Author Topic: Hillary's killers killed Stevens in Benghazi, but why?  (Read 3729 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Hillary's killers killed Stevens in Benghazi, but why?
« on: October 22, 2015, 09:14:19 am »
Hillary's killers killed Stevens in Benghazi, but why?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton inherited a War of Terror (sic) that a century of western imperialism, meddlesome intelligence agencies and several successive US Presidencies from both parties helped to create.  T.E. Lawrence did on the ground what people like Hillary Clinton have been overseeing for generations, all to the detriment of anyone who's underneath the oversight level. 

In a CBS interview, seven months after NATO invaded Libya and Gaddafi had been killed, Hillarious Clintonus Africanus grinned giddily to the interviewer after gushing out a twist on Gaius Julius Caesar's flippant toast to imperial power, "We came!  We saw!  He died!" 

Eleven months later, Ambassador Chris Stevens would be dead, killed by the same terrorist group the US State Department had hired and trained to fill the security gaps for US officials in hellacious post-Gaddafi Libya.  Stevens would be killed by the same terrorist group that the US State Department had hired ultimately to help them kill Gaddafi.[1][2]

That group, Ansar al Sharia, would later come to be designated a terrorist organization by the US State Department; Ansar al Sharia, two of whose three branches, "in Derna and Benghazi were both “involved” in the “September 11, 2012 attacks against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya,” the State designation said." [3]

Thomas Joscelyn, of Longwar Journal, goes on to describe an event that got little media time here in the states, "Three days later, on Sept. 14, 2012, Ansar al Sharia Tunisia was “involved” in the “attack against the US Embassy and American school in Tunis, which put the lives of over one hundred United States employees in the Embassy at risk.”

That group was an al Qaeda branch from Tunisia, Ansar al-Sharia (Tunisia), a leader of which, Seifallah Ben Hussein (aka Abu Iyadh al-Tunisi), had reportedly "trained and fought in Afghanistan in the late 1980s and became a top AQ lieutenant by 2001,... reportedly met with both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri prior to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" and reportedly escaped Tora Bora with Osama bin Laden. [4]

The US State Department also declared Ansar al Sharia in Tunisia "ideologically aligned with al Qaeda and tied to its affiliates, including AQIM" (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). [3]  AQIM's emir, Abdelmalek Droukdel, released public statements as early as January 13, 2011, that,

...offered Tunisians the opportunity to train with AQIM for the final battle against the Jews and Christians, saying that the overthrow of the local regime was but one stage in a broader war. He framed Tunisians’ struggle as part of AQIM’s larger fight: “Your mujahidin brothers are with you, your problem is our problem, and your happening is ours.” “...take advantage of this historical opportunity to spread the manhaj (methodology) of tawhid (monotheism) and jihad.” At the same time, Tunisians must “prepare and be ready as the days are pregnant and the Crusade war against Islam and Muslims remains utmost intense.” [5]

Ansar al Sharia's Libyan branch splintered during the summer of 2012, resulting in a separation from the Feb 17th Brigade, the primary militia used to topple pro-Gaddafi's resistance during the NATO invasion. [6]  The Feb 17th Brigade, as reported by NewsMax, was proud of their al Qaeda association and displayed a,

...banner, or “cover photo” of one of the group’s Facebook pages, shows an Islamic fighter, or mujahid, with a portable rocket launcher resting on his shoulder.

The distinctive black flag of al-Qaida can be seen fluttering to the man’s right, attached to the vehicle in which he is riding. The mujahid wears a headband based on the design of the al-Qaida flag. The flag in question features the shahada, or Islamic declaration of faith, and a white circle that is sometimes described as the “seal of Mohammed.”

The flag was made famous by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s Iraqi al-Qaida affiliate, commonly known as “al-Qaida in Iraq....

The cover photo was posted by the site administrator on June 10, 2012, and was the first activity on the Facebook page.

The photo was presumably taken at a massive rally in support of the sharia, or Islamic law, held in Benghazi three days earlier, on June 7.” [2]

Al Qaeda in Iraq, as we all know too well by now, was the Saudi backed start-up company behind today's Islamic State. [7]  By June, 2012, when the Feb 17th Brigade's al Qaeda associations should have been raising red flags, early reports of the now infamous 'moderate' Syrian Rebels training at Jordanian and Turkish bases were four months old.  The State Department and the White House knew they were employing and training more violent Islamisists like so many had before, so what need would they have for caution? Why bother with Ambassador’s Steven's repeated calls for more protection?  Why listen to the guy on the ground when he's out of tune with the overseers?  Their plans require sacrifice,... other people's sacrifice.

The Saudi Gazette's September 16, 2012 report described that,

Stevens was in Benghazi for a 10 a.m. meeting Wednesday with the Agoco oil company. His visit was supposed to be secret, but it is being reported that the details of his visit were passed on to the extremists. Sensitive documents are said to be missing from the representative office. [8]

Even as early as March 11, 2011, a Reuters article describes that the position of Agoco was complete complicity with, and presumably an oily moneyed supporter of, the anti-Gaddafi militias:

The Arabian Gulf Oil Company, or Agoco, wholly owned by the National Oil Company, is headquartered in Benghazi, the eastern city that has become the opposition's headquarters,... company has pledged its support to the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi... Agoco is now part of the revolution... [9]

That day the Ambassador would have a string of meetings that led off with Agoco and would be followed, "later in the afternoon with someone from the Al Marfa Shipping and Maritime Services Co. (The names of the individuals were blacked out.) Then he had dinner and discussion with Ali Sait Akin, Turkey’s Consul General to Benghazi." [10]

These three meetings might be the biggest clues in the hunt for reasons behind Ambassador Stevens’s murder.  The previously mentioned report from the Saudi Gazette stated that the 'details' of the Agoco Oil meeting were passed on to the extremists, presumably the militias including the February 17th Brigade, that would attack later that night.  Did the Agoco representative from that meeting pass that intel along to the militias they had been working with?  Did they want the weapons for their group of terrorists that the US State Department was planning to send another group of terrorists aimed at another State Department plan: to destabilize Syria and oust Assad?

Three days after Ambassador Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and two ex-SEAL CIA agents, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were killed, The Times of London published an underappreciated article detailing a curious ship whose cargo held war crimes yet to be committed.  The report from September 14, 2012,

A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is making its way to rebels on the front lines,...

Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.

“This is the largest single delivery of assistance to the rebel fighting units we have received,” said Abu Muhammed, a member of the Free Syrian Army (FSA),...[11]

Ronda Hauben's remarkable article, "The Benghazi Affair: Uncovering the Mystery of the Benghazi CIA Annex", investigated the Times article further,

“The scale of the shipment and how it should be disbursed, has sparked a row between the FSA and the Muslim Brotherhood, who took control of the shipment when it arrived in Turkey,” writes Sheera Frenkel, the author of the Times of London article.

The Times of London refers to two Syrian activists with the FSA who complained that infighting within the insurgent ranks had delayed the arrival of the weapons in Syria, “There was widespread talk of Syrian groups who allied themselves with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood movement being given a larger share of the ship’s cargo.” One activist quoted objects that, “The Muslim Brotherhood, through its ties with Turkey, was seizing control of this ship and its cargo.”...

While the Times of London does not directly link Chris Stevens or the CIA annex compound to the Al Entisar arms shipment to Turkey, the article does provide an important context for how the conflict over which insurgent group would get weapons from the shipment created a source of significant tension at the very time the attack on the two US compounds in Benghazi took place....
By September 11, infighting among the Muslim Brotherhood and other insurgent groups, over who would be given the weapons from the Al Entisar shipment, suggests the likelihood that Turkey’s Consul General in Benghazi and the US Ambassador needed to discuss the conflict over the weapons and the problem of how they should be moved into Syria and distributed among the insurgent groups. [10]

Three years have passed: Assad is still in power; Libya has been turned over to ISIS; the Syrian Rebels have been exposed as immoderate Islamisist terrorists and the Muslim Brotherhood is on the run; member of the governments of Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, the US, Great Britain and France have all been exposed as complicit partners of the various branches of the terrorists they were supposed to be fighting in the great ruse of the War on Terror.  Some die hard hawks in DC are still dropping weapons to the proxy jihadis too. 

But why?  Just to set enemies against each other; gun running for some greater good?  Just to rule over the divided parts of a desolated world?  Seven countries in five years,... an Arab-Sunni NATO,... a Middle East Union,... a New Silk Road,... Grand Chessboards?  Why did the Ambassador get killed?  Why Gaddafi?  Why Libya?  Why Syria?  What grand goal could Hillary have been overseeing that was so wonderful that so many lives should be so senselessly ended?


1. Report: US Special Forces Arrive In Libya, Paul Joseph Watson, March 1, 2011

2. US Hired al-Qaida-Linked Group to Defend Benghazi Mission, John Rosenthal, May 2, 2013

3. State Department designates 3 Ansar al Sharia organizations, leaders, Thomas Joscelyn, January 10, 2014

4. Al Qaeda ally orchestrated assault on US Embassy in Tunisia, Thomas Joscelyn, October 2, 2012

5. Al-Qa`ida in the Islamic Maghreb’s Tunisia Strategy, Aaron Y. Zelin, Andrew Lebovich, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, July 23, 2013

6. A Benghazi power, Libya militia eyed in attack, Hamza Hendawi and Maggie Michael, September 18, 2012

7. The Islamic State, Zachary Laub, May 18, 2015

8. Benghazi attack pre-planned: Magarief, Nihal Zaroug and Maha Ellawati, September 16, 2012

9. Libya's Arabian Gulf Oil Co hopes to fund rebels via crude sales-FT, Mar 11, 2011

10. The Benghazi Affair: Uncovering the Mystery of the Benghazi CIA Annex, Ronda Hauben, January 28, 2013

11. Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest shipload arrives from Libya, Sheera Frenkel, September 14 2012
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Rakovsky

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Hillary's killers killed Stevens in Benghazi, but why?
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2016, 07:33:49 pm »
What I don't understand about the conspiracy theories is why the gov't would want the incident to occur.

On the face of it, it looks harmful for Obama with the election coming up then in 2012. One theory says that Stevens was meant to be kidnapped and exchanged for the "Blind Sheikh". Such a successful kidnapping and exchange would make Obama and the US look weaker, so that explanation doesn't seem likely.

Another theory is that it was arranged to hurt Obama in the elections. But with Obama and Hillary at the top of the chain of command, they could have intervened if they had wanted to, so it seems hard to say that whatever ultimately happened was done without any input from them, passive or not.

A third theory is that the govt didn't want heavy security at the annex because it would make post-revolution Libya look unstable, or it would be a red flag to militants that the US was acting aggressively, or it would otherwise suggest strong US intervention in the Libyan conflict when we wanted to position ourselves globally as rather neutral. But none of those explanations seem very good either if the claims about the lack of security are true. If a US facility and ambassador is under attack, even in unusual circumstances, the authorities would normally try hard to intervene and give protection, and globally of course people would understand. Supposedly, the Libyan guards at the gate lacked weapons, which seems unusual by Libyans' wartime standards. If security inside the facility was strong, it's not something that would raise red flags on the streets outside. So it seems unusual also that supposedly requests for security improvement by Stevens were denied hundreds of times. (But again, please forgive me, this is only going by the critical reports and claims that security was less than minimal and negligent.)

A fourth claim made in a few places is that Stevens was somehow a problem or was going to expose something, like his involvement in supplying the Syrian rebels. But what specific evidence is that he was going to do this or that he was any kind of a problem to the administration? The only sign of a conflict or problem on his part that I've seen is that he was going to retire ahead of schedule because he did not like the security problems:

So it looks like there are many claims that the administration facilitated the incident, like those in the new Hollywood movie on it, but what is sorely lacking in these claims is any motive for it.