Headline they didn't want: Obama Administration gives weapons, funds to Al Qaeda fighters in effort to over through Syria.
After Syrian rebels win, Al Qaeda will Control much of the Middle East.
Thanks, Obama.
Posted on 11/04/2012 2:44:08 PM PST by mgist
At this point it's clear that the U.S. had something to hide at Benghazi, and that's why reports coming out of the Libyan city have been so confusing. Two key details about the the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans cannot be underestimated. "The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation," officials briefed on intelligence told the Wall Street Journal, and there's evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to Syrian rebels. WSJ reports that the State Department presence in Benghazi "provided diplomatic cover" for the previously hidden CIA mission, which involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals. These weapons are presumably from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles, the bulk of which were SA-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles. What's odd is that a Libyan ship—which reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7s—docked in southern Turkey on Sept. 6 and its cargo ended up in the hands of Syrian rebels. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution. Stevens' last meeting on Sept. 11 was with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi "to negotiate a weapons transfer in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Arming Mujaheddins is a bad idea.
Gosh! The CIA Annex was a CIA operation! Who could have known?
Ambassador Stevens was there to buy back weapons that the terrorists took from the overthrown Libyan government. Let’s seeeeee.....who overthrew that Libyan government?.....Oh, yeah, Obama and Hillary. I guess Gadaffi was getting ready to attack our coast with his fleet of three garbage scows and a dinghy. Why was Obama overthrowing governments? Money?
Just saw an interview with retired General William G. Boykin.
I don’t recall all his qualifications but they were impressive.
A couple of things stood out to me.
First he said the modern jihad originated in Egypt in the 1920s. Also that Saudi Arabia is financing a lot of the terrorism. Another interesting point he made was that Saudi Arabia could get nuclear weapons any time they want them by simply flying a plane to Pakistan and paying for them.
He basically sounded like a particularly conservative Freeper.
Something which bothered me a little, well a lot, is that God will hold us to account if we don’t do our part in defending our nation and Christianity. He was speaking of individuals.
“Why was Obama overthrowing governments? Money?”
He’s the best, ally friend and prime mover that the muzzie caliphate has. Inside of another 4yrs, he’d complete the subhumans’ “agenda”.
Glenn Beck reported on this ship and Benhadj several weeks ago with this whole timeline.
ATTENTION.......The Old Media must refrain from reporting the following matters of National Security!
1. There are Muslims in North Africa.
2. Quite a few Muslims don’t like the United States.
3. Some of these Muslims might try to do things to hurt the United States and US citizens.
4. President Obama has worked to overthrow the governments in Libya, Egypt and Syria.
5. President Obama’s buddies and business acquaintances make money in countries where the government has been overthrown.
The following truths will be distributed to the citizens of the United States
1. Everyone around the world loves President Obama.
2. The people of North Africa appreciate the population reduction that President Obama has given them.
3. President Obama could have put on his red cape and flown to Benghazi to rescue the Americans but he wasn’t sure if he was cleared to land there.
4. President Obama always thinks of the needs of the citizens of the United States. They usually need him to go golfing.
5. It’s Bush’s fault.
That is all. Stay tuned for further guidance from the Ministry of Bribing and Manipulating the Suck-up Old Media.
Headline they didn't want: Obama Administration gives weapons, funds to Al Qaeda fighters in effort to over through Syria.
After Syrian rebels win, Al Qaeda will Control much of the Middle East.
Thanks, Obama.
I believe the new mantra is:
5. It’s Bush’s fault. Are You In?
(The Are You In? phrase is their solicitation for campaign contributions by credit card over the Internet.)
Another bizarre article: YOU CAN KISS PETRAEUS GOODBYE
EWI EXCLUSIVE [LINK]
by J. Millard Burr | 05-Nov-12
1
EWI EXCLUSIVE
November 3, 2012
“Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus,” was William Kristol’s headline to his blog in the Weekly Standard, on October 26th. In effect, Kristol had cut a tree in the forest seemingly with no one around, and if it made a noise in Washington it was not discernable.
Kristol noted that a CIA spokesman who reported on “breaking news” on Benghazi, declared that “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.” This statement was probably made “at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus.” But Kristol did not ask: “Tell us, General, what took you so long to issue that statement?”
By waiting more than two weeks before issuing the statement, Petraeus had managed to throw himself under a bus of his own making.
It is obvious that the CIA fingerprints are all over the Benghazi operation. It ran its own safehouse with what seems to be a score of actives. But as it turned out, not all the actives were CIA personnel. The Pentagon had issued a commercial contract shortly after the demise of Muammar Qaddafi a program to secure and/or buyback weapons that had belonged to the Libyan leader’s weapons stockpile. Of special importance was the reported plethora of hand-held ground-to-air weapons whose use by terrorists could be devastating.
The collection program was one reason for the CIA interest in Libya. The second should have been the presence of Islamist-infested armed gangs that had opposed Qaddafi. They had not disarmed; rather, they continued to operate in the Cyrenaica region and in Benghazi after the death of the Libyan leader. If the CIA made an effort to infiltrate or analyze the influence of jihadists groups operating around Benghazi and in eastern Libya, then the surprise attack on the US “consulate” on 9/11 underscores the fact that the effort was a failure.
But a weapons gathering program more than a year old cannot explain the large number of actives present in the CIA compound in September 2012.
Instead, the presence of a large safehouse with many actives indicates the direct CIA involvement in the movement of arms collected in Libya and shipped to rebels seeking to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria.
As suggested here earlier ( http://econwarfare.org/viewarticle.cfm?id=5109 ) the direct U.S. involvement in support of Syrian rebel forces was initiated shortly after a Petraeus’s visit to Turkey in March 2012. It occurred shortly after the Turkish government demonstrated willingness to support the overthrow of the Assad regime. Still, neither Washington nor Ankara wanted to show its hand. Both sought to hide their involvement through an operation that remains clandestine (albeit barely so) to the present date.
The logistics of the operation required some planning, including the quantity and type of weapons to be supplied, and the country that supplies them. This led to using Libyan vessels transferring arms to Turkish suppliers who moved the weapons from Turkish ports to Syrian rebels operating along Syria-Turkey border.
In early September General Petraeus’s “private plane” arrived in Ankara in what the local press called a secret mission. In reality, the General may have been concerned that the United States-Turkey arrangement was about to unravel. It was known that a Libyan vessel transporting arms to the Syrian rebels had departed Benghazi to Turkey. There were also reports that the Syrian rebel entities were complaining that arms flowing through Turkey had been co-opted by the Islamist mujahedeen. Then there was the appearance of Libyan arms in Syria itself. And, finally, it appeared as though the CIA had opened a new front along the Jordan-Syria border where Special Forces (with historic involvement with the CIA) were active. Turkish-American plausible deniability was no longer possible, and changes had to be made.
In sum, it had become clear to observers that the United States was taking a direct hand in the Syrian insurgency, and it was doing so at a time when the Obama administration was making every attempt to appear lily clean. Given what would prove to be a tough election, the involvement in yet another Middle East battlefield, at a time that the Obama’s Middle East policy was under severe attack, was something the administration would seek to avoid at all costs.
Thus, the obvious effort by the CIA to cloak its operation in Benghazi.
The men in the Benghazi safehouse may have acted heroically in an effort to save the ambassador and other Americans trapped in the “consulate,” but it should not have taken the CIA weeks to clarify its activity. Therefore the recent CIA statement appears to be a rather clumsy effort to obfuscate what it was doing until after the November election. Indeed, that the CIA effort to brief the U.S. Senate on its activity in Benghazi caused a teeth gnashing that could be heard from the halls of Congress to Langley, Virginia.
Finally, does Ayman al-Zawahiri’s call to avenge the recent death of Yahya al-Libi, the mujahedeen survivor and friend to Osama Bin Laden, account for the Benghazi attack on 9/11? Perhaps. Certainly, the local mujahedeen knew that the CIA was operating a safe house in Benghazi, and it had apparently let the team operate without hindrance. It seems logical that they would not interfere with the CIA operation if they knew that arms collected in Libya were actually helping to arm the Salafist mujahedeen in Syria. On the other hand, if the team had begun collecting arms that were being shipped to government forces in Mali and to military units in Mauritania and Niger for potential use against the pro-Al Qaeda forces that occupy northern Mali, that would be a different matter entirely. Washington has still not bothered to inform the public that the United States is involved in what will surely be yet another battle in another Muslim country when the attack on Salafist forces begins in Mali, likely early in 2013.
**
To conclude, despite the kind words of journalists like William Kristol, it now seems obvious that once it is clear what really transpired in Benghazi, Petraeus will never again have the full confidence of the Senate—or the American people.
http://econwarfare.org/viewarticle.cfm?id=5209
What are they pulling off now?
Interesting that Libya was the second largest source, after Saudi Arabia, of foreign terrorists in Iraq during the fighting there.
Interesting that Libya was the second largest source, after Saudi Arabia, of foreign terrorists in Iraq during the fighting there.
Let's Go !
I want to be of some use before I'm too old to matter any more.
I agree with that. I have to admit that I was all for it when the Mujaheddins were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. In hindsight I see what a big mistake we made back then.
Same here.
1:...When muslims are fighting muslims......ARM BOTH SIDES!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.