, several members of the commission have disclosed their finding that the mission of Christopher Stevens, prior to the fall of Gadhafi and during Stevens’ time as U.S. ambassador, was the management of a secret gun-running program operated out of the Benghazi compound.
The Obama administration’s gun-running project in Libya, much like the “fast and furious” program under Eric Holder’s Justice Department, operated without seeking or obtaining authorization by Congress.
WND reported Monday that in exclusive interviews conducted with 11 of the 17 members of the commission, it is clear that while the CCB is still enthusiastic to work with Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, and hopeful that Boehner is serious about the investigation, various members of the CCB, speaking on their own behalf and not as spokesmen for the commission, are expressing concerns, wanting to make sure the Gowdy investigation is not compromised by elements within the GOP.
The Citizen’s Commission on Benghazi’s interim report, in a paragraph titled “Changing sides in the War on Terror,” alleges “the U.S. was fully aware of and facilitating the delivery of weapons to the Al Qaeda-dominated rebel militias throughout the 2011 rebellion.”
The report asserted the jihadist agenda of AQIM [Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb], the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other Islamic terror groups represented among the rebel forces was well known to U.S. officials responsible for Libya policy.
“The rebels made no secret of their Al Qaeda affiliation, openly flying and speaking in front of the black flag of Islamic jihad, according to author John Rosenthal and multiple media reports,” the interim report said. “And yet, the White House and senior Congressional members deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress Al Qaeda.”
The report concluded: “The result in Libya, across much of North Africa, and beyond has been utter chaos, disruption of Libya’s oil industry, the spread of dangerous weapons (including surface-to-air missiles), and the empowerment of jihadist organizations like Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Christopher Stevens: ’1st U.S. envoy to al-Qaida’
In the WND interviews, several members of the citizens’ commission, speaking for themselves, not for the commission, added important background to the interim report’s conclusion.
“In early 2011, before Gadhafi was deposed, Christopher Stevens came to Benghazi in a cargo ship, and his title at the time was envoy to the Libyan rebels,’ which basically means Christopher Stevens was America’s very first envoy to al-Qaida,” explained Clare Lopez, a member of the commission who served as a career operations officer with the CIA and current is vice president for research at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy.
“At that time, Stevens was facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-related militia in Libya,” Lopez continued. “The weapons were produced at factories in Eastern Europe and shipped to a logistics hub in Qatar. The weapons were financed by the UAE and delivered via Qatar mostly on ships, with some possibly on airplanes, for delivery to Benghazi. The weapons were small arms, including Kalashnikovs, rocket-propelled grenades and lots of ammunition.”
Lopez further explained that during the period of time when Stevens was facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-affiliated militia in Libya, he was living in the facility that was later designated the Special Mission Compound in Benghazi.
“This was about weapons going into Libya, and Stevens is coordinating with Abdel Hakim Belhadj, the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, other al-Qaida-affiliated militia leaders and leaders of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood that directed the rebellion against Qadhafi as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood,” Lopez said. “Many of the individual members of the al-Qaida-related militias, including the LIFG, and the groups that would later become Ansar Al-Sharia, were Muslim Brotherhood members first.”
According to the interim report, as detailed by Lopez, a delegation from the UAE traveled to Libya after the fall of Gadhafi to collect payment for the weapons the UAE had financed and that Qatar had delivered to the Transitional National Council in Libya during the war.
“The UAE delegation was seeking $1 billion it claimed was owed,” the interim report noted. “During their visit to Tripoli, the UAE officials discovered that half of the $1 billion worth of weapons it had financed for the rebels had, in fact, been diverted by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the Muslim Brotherhood head of the Libyan TNC, and sold to Qaddafi.”
According to information discovered during the UAE visit to Tripoli, when Jalil learned that Maj. Gen. Abdel Fatah Younis, Gadhafi’s former minister of the interior before his late February 2011 defection to the rebel forces, had found out about the weapons diversion and the $500 million payment from Gadhafi, Jalil ordered Abu Salim Abu Khattala, leader of the Abu Obeida Bin al-Jarrah brigade to kill Younis.
“Abu Khattala, later identified as a Ansar al- Shariah commander who participated in the 11 September 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, accepted the orders and directed the killing of Gen. Younis in July 2011,” the interim report noted.
Abu Khattala is currently in custody in New York awaiting trial under a Department of Justice-sealed indictment, after U.S. Delta Force special operations personnel captured him over the weekend of June 14-15, 2014, in a covert mission in Libya. Abu Khattala’s brigade merged into Ansar al-Shariah in 2012, and he was positively identified to the FBI in a cell phone photo from the scene of the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.
The language of the interim report made clear why the sequence of events is important.
“The key significance of this episode is the demonstration of a military chain-of-command relationship between the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood leadership of the TNC and the Al Qaeda-affiliated militia (Ansar al-Shariah) that has been named responsible for the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi,” the interim Rreport concluded.
“What we have here is the Muslim Brotherhood leadership of the revolution giving a kill order to a Muslim militia affiliated with al-Qaida, which then carried it out,” Lopez summarized. “This chain-of-command link is important even though it has not yet received enough attention in the media.
A big ‘oh no’ moment
“After Gadhafi is deposed and Stevens was appointed U.S. ambassador to Libya, the flow of weapons reverses,” Lopez noted. “Now Stevens has the job of overseeing the shipment of arms from Libya to Syria to arm the rebels fighting Assad, some of whom ultimately become al-Nusra in Syria and some become ISIS.”
Lopez distinguished that “al-Nusra in Syria still claims allegiance to al-Qaida, while ISIS has broken away from al-Qaida, not because ISIS is too violent, but out of insubordination, after Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, wanted to run his own show inside Syria as well as Iraq, thereby disobeying orders from al-Qaida leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri.”
She noted that in this period of time, after the fall of Gadhafi and before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the Benghazi compound, Stevens was working with Turkey to ship weapons out of Libya into Syria for the use of the rebels fighting Assad.
According to the authors of the bestselling book “13 Hours,” on Sept. 11, 2012, before the attack on the Benghazi compound started, Stevens had dinner with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin. Stevens reportedly escorted the Turkish diplomat outside the main gate of the Benghazi compound to say good-bye to Akin at approximately 7:40 p.m. local time, before he returned to Villa C to retire for the evening.
Kevin Shipp, a former CIA counterintelligence expert who worked on the seventh floor at Langley as protective staff to then-CIA Director William Casey, again speaking for himself in his interview with WND, agreed with Lopez that the gun-running operation Stevens managed is a secret the Obama White House and Clinton State Department have sought to suppress from the public.
“The shocking part, maybe even a violation of international law that the Obama administration has been terrified to have fully revealed, is that Stevens as part of his duties as a State Department employee was assisting in the shipment of arms first into Libya for the al-Qaida-affiliated militia, with the weapons shipped subsequently out of Libya into Syria for use by the al-Qaida-affiliated rebels fighting Assad,” Shipp told WND.
“Very possibly, these gun-running activities could be looked at even as treasonable offenses,” he said.
Shipp further noted that in gun-running operations in which the CIA wants deniability, the CIA generally involves a third party.
“The way the CIA works is through a ‘cut-out,’ in that you get Qatar to transport the weapons and you facilitate the transport. So now the third party is to blame,” he explained.
“Qatar probably would have been able to pull this off without any attribution to the CIA if the Benghazi attack had not happened. The attack basically shed the light on this operation the White House, the State Department and the CIA were trying to keep quiet,” he said.
“The attack on Benghazi was a big ‘oh no’ moment.”
Once again, readers of Syrian Perspective will have the edge over all others in refinement, good taste and culture. We have been blessed once more with another masterpiece by the greatest poet of the 21st Century, Sir Run Run Shaw XVIII, Poet Laureate of the English Language in Polynesia and the Far East. This poem, written under improbable circumstances while Sir Run Run was fighting alongside desperate Crimean citizens demanding unity with Russia, is an evocation of the monumental poem by T.S. Eliot and is not meant to be taken seriously:
Part I – BURIAL OF BANDAR BIN SULTAN
August is always the worst of months,
Hiding Zahraan Alloosh under a crop of rocks,
Feeding Palestinians with a snort of dry Vermouth.
Summer is always surprising
As it breathes fire over the Tihama mountains
Frying Syrian falafel with the right amount of garlic.
Al-Maliki surprised me even more than Assad,
Breeding cockroaches more backward than my kin,
Beheading people with dull, short bread knives,
Dancing Tunisian trollops with red, smelly bandanas.
Or Saudis crouching over a crate of fresh bananas.
What is clutching at my groin? What branch of
Palestinian wretchedness must I now sabotage?
Son of a Bitch! You cannot say or mutter,
Not even cousin Faysal with his trademark stutter.
But if you stand over here where I am seated,
I will show you something rising up from the toilet
When your back is turned to greet it.
I will show you cesspools in a fistful of Saudi history.
o yako domburi
o sushi bento sandiwichi
raamuneh ni sayda
yu nu
Assad gave me headaches for the last 7 years,
They called me the Headache Man.
But when we returned from Doha,
Your arms full of cash and credit cards
I had to speak though my tongue failed.
I was hung-over repeatedly with an airline sickness bag,
Staring into my own vomit, the stench,
Voulez vous coucher avec moi, ce soir?
Madame Prepostrous, famous First Lady
Was suffering from hormonal overdoses
And is known to be the dumbest woman in America
With a hipful of subcutaneous lard.
Here, said she, is your pack of idiot cards,
They’re about this Phoenician president,
(There’s some lapis lazuli in his blue eyes)
Meet Madame Belladonna; She’s from Tunisia.
This lady creates situations.
And here’s my husband with three Jewish pages,
And here’s his cigar box which is empty
But for the metal containers which I
Am forbidden to see.
I do not find anything interesting
And fear sex with men.
At the White House, I see people walking
Around a statue of Mike Tyson.
Thank you, if you see dear Ms. Nuland
Tell her I’ll bring the horrorshow myself.
What else do you expect?
Unreal Presidency
In a total fog during the dog days of Summer
A crowd of reporters trampled up Pennsylvania Ave.
So many liars, I can’t believe there are such liars,
They snorted, sniffed, sniffled and retched,
And each one kept his foot between the other’s feet.
They wriggled up Wyoming Street
To where the Syrian Embassy used to ready
The ballot boxes for their own campaign
Which all was flushed down the drain
By some Zionist named Daniel Rubinstein
In a fit of love for democracy!
Then, I saw one I knew, a Robert Ford!
I stopped him crying:”War Criminal!!
“You were the one who sailed the ships from Benghazi”
“The Syrian corpses you set out to bury”;
“Have your zombies started to sprout?”
“Will they go back this year?”
“Or has the mid-year heat melted down their zeal?”
“You Hyporcrite Murderer! Babbling Idiot!”
“Bandar’s frere.”
(With a nod to T. S. Eliot. Ezra Pound didn’t have to emend this. ZAF)
During an appearance on Fox News, General Thomas McInerney acknowledged that the United States “helped build ISIS” as a result of the group obtaining weapons from the Benghazi consulate in Libya which was attacked by jihadists in September 2012.
Asked what he thought of the idea of arming so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels after FSA militants kidnapped UN peacekeepers in the Golan Heights, McInerney said the policy had been a failure.
“We backed I believe in some cases, some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army and that’s a little confusing to people, so I’ve always maintained….that we were backing the wrong types.”
Then made reference to a Bret Baier Fox News special set to air on Friday which will, “show some of those weapons from Benghazi ended up in the hands of ISIS – so we helped build ISIS,” said
In May last year, Senator Rand Paul was one of the first to speculate that the truth behind Benghazi was linked to an illicit arms smuggling program that saw weapons being trafficked to terrorists in Syria as part of the United States’ proxy war against the Assad regime.
“I’ve actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria,” Paul told CNN, adding that he “never….quite understood the cover-up — if it was intentional or incompetence”.
At the same time it emerged that the U.S. State Department had hired an Al-Qaeda offshoot organization, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, to “defend” the Benghazi Mission months before the attack.
Senator Paul was vindicated less than three months later when it emerged that the CIA had been subjecting its operatives to monthly polygraph tests in an effort to keep a lid on details of the arms smuggling operation being leaked.
CNN subsequently reported that dozens of CIA agents were on the ground in Benghazi during the attack and that the polygraph tests were mandated in order to prevent operatives from talking to Congress or the media about a program that revolved around “secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.” Key Syrian rebel leaders later defected to join ISIS.
In addition to ISIS obtaining weapons from Benghazi, many members of the group were also trained by the United States at a secret base in Jordan in 2012.
Aaron Klein was told by Jordanian officials that, “dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.”
As we have previously documented, many of the United States’ biggest allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Qatar, have all bankrolled and armed ISIS militants.
“A few moments ago France, the United States, Britain and other NATO countrieslaunched air and cruise missile strikes against Libyan dictator Mu’ammar Gaddafi’s military installations, in implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.”, he started
The NATO war on Libya war on “is not about oil or money” he claimed.
“I say this as an anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, progressive pan-Arab nationalist. And it is from this vantage point that I witness with dismay our friends and natural allies, from the anti-war movement and George Galloway in the UK to Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Daniel Ortega in Latin America, condemn the military action against Gaddafi as an imperialist plot whose aim is to seize Libyan oil.” he added
“It is time for the UN Security Council to bite the bullet, invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter and immediately dispatch a stabilization force to Libya with a mandate to crush the armed militias by force”.
Until the Murder of Kadhafi,Nureddin was the “reliable” source for Gordon Duff who wrote : AMERICA MUST ATTACK GADDAFINOW”
Duff rejoiced the murder of Khaddafi. He asked:What Time is It? – click the link and read it commented.
And he, Duff, told his readers how his well known“independent journalist” was present. He has worked for years in support of human rights projects around the world.” “was commanding a unit –hand-picked squad – that had been tracking,had been hunting Gaddafi for weeks.”
Read the story as told by Mr. Duff Here, and my comment here.
Duff was not alone supporting the Zionist-Nato’s war on Libya, there were many such as Ex-Palestinian MarineVeteran” SAMI JADALLAHwho always condemned “terrorist” acts committed by both Israelis and Palestinians”, and the Lady who dared to call the well known Human rights activist, Franklin Lamb, “the so-called human rights activist”.
“HAVE YOU NO SHAME MR. PRESIDENT? I USED TO BE A STRONG SUPPORTER OF YOU, BUT NO MORE!
SUPPORT OF BLOOD-SOAKED TYRANTS MAKES A MOCKERY OF YOUR POPULIST CREDENTIALS.”
BTW, Mr. Lamb, the “so-called activist” returned from Libya with a sniper’s bullet in his leg, while the handicapped analysts were sitting on their assess behind their laptops.
However, after the “liberation” of Libya from Kadhaffi, and after Hillary came and saw, >Gordon, and the lady of VT, stopped reporting on Libya and their “reliable journalist” vanished fromVT.
May they have realized their mistakes, they changed the course are are standing firm against the Global war on Syria, and out of sudden the, DR. Lamb, the “so-called human rights activist” has become the VT reliable source in Syria.
The Libyan army imposed a no fly zone over Benghazi Saturday in a direct challenge to a retired general who has been using air power to press a campaign against extremist militants there.
Khalifa Haftar, who lived in exile in the United States before returning home to lead ground forces in the 2011 uprising that toppled Moamer Gaddafi, heads what he calls a “National Army”.
On Friday his paramilitary force, backed by warplanes and helicopters, pounded Islamist militiamen in Libya’s second city and fought pitched battles with the ex-rebels.
Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thani denounced Haftar’s forces as “outlaws” and called on all parties to observe restraint.
“The operation will continue until Benghazi is purged of terrorists,” Haftar told Libya Awalan television.
Armed forces chief of staff Abdessalam Hadallah al-Salihin has denied any army involvement in the Benghazi clashes, although he admitted that some officers and army units had defected to join Haftar.
Later Haftar spokesman Colonel Mohammad Hijazi called on people living in the western Benghazi district of Guwersha and the southern one of Sidi Fradj to evacuate their homes.
He did not say if this was the prelude to attacks on those neighborhoods, which are known to be bastions of the Islamists.
The army’s high command upped the ante by declaring all of Benghazi and its suburbs a “no fly zone until further notice,” state-run Lana news agency said.
“All military planes flying over the city will be shot down by army units… and units of the revolutionaries (ex-rebels),” it said.
But it was not clear if the army has the means to carry out its threat, which came as local sources said mediation was underway to try and prevent new fighting in Benghazi.
The health ministry said 37 people were killed and 139 wounded in Friday’s clashes in Benghazi, cradle of the revolution that toppled and killed Gaddafi.
A precarious calm reigned in the port city Saturday.
Source: Agencies
17-05-2014 – 19:41 Last updated
Forty-three dead, over 100 wounded in Benghazi clashes
Chief of Staff of the Libyan Armed Forces, Major-General Abdessalem Jadallah al-Salihin (L) looks on as Libya’s interim premier Abdullah al-Thani, speaks during a press conference in Tripoli on the security situation in the country’s eastern coastal city of Benghazi on May 16, 2014. (Photo: AFP – Mahmud Turkia)
Published Saturday, May 17, 2014
The death toll from clashes in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi has risen to 43 from 19 and more than 100 people had been wounded, a Health Ministry official said on Saturday.
Fighting broke out on Friday between irregular military forces and Islamist militants.
Residents said the situation was quiet on Saturday, while a retired Libyan general vowed to press a campaign to free Benghazi of “terrorist groups.”
“The operation will continue until Benghazi is purged of terrorists,” Khalifa Haftar told the broadcaster Libya Awalan of the country’s second city, where the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi erupted in February 2011.
A precarious calm reigned in Benghazi after a deadly day that saw Haftar’s forces target Islamist militiamen, using both ground and air power.
Local sources said mediation efforts were under way to try to ensure combat did not break out again.
Early Friday, Haftar unleashed his forces on former rebel Islamist groups, vowing to rid Benghazi of a “terrorist” scourge.
The violence came weeks after the government in Tripoli acknowledged for the first time the existence of “terrorist groups” in Libya and said it was mobilizing against them.
Haftar heads a group calling itself the “National Army” which launched “a large-scale operation to flush terrorists out of Benghazi,” spokesman Mohammed al-Hijazi said on Friday.
“This is not a civil war. It’s an operation against terrorist groups,” added Hijazi, who like Haftar was an officer in Gaddafi’s army before defecting.
Haftar’s forces pounded former rebel groups in the city, focusing in particular on Ansar Sharia, an organization designated by the United States as a terrorist group, according to the army.
The regular amy denied any involvement in Friday’s clashes, and the government condemned the operation.
(Reuters, AFP)
تحت الضوء_ ليبيا : اشتباكات عنيفة في بنغازي وعشرات القتلى والجرحى / العالم
“The destruction of Libya not only led to the strengthening of Boko Haram – it also led to arms being transferred out of Libya to Syria.”
Seemingly out of nowhere, Boko Haram burst into the awareness of people around the world as a shadowy group of Islamists with the ability to carry out audacious attacks that paralyzed the army of the most populous country in Africa. People now want to know the group’s origins, where they came from, why they are kidnapping girls and how they became such a powerful threat. All important questions – but questions that cannot be answered by just looking at the internal politics of Nigeria, as important as those are, because Boko Haram is incomprehensible when decontextualized from the destabilization, death and destruction unleashed across Africa from the Sahel into West Africa as a result of one historic event – the vicious NATO obliteration of the state of Libya.
African Union Commission chief Jean Ping warned NATO, during its bombing campaign and arming of so-called rebel forces in Libya, that the weapons they provided the “rebels” would end up in the hands of al Qaeda throughout Africa. He said, “Africa’s concern is that weapons that are delivered to one side or another … are already in the desert and will arm terrorists and fuel trafficking.”
Former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo expressed what many in Africa feared from the NATO attack on Libya:
“We knew that at the end of the Libya operations, there would be fallouts. And the fallout would be where would all the weapons go? Where would be some of those who have been trained how to use weapons [and] how would they be accounted for? … Part of what is happening in Mali is part of the fallout from Libya, and we should not expect that Mali will be the last.”
Reports from the United Nations, the Guardian newspaper and many other sources reveal how Boko Haram benefited from the destabilization of various countries across the Sahel following the Libya conflict, receiving arms and training from an emboldened al Qaeda and its Saudi backers.
That is just one reason why the Benghazi hearing is important, especially for people concerned about the abduction of the school girls in Nigeria. The destruction of Libya not only led to the strengthening of Boko Haram – it also led to arms being transferred out of Libya to Syria, in violation of international law, to overthrow the sovereign government of Bashar al-Assad. This ended up increasing the military capacity of right-wing Salafi/Jihadi Islamists in a half dozen countries and setting the stage for the blowback on the anniversary of 9/11 that resulted in the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other U.S. citizens.
But of course there is significant opposition to the hearings.
“House Republicans appear poised to give the Obama Administration its Iran-contra affair.”
In what House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi characterized as a “political stunt,” “subterfuge” and a “diversionary tactic,” House Republicans voted last week to form a 12-member committee to investigate the Obama Administration’s handling of the 2012 attacks in Benghazi.
Claiming that they now have a “smoking gun,” with the forced release of previously suppressed emails that suggest the Obama Administration deliberately misled the U.S. public about what it knew about events that led to the attack and death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, House Republicans appear poised to give the Obama Administration its Iran-contra affair– not with the objective to further weaken the Administration, but rather to destroy Hillary Clinton.
The response from the Democrats has been predictable. Democrats already lined-up behind a Clinton campaign understand that no matter what comes out this inquiry, Benghazi has the potential to become a permanent yoke that wears down the Clinton candidacy. But in another bizarre display of political and ideological subordination to the Democrat Party and its rightist elite, elements of the left have also expressed opposition to this inquiry.
One would think that those on the left would support this inquiry, as limited and partisan as it will be, on the democratic principle that the people have a right to know what occurred before, during and in the aftermath of the attack. But even more importantly, by demanding a more comprehensive examination of all the activity of the U.S. in Libya in the aftermath of the destruction of that state, including the mission of the CIA in Benghazi, the left can and should raise serious questions that expose the dangerous strategy of empowering anti-democratic, right-wing forces, from al Qaeda-connected jihadists in Syria to neo-fascists in Ukraine.
We understand that there will be an attempt to keep the focus narrow. Members of both parties and everyone in the higher echelons of the military/intelligence community knew that the U.S. had aligned with groups in Eastern Libya that were known to be jihadists. The fact that both parties supported the NATO intervention knowing that jihadists affiliated with al Qaeda played a major part in the overthrow of Gaddafi and that the largest CIA station in North Africa was established in Benghazi where it provided arms and was used as staging ground for inserting jihadist’s forces into Syria, means that both parties share an interests in avoiding the serious legal and moral implications of U.S. actions in Libya.
“The left can and should raise serious questions that expose the dangerous strategy of empowering anti-democratic, right-wing forces, from al Qaeda-connected jihadists in Syria to neo-fascists in Ukraine.”
I welcome the hearings and could not care less about the implications for the candidacy of Hillary Clinton or the reputation of Barack Obama. I am more interested in curbing the rightward militarist trajectory of U.S. policy. As an African American the plight of the more than 200 school girls captured by Boko Haram holds a special outrage for me. But I am also outraged by the murder of people defending their rights to self-determination at the hands of U.S.-supported thugs in Odessa Ukraine, outraged by the fact that people are daily terrorized by the constant buzz of U.S. drones that kill women and children in wedding parties and individuals who may “act” like they might be so-called terrorists, outraged that people can call themselves moral and even progressive and support the brutal Israeli occupation and de-humanization of Palestinians.
And I am outraged knowing that U.S. policy-makers don’t give a damn about the school girls in Nigeria because their real objective is to use the threat of Boko Haram in the Northern part of the country to justify the real goal of occupying the oil fields in the South and to block the Chinese in Nigeria.
Exposing the whole sordid story of the destruction of Libya and the role of Al-Qaeda as the “boots on the ground” for U.S. geo-strategic objectives in North Africa and the Middle East represents the only strategy that an independent and principled left could pursue in wake of the fact that the hearings are going to occur. Anything other than that is capitulation, something that the left has routinely done over the last six years, and some of us still struggle against in the hope that one day the “responsible” left will eschew the privileges that stem from its objective collaboration with the interests and world-view of neo-liberal white power and re-ground itself in authentic radical principles and the world-wide struggle against Western domination.
Libya has gone from being the most prosperous state in Africa to a failed state controlled by Al-Qaeda who were installed by a joint USA NATO invasion , the motives of which were to protect the Petrodollar and to control Libya’s Oil and Gas reserves
АР/Paul Schemm
MOSCOW, November 12 (Itar-Tass) – Libya is practically disintegrated, and the real power is in the hands of numerous small armed groups, the president of the Institute of Middle East Studies, Yevgeny Satanovsky, told Tass on Tuesday in comments on the recent developments in the country.
“De-facto Libya does not exist as a country. Certain people possessing sufficient amounts of weapons are fighting for oil exports, for control over the territory, and nothing more,” he said.
“These groups are divided into tribal unions, territorial militias, like Zintan or Misuratah ones, Berber militia, Islamist formations of different kind, including Al-Qaeda supporters,” he said. “There are several hundred such groups, as Libya has more than 200 Arab tribes alone, and they have always been in thorny relations with each other. Besides, there are clans inside tribal groups,” he added.
Satanovsky also noted that as a result, the traditional geographic division of Libya into Tripolitania, Fezzan and Cyrenaica was losing any sense. “This is a mosaic, a very intricate one, much more intricate than three territorial units,” he said.
“Tripolitania, Fezzan and Cyrenaica with their hydrocarbon resources can live quite well separately, but inside these territories there is a ‘snake pit of like-minds’,” the expert said.
He believes the country could be once again united by western tribes under a strong leadership, like for example the former Libyan leader, Muammar Qaddafi. “Libya as a country will have a chance only if western Libyan tribes get together under the leadership of some new Qaddafi and manage to establish law and order on the whole territory,” he said. “So far such a leader is not even on the horizon,” he added.
The situation in Libya worsened once again on Monday, when the government announced its decision to pull additional military units into the second biggest city of Benghazi, where local radicals had been for several months continuously attacking law enforcement officers. Also on Monday it became known that gas exports to Italy had been stopped upon the demand of Berber tribes demanding that their right to revenues from gas sales be recognized.
UN Report Stresses Flow of Weapons from Libya to Terrorists in Syria across Turkey and Northern Lebanon
Apr 10, 2013
UNITED NATIONS, (SANA)- In a new proof added to the group of media reports which unveiled the involvement of Arab and foreign sides in arming the terrorist groups in Syria, a UN report stressed that Libya had become a key source of weapons in the region.
The report, which was made by the UN Security Council’s group of experts, who monitor an arms embargo imposed on Libya in 2011, stressed that the arm shipments which had been organized from various locations in Libya, including Misrata and Benghazi, were transferred to Syria via Turkey and northern Lebanon.
The report said that the significant size of some shipments and logistics involved suggest that representatives of the Libyan local authorities might at least have been aware of these shipments, if they were not directly involved, Reuters stressed according to the UN report published on Tuesday.
The report added that weapons spreading from Libya at an “alarming rate” fueling the war in Syria, Mali and other countries and enhancing the arsenals of extremists and the criminal gangs in the region.
‘Illicit flows from Libya are fuelling the existing conflicts in Africa and the Levant and enhancing the arsenals of a huge number of non-state groups, including terrorist groups”, the report said.
In the same context, several media reports unveiled operations on supplying terrorist groups in Syria with weapons to hinder the political solution based on dialogue, among which what the American republican senator Rand Paul has admitted last February on sending a shipment of weapons from Libya to Syria under US supervision.
Some reports stressed that the Croatian capital, Zagreb had turned into a crossing to the weapons and arms to the terrorist groups in Syria.
Another reports held Washington and its allies responsible for training terrorists in camps in Jordan.
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
By Maximilian Forte Global Research, February 18, 2013 Zero Anthropology 17 February 2013 This weekend, marking the second anniversary of the start of protests that would usher in a bloody and prolonged NATO-led coup to overthrow the Libyan Jamahiriya and Muammar Gaddafi, offers many reasons to celebrate for those whose intention was the demolition of Libyan self-determination, African integration, and a domestic system of extensive social welfare and stability. In return, Libyans have won the right to live in fear, as they have won the freedom to be ruled by countless armed despots each engaged in torture, abductions, and persecution of minorities.
In spite of what seems like an unstoppable momentum towards greater strife and social disintegration, romantic imperialists in the West still insist on speaking in the most unwarranted terms of the “street revolution,” that has “brought freedom and hope to millions of people here” (Globe and Mail, 15/2/2013). In the warm glow of fires that consume others, some among us find reason for a warming self-congratulation. Symbolic of the depth of Western respect for Libya’s “new freedom” is this very statement, from the government of Canada itself, warning Canadian travelers: “Do not criticize the country, its leadership or religion. Harsh penalties may be imposed.”
The few remaining pro-”revolution” propagandists in the West are not only unwilling to simply state that what they support is globalized regime change and a new colonizing wave that would make non-Western self-determination and sovereignty principles something to be wrecked and thrown aside, they are equally immune to irony. After all, blessed Benghazi, which was to be “saved” at all costs, saved against all else, by Western military intervention is now the same city from which Western interests flee in order to save themselves (Reuters, 24/1/2013, 31/1/2013, 5/2/2013; The Star, 24/1/2013):
WESTERNERS SHUN BENGHAZI Few Westerners live in Benghazi, which has borne the brunt of a wave of violence against diplomats and international bodies, including the killing of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and a gun attack on the Italian consul’s car this month. Britain’s recent call to its nationals to leave immediately due to a “specific and imminent” threat to Westerners highlights the insecurity plaguing Benghazi. The assault on the U.S. mission, for which no arrests were made, grabbed world attention. But there had already been attacks on British, Red Cross and U.N. properties here…. Randy Robinson, principal of British School Benghazi, said: “One of our staff was carjacked. Our residence last spring was robbed with teachers in a room held at gunpoint as thieves cleaned out the apartments. We have to take care.” Two years ago the anti-Gaddafi uprising had the strongest support in Benghazi but today a very different mood has emerged. “Most people here would say they are very unhappy,” a local oil worker said. “Some say they are worse off than before.”
So let’s celebrate the “new Libya,” this “revolution for freedom,” in all of its glory. Let it be an example to others.
Now there is a call from Western media and the usual RAND voices urging NATO to establish a “mission” in Libya (CSM, 15/2/2013). And if foreign occupation, or foreign boots on the ground were allegedly anathema to the Libyan “revolutionaries,” that too changed well before Gaddafi was overthrown, and is being revived at present: military forces from Italy, and once again from Qatar, have landed in Libya, to help it celebrate its “revolution” (RT, 13/2/2013).
The thing about authentic, legitimate revolutions these days is that all of their legitimacy comes from external sources and is dropped from the air in explosive 2,000 pound bursts of authenticity. Real revolutions, it would seem, require foreign guardians and can only survive under the tutelage of colonial powers (Washington Times, 5/2/2013). Beautiful thing then, these revolutions. Sirte, in particular, was rapidly beautified as a result of this revolution:
Once independent, wealthy, and powerfully defiant, today Libyan resources are almost being given away to foreign powers that “mentored” Libya’s revolution. Foreign investors in Libya’s oil sector are being given years of tax exemption, as if they need it; specifically aimed at encouraging Gulf state investors, Libya grants the investor 65% from a project’s value;
“various large scale projects will be given Saudi companies in order to strengthen brotherly ties, remove previous disputes between the two countries, establish a new strategic partnership and benefit from the expertise of Saudi companies. Aarusi also said that all obstacles facing Gulf investors will be overcome…”
and, “last but not least Aarusi said he expected this Saudi company [whose name he refuses to reveal] to be totally in charge of starting up the sugar and cement factories in mid-2013,” whose aim is to export to Europe and Gulf states (Al Arabiya, 4/2/2013). Along with Gaddafi himself, what the “new Libya” buried in that unmarked grave was resource nationalism and a sense of integrity and dignity in the face of foreign vulture capitalists.
Then there is the IMF, in its newly acquired role of dictating to Libya, another reality permitted by the “street revolution” (Arabian Business, 6/2/2013). After all, as the IMF’s Christine Lagarde herself has recently said, the “Arab Spring” must be followed by a “Private Sector Spring” (IMF, 9/1/2013). Libya, formerly a significant actor in international investment, buying up properties and shares of lucrative enterprises across Europe, is now the target of investors (IMF, 9/1/2013).
The IMF knows when it can take advantage of a situation smelling of ripe disaster: “The budget deficit was 27.0 percent of GDP in 2011, compared to a budget surplus of 16.2 percent in 2010. Similarly, the current account surplus narrowed from 19.8 percent of GDP in 2010 to 1.3 percent in 2011″ (IMF, 4/5/2012). Thus the IMF can now instruct Libya to eliminate universal price subsidies, to reduce public sector wages, and to eliminate incentives for individuals to seek employment in the public sector: “the recent surge in the public sector payroll to 1.5 million (80 percent of the labor force) will need to be unwound” (IMF, 4/5/2012).
The IMF has had its sights on Libya from before Gaddafi was overthrown by NATO and NATO’s local neocolonial dependents: days before Gaddafi was murdered, the IMF had a mission on the ground in Libya (IMF, 20/10/2011) and had previously decreed its recognition of the rebel National Transitional Council as the government of Libya, thrashing international law as the Libyan government under Gaddafi still existed (IMF, 10/9/2011). But you won’t find Naomi Klein writing the Libyan chapter of the “shock doctrine” (Gulf News, 26/10/2011)–Naomi Klein was too busy throwing her support behind a Canadian politician, Nathan Cullen, who voted in support of NATO’s intervention in Libya, with little regret. The protection of civilians was paramount, of course, and here is another view of what that protection looked like:
Maximilian C. Forte is a professor of anthropology in Montreal, Canada. He teaches courses in the field of political anthropology dealing with “the new imperialism,” Indigenous resistance movements and philosophies, theories and histories of colonialism, and critiques of the mass media. Max is a founding member of Anthropologists for Justice and Peace. He is the author of “Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa” (Baraka Books, 2012).
NATO’s war in Libya was proclaimed as a humanitarian intervention—bombing in the name of “saving lives.” Attempts at diplomacy were stifled. Peace talks were subverted. Libya was barred from representing itself at the UN, where shadowy NGOs and “human rights” groups held full sway in propagating exaggerations, outright falsehoods, and racial fear mongering that served to sanction atrocities and ethnic cleansing in the name of democracy. The rush to war was far speedier than Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
Max Forte has scrutinized the documentary history from before, during, and after the war. He argues that the war on Libya was not about human rights, nor entirely about oil, but about a larger process of militarizing U.S. relations with Africa. The development of the Pentagon’s Africa Command, or AFRICOM, was in fierce competition with Pan-Africanist initiatives such as those spearheaded by Muammar Gaddafi.
Far from the success NATO boasts about or the “high watermark” proclaimed by proponents of the “Responsibility to Protect,” this war has left the once prosperous, independent and defiant Libya in ruin, dependency and prolonged civil strife.
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Response to David Cameron Bradford West MP George Galloway responded to Prime Minister David Cameron’s refusal to answer a parliamentary question, by resorting to a cheap insult, by detailing the Arab tyrannies and puppet presidents Britain backs.
‘I asked a reasonable question, to detail the difference between the jihadists in Mali we oppose and the jihadists in Syria we back and in response to a legitimate inquiry I received a sneering insult more fitted to the gutters of Eton than the Mother of all Parliaments,’ Galloway said. ‘Britain is guilty to backing the worst, most bloodthirsty dictators in the world, bar none. This country backs and arms the foul Saudi Arabian sheikhdom which has the least democracy and probably the worst human rights record on the planet.
Then there’s Bahrain. And what about Egypt where this government backed Mubarak until almost the end? And it is less than a week ago, isn’t it, that the Foreign Office was warning British citizens to get out of Benghazi immediately for fear of their lives – at risk from the same jihadis we supplied, armed and fought for.’
Galloway added: ‘I have written to the Prime Minister today about his response to me and I will be interested how he responds.’
Below is the text of the letter:
Wednesday 30th January 2012
Dear Prime Minister,
I’m sure on reflection you will realise that your answer to me today was beneath you and unbecoming for a British Prime Minister. I will deal with the complete absence of a substantive reply in a moment. But let me deal first with the vulgar abuse.
I do not support any Arab dictatorship, unlike you. It is you who is selling weapons to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia and providing military training there. It is you who is supporting the Bahraini dictatorship. It is you who supported the Mubarak dictatorship until its last hours. Ditto the late dictatorship in Tunisia, Yemen etc. It is you who has the warmest possible relations with the dictatorships in the Gulf. I could go on, believe me. I, on the other hand, have spoken, written and broadcast against all Arab dictatorships. Perhaps your staff, in preparing your reply, will provide you with the evidence of this. I also read Frankenstein until the end.
I told one of your predecessors, Lady Thatcher, on the eve of the triumph of those whom your party routinely described as ‘Afghan freedom fighters’ that she “had opened the gates to the barbarians…. And that a long dark night would now descend upon the people of Afghanistan”. I warned repeatedly against the folly of the creation of the Arab-Afghan force which became Al Qaida. Immediately after 9/11 I said in the House that “I despise Osama Bin Laden, the medieval obscurantist savage. The difference is that I have always despised him. I despised him when you (pointing at the Tory benches) were giving him guns and money”.
I find it genuinely inexplicable that you are doing it all over again. This is a tragedy which begins to look farcical when one considers the issue which I raised today with you.
We are now killing Al Qaida in Mali and helping Al Qaida kill in Syria – killing Christians, killing Shiites, killing Kurds, killing Druze, killing Sunnis who won’t join their jihad, and soon, trust me, they will be killing each other.
There may be “key differences” between Al Qaida in Mali and their counterparts in Syria. I asked you to explain these to the House today. You refused. But it is a question which will not go away before a puff of vulgar abuse.
I look forward to your reply. I am seeking to publish this letter.
Yours sincerely,
George Galloway MP Wednesday, 30 January 2013 River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
oes Hillary Clinton possess the integrity and honesty to be president of the United States? Or are those quaint and irrelevant considerations in electing a head of state in 21st-century America?
![Smoke rises from a building struck by artillery in north Damascus [Xinhua]](https://i0.wp.com/thebricspost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/syria-bomb-e1461696783426.jpg)
![A publicly distributed picture from the Aleppo Media Centre shows rebel fighters evading government troops [AMC via AP]](https://i0.wp.com/thebricspost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/AP824448711880-e1390023421983.jpg)
![This photo was taken at 1:28am Benghazi time. [7:28pm DC] Following a one hour phone call between POTUS, V-Potus, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu](http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/white-house-9-11-12-donilon-mcdonough.jpg)
!["NO ISLAM WITHOUT JIHAD" - members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba'a, or "strangers", after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden's time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year. They try to hide their presence. "Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags," said Abu Khuder. "They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?" But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.](http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/no-islam-without-jihad.jpg)
At the exact time Clinton was speaking in North Carolina, halfway around the world in Afghanistan Army Chief Warrant Officers 
“This was about weapons going into Libya, and Stevens is coordinating with 
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 