Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 23, 2012

How Do "Unarmed People" "Return fire"?

A few days after the recent attacks on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi someone whipped up a crowd and had it attack the bases of some militia group. The usual western media who had cheered for the overthrowing and killing of Gaddhafi are trying to tell us that this was some peaceful protest, pro-American and only to drive out some jihadist militia. But that does not seem to be the full story.

The Guardian headlines:

Unarmed people power drums Libya's jihadists out of Benghazi

The sub headline says:

These were the incredible scenes in Benghazi as tens of thousands of ordinary citizens marched on the Islamic extremists in their compounds and drove them out with shouts, placards and sheer courage
The piece is by one Chris Stephen who writes as if he was there. According to him those who attacked those Salafi/Jihadists groups were unarmed people with only shouts, placards and sheer courage.

But down in Mr Stephen's article we find this:

Then the cry went up to march on Hwari, the sprawling base of another militia, Raffala al-Sahati, to which Ansar al-Sharia men were believed to have fled. El Farsi found his car, a BMW, and roared off south.

Protesters crammed into cars, hooting horns and waving Libyan tricolours as an impromptu convoy surged south. But this time the response was different. The first protesters who marched on the gates were met by machine gun fire, triggering pandemonium.
...
As protester numbers grew and fire was returned, the base garrison fled, abandoning vehicles, guns and huge quantities of ammunition which the crowd looted.

Mr Stephen's does not say with what those "unarmed people" returned fire. Did they fire shouts? Placards? Sheer courage?

Mr. Stephens also doesn't explain why the "unarmed" mob would attack the Raffala al-Sahati group at all. It was mentioned in no report about the attack on the U.S. embassy and had likely nothing to do with it.

From another news source we find that the group is aligned with and under command of the central government and that it was based in regular military barracks.

Protesters also attacked the headquarters of the Raf Allah al-Sahati brigade, an Islamist group which is under the authority of the defence ministry, on Benghazi's outskirts.

An AFP correspondent said the assailants walked away with weapons, ammunition and computers. After two hours of fierce fighting during which rockets were used, they managed to drive out members of the brigade.

So according to the AFP Stephen's "unarmed people" won a two hour battle in which machineguns and rockets (I assume this means Rocket Propelled Grenades) were used. All this with "shouts, placards and sheer courage"?

And what about those 6 dead soldiers which, after the mob had left, were found in those barracks with their hands tied and bullets in their heads? Did the "unarmed" protesters use "shouts, placards and sheer courage" to accomplish that?

Somehow Mr Stephen's story of peaceful protesters driving out jihadists does not add up. That might be because he doesn't bother to write about the real question.

Why did the Benghazi mob attack and executed forces of the newly elected central government? Could that be because 39% of them prefer a strong man rule while only 29% prefer democracy? And who were the real "extremists" here?

Posted by b on September 23, 2012 at 01:40 PM | Permalink

Comments

I have to admit, the boy sure does lie with the best of them. The fact that his own story refutes him is of no concern. Hell, the unwashed masses out there will never notice!

Good catch "b".

Posted by: Mark Stoval | Sep 23, 2012 1:48:04 PM | 1

Just the start of the second phase in Libya. Now they will again arm the 'good' militias and start a new war. Somalia will be looking as a good vacation spot in comparison after a few more of these 'phases'.

Posted by: ThePaper | Sep 23, 2012 2:13:21 PM | 2

I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
1.Angry Libyan mob drives Americans out of US consulate, killing ambassador and one aide.
2.Angry Libyan mob drives militia and army out of their compounds, killing six soldiers.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 23, 2012 4:18:47 PM | 3

Benghazi Attack. Libya’s Green Resistance Did It… And NATO Powers Are Covering Up
US Ambassador’s Killing Had Nothing to Do With Al Qaeda, Islamist Blowback or Anti-Islamic Video
By Mark Robertson and Finian Cunningham
Global Research, September 20, 2012

The NATO powers and the bureaucrats they installed in Libya want you to think that all 5.6 million Libyans are happy that NATO and its proxy terrorists destroyed Libya, a country which under Gaddafi had the highest standard of living in Africa.

They want you to think that NATO brought “freedom and democracy” to Libya, not chaos and death.
They want you to think that there is no Green Resistance to the NATO imperialists or NATO’s Islamist allies in Benghazi.
In reality, the Resistance has been increasingly active since shortly after the murder of Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011, as will be shown below. They strike any NATO target they can, and they execute key Libyans who betrayed Gaddafi and sided with NATO. The Benghazi incident was merely their latest blow against what they see as NATO’s illegal occupation of their country.
Everyone in Libya knows about the Green Resistance, whose members are called “Tahloob” (Arabic for “Gaddafi loyalists”). The denial only happens outside of Libya, by the NATO powers and their dutiful Western mainstream media.
etc
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-green-resistance-did-it-and-nato-powers-are-covering-up/

Posted by: brian | Sep 23, 2012 5:39:56 PM | 4

Foreign policy writers for major media outlets seem to be nothing more than frustrated, wannabe Hollywood screenwriters. They know the narrative that will sell, so they create their script accordingly.

Only problem is that they can't get their story straight, which means they find it tough to get work in Hollywood. Making up plausible BS on tight deadlines isn't as easy as it sounds.

Posted by: JohnH | Sep 23, 2012 5:50:41 PM | 5

Benghazi: "Major Blow to C.I.A. Efforts. . .It’s a catastrophic intelligence loss" . . a major setback . . about a dozen C.I.A. operatives and contractors [including Sean Smith?]. . .the size of the C.I.A.’s presence in Benghazi apparently surprised some Libyan leaders. . .From these buildings, the C.I.A. personnel carried out their secret missions.. . . intelligence setback . . Prime Minister Mustafa Abushagour “We have no problem with intelligence sharing or gathering, but our sovereignty is also key.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html?pagewanted=all

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 23, 2012 10:46:26 PM | 6

Prime Minister Mustafa Abushagour “We have no problem with intelligence sharing or gathering, but our sovereignty is also key.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html?pagewanted=all

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 23, 2012 10:46:26 PM | 6

would the americans be happy if libya spies flooded US? remember Assange and how he is up on espionage charges by a nation that leads all but israel in espionage

Posted by: brian | Sep 24, 2012 2:57:24 AM | 7

Hmm. That New York Times article refers to "loyalists from the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the deposed Libyan leader". Quite a step from the usual paeans to democracy's brave dawn. It almost sounds like they're preparing us for the Restoration.

Posted by: Bob Jackson | Sep 24, 2012 4:34:17 AM | 8

your story made me laugh, the part about the Libyan caravan. Man, those Magrebis sure love a caravan, a wedding, football win and they're putting on a parade.

Posted by: scottindallas | Sep 24, 2012 11:40:42 AM | 9

Re Libya;We aint seen nothing yet,and notice the video creator and his alleged Zionist backer story has disappeared from our narrative.
They are probably trying to recruit 50 Copts or moonie loonies to play the part.Money talks loud.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 24, 2012 12:28:12 PM | 10

FoxNews, Sep 24
Libya latest example of administration downplaying terror strike

President Obama's advisers claim to be doing the best they can in difficult circumstances to explain what happened in the deadly assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya. But their questionable claim out of the gate that the attack was a "spontaneous" outburst triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film in neighboring Egypt fits a pattern, critics say, of downplaying both attempted and successful terrorist strikes. "It's the nothing-to-see-here answer," said Republican strategist Tony Sayegh.

Why would the U.S. downplay a terror strike? Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamouda bin Qumu has been identified as a potential figure behind the attack, which killed four Americans, including US Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens. So what's the problem with nailing bin Qumu for Benghazi?

Bin Qumu is a leading member of the Ansar al-Shariah brigade in Benghazi, which has been blamed for the attack. He also reportedly is a member of the Al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and leads the Darnah Brigade—an armed group in his home town of Darnah in northeastern Libya, which fought on the side of NATO in the war for regime change last year.

He was captured in Pakistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, accused of being a member of the militant Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and sent to Guantánamo — in part because of information provided by Colonel Qaddafi’s government. “The Libyan Government considers detainee a ‘dangerous man with no qualms about committing terrorist acts,’ ” says the classified 2005 assessment, evidently quoting Libyan intelligence findings, which was obtained by The New York Times.

For more than five years, Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu was a prisoner at the Guantánamo Bay prison, judged “a probable member of Al Qaeda” by the analysts there. They concluded in a newly disclosed 2005 assessment that his release would represent a “medium to high risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies.”

Nevertheless, Hamouda bin Qumu was returned to Libya in 2007, where Chris stevens helped him get settled in. Stevens was DCM (Deputy Chief of Mission) from 2007 to 2009.

wikileaks: O 131650Z DEC 07
FM AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI
SUBJECT: LIBYA: FOLLOW-UP ON ACCESS TO RETURNED GTMO DETAINEES

". . .acknowledged to DCM and P/E Chief the GOL's commitment to provide Embassy access to returned Guantanamo Bay detainees.. . . Dr. Sawani characterized access to the returned detainees as "a straightforward matter" and said he was "sure" visits with al-Rimi and Hamouda could be quickly arranged. ." ."

wikileaks: O 030917Z JAN 08
FM AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI
SUBJECT: LIBYA: FAMILY VISIT FOR RETURNED GTMO DETAINEE CONFIRMED
"...Ben Qumu Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamouda. . .claimed to have not had a family visit. . . A/DCM spoke with . . .counterpart Muhammad Tarnish January 2 . .[Hamouda's] physical condition and spirits as "very good"

In March 2011 Christopher Stevens attended a meeting in Paris between Clinton, Sarkozy and Jabril, set up by Bernard-Henri Lévy. Stevens was among those who urged Clinton to describe to President Obama the call for help that he had just heard. From March 2011 to November 2011 Stevens was Special Representative to the National Transitional Council in Benghazi. During this time, Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu was a notable figure in the Libyan rebels’ fight to oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. bin Qumu was a leader of a ragtag band of fighters known as the Darnah Brigade -- a remarkable turnabout resulting from shifting American policies.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 24, 2012 12:57:45 PM | 11

it seems there is abundance of theories over the assault of Benghazi's "consulate", none of which fit the US/NATO narrative of a "free Libya":
- WH: angry islamic mob (but some say unknown terrorists for an unknown reason)
- b: AQ or similar, for vengeance
- Don Bacon #3: islamic radicals, for an autonomous Cyrenaica (he is not explicit, I deduce this from his hints)
(the two theories above can be combined)
- brian #4: the Green resistance: my favorite, obviously, although I don't know if it's more probable than the others; seen from the outside, it seems unlikely that Gaddafi loyalists could move so freely in Benghazi; unless militias there are so fractured and reckless that they haven't managed to establish a control of the territory; or maybe, after an year of "freedom", even in Benghazi old opponents of Gaddafi are fed up with militias and their US / NATO / GCC sponsors

btw, somewhere I read that Christopher Stevens didn't reside in Tripoli, but in Benghazi, but couldn't find confirmation; if true, it would be a strong indication that Tripoli is insecure (although Benghazi didn't turn out to be better)

Posted by: claudio | Sep 24, 2012 2:33:23 PM | 12

claudio, from what I read, Tripoli is more secure than Benghazi, but Benghazi is the area with most of the oil ...

Posted by: somebody | Sep 24, 2012 3:03:15 PM | 13

@claudio
I really don't have any theories. We're all left to grope in the dark mainly because the US "intelligence" community, which has been reported to cost more than eighty BILLION dollars annually, has been unable to answer a simple question: Who killed the ambassador? So now they're sending in -- the Federal Bureau of Investigation! Since the government doesn't have a clue (or won't say) they will investigate it. What's next, Get Smart? Maxwell Smart, Agent 86.

Or as many are beginning to believe it's another crime coverup, reminding me of SSGT Robert Bales who single-handedly had a few too many and massacred people in two separate villages but we haven't heard any more about it. Sure.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 24, 2012 3:48:11 PM | 14

This intelligence failure in Benghazi is monumental, especially considering how many spooks were on duty in Benghazi.

#6 above: Major Blow to C.I.A. Efforts. . .It’s a catastrophic intelligence loss . . a major setback . . about a dozen C.I.A. operatives and contractors . . .the size of the C.I.A.’s presence in Benghazi apparently surprised some Libyan leaders.

Major blow my ***. Bunch of losers. Send 'em all to Syria.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 24, 2012 4:00:57 PM | 15

somehow from the Russia Today summary of the same event based on Reuters and other stuff mentioned by various people on this demonstration I conclude

1) there was a 30.000 strong peaceful demonstration in Benghazi against militias
2) under cover of that demonstration there was a preplanned attack on the Islamist militia thought to be responsible for the attack on the US embassy. I guess foreign services might have been involved in the planning.
3) under cover of same demonstration there were other attacks. who did that is open to discussion. this AFP article could be interpreted as an all out Benghazi fight between militias ...

"National assembly chief Mohamed al-Megaryef initially welcomed the Benghazi protest but later urged the demonstrators to withdraw from the bases of loyal brigades.
Megaryef was meeting military, tribal and political leaders in the city on Saturday, members of his entourage said.
As the violence expanded, Libyan authorities called on the demonstrators to distinguish between "illegitimate" brigades and those under state control, warning that neutralising loyal units risked causing "chaos."
The warning highlighted the dilemma facing the government a year after Kadhafi's overthrow, with the fledgling security forces dependent on former rebels who fought in the uprising although such groups also challenge government authority.
The trigger for the assault on the paramilitaries was a "Save Benghazi" rally after the main weekly Muslim prayers on Friday that was attended by an estimated 30,000 peaceful demonstrators.
They paid tribute to Stevens and carried banners calling for justice to be done.
It drowned out a smaller rally of a few hundred people called by the jihadists and hardline Islamists furious over a US-made film that mocks Islam and cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published by a French satirical magazine.
The two sides gave conflicting accounts of what sparked the deadly violence.
"We came peacefully and asked them with our loudspeakers to disarm," said protester Nasser Saad.
But militiaman Ahmed Faraj insisted that the attackers were only after the base's armoury.
"They were coming to take our weapons," he said. "We are part of the ministry of defence, we fought in the revolution, we can't just walk away and hand over heavy weapons to a bunch of drunks and criminals."
"Now with the people calling for a hardline anti-militia policy, Libyan leaders may find themselves steeled with the requisite courage to purge these groups from the Libyan body politic," said Libya specialist Jason Pack."

I do wonder when all those US Americans the Libyan head of state is surprised about left Benghazi, after the death of ambassador Stevens or after this Benghazi anti-militia demonstration gone bad.


Posted by: somebody | Sep 24, 2012 4:05:19 PM | 16

@16 'drunks and criminals'? Berhard-Henri Levy calls them imbeciles.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/12/remembering-libyan-ambassador-christopher-stevens.html

Isn't BHL the guy who got the whole thing started?

Posted by: dh | Sep 24, 2012 4:26:07 PM | 17

and the action seems to be in Brak not in Tripoli

"We are disbanding all armed groups that do not fall under the authority of the government,” said President of the General National Congress (GNC) Mohammed Magarief. “We are also banning the use of violence and carrying of weapons in public places. It is also illegal to set up checkpoints.”

Within hours, however, the government faced its first challenge from some of its insubordinate security forces and the extra-judicial militias.

On Saturday afternoon Libya’s Tripoli Rixos hotel was stormed by members of the Supreme Security Council (SSC) – an amalgamation of security forces which fall under the jurisdiction of the interior ministry – who threatened to blow it up. The Rixos Hotel serves as a de facto headquarters for the Libyan government.

The SSC men were angered by the lack of support they had received from the defense ministry following fierce clashes between the SSC and alleged Gadhafi loyalists in the town of Brak in central Libya."

Posted by: somebody | Sep 24, 2012 4:36:14 PM | 18

The U.S. State Department is understandably getting a bit testy with at least one reporter over the Benghazi fiasco, another sign of a possible coverup.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 24, 2012 4:36:36 PM | 19

In March 2011 Christopher Stevens attended a meeting in Paris between Clinton, Sarkozy and Jabril, set up by Bernard-Henri Lévy. Stevens was among those who urged Clinton to describe to President Obama the call for help that he had just heard. From March 2011 to November 2011 Stevens was Special Representative to the National Transitional Council in Benghazi. During this time, Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu was a notable figure in the Libyan rebels’ fight to oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. bin Qumu was a leader of a ragtag band of fighters known as the Darnah Brigade -- a remarkable turnabout resulting from shifting American policies.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 24, 2012 12:57:45 PM | 11

so stevens was no innocent...but deeply involved in the war on syria

Posted by: brian | Sep 24, 2012 5:38:58 PM | 20

Isn't BHL the guy who got the whole thing started?

Posted by: dh | Sep 24, 2012 4:26:07 PM | 17

yes he is...he persuaded Sarcozy libya was doable...and at the root of most modern international problems lies a crafy svengali zionist jew.

Posted by: brian | Sep 24, 2012 5:40:28 PM | 21

Here's Bernard-Henri Lévy on Libya and again on Syria.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 24, 2012 6:11:26 PM | 22

I think BHL is finding Syrian intervention a hard sell.

Posted by: dh | Sep 24, 2012 6:18:19 PM | 23

id just like to make some props for Alain Soral, a french essayist, novelist and political commentator. A few shitty quality videos are subbed in english, but Im more thinking of all those who understand french. How to say, this guy sums it all up brilliantly! And of course is banned from MSM, as it is a trademark for credibility nowadays! Theres an interesting link though, with subs, in which he talks about virtual money (which is at the core of some of the problems in syria, Lybia and elsewhere. Its a bit of answer to many political questions.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eyd9gERGPg

Posted by: Kalimbour | Sep 24, 2012 6:30:37 PM | 24

btw, thats his website... http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/

Posted by: Kalimbour | Sep 24, 2012 6:32:08 PM | 25

@Don Bacon #19--

Amazing! DoS makes no attempt to deny the impression that they simply abandoned and did not try to re-secure the premises.

--Gaianne

Posted by: Gaianne | Sep 25, 2012 3:42:10 AM | 26

theory of commenters of the WaPo is it all might have been over manpads to Syria

the government militia that lost the manpads was attacked by demonstrators it is now arresting, plus was given legitimacy by the Libyan government by nominally appointing a military officer to lead them (though it seems to have been them who killed a few). I guess they are the Quatari backed militia.

all of this is blowing up in US faces in a way I am sure the administration does not want to discuss before the elections.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 25, 2012 3:43:52 AM | 27

more

"It wuz de Qataris I tells ya!!"

propaganda from a supplier of grade-A proven-bullshit

Only a borderline retard would continue to pimp the notion that Saudi and Qatar (etc) are somehow autonomous agents in these wars

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 25, 2012 5:02:45 AM | 28

Hu Bris, this is what I suspect, too, however, this would mean US foreign policy is schizophrenic, as I am pretty sure that ambassador Stevens and CIA personnel in Bhengazi were tasked to try to get a control on heavy weapons there ...
and as most client regimes pay for lobbying in the US and as Saudi Arabia and Qatar can pay a lot I am not so sure who is wagging whom ...

Posted by: somebody | Sep 25, 2012 7:11:28 AM | 29

The Bullshitt artist said:

" as I am pretty sure that ambassador Stevens and CIA personnel in Bhengazi were tasked to try to get a control on heavy weapons there
...only a borderline retard/willing liar/bullshit-artist/clueless-fuckwit (delete as appropriate), would answer a charge of "Bullshit" with even more unverifiable bullshit

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 25, 2012 7:36:36 AM | 30

The Bullshit artist says

" this would mean US foreign policy is schizophrenic"

would it really?

seems to me all that it would mean is that the stated aims of several US Administrations (and other 'Western' Gov'ts etc), with regard to a rather burning desire to eliminate the entity currently known as "Al Qeada" and various other groups supposedly affiliated with this entity, are at odds with subsequent actions of the current and previous US Administrations (and other 'Western' Gov'ts etc).

That is all.

Lets review a few things and see what we might be able to deduce from that shall we?

1) We know, or at least non-morons/non-liars (delete as appropriate) can be reasonably confident, that there is a fairly high degree of accuracy in the following statement"The US was a primary actor in the movement to create the entity that subsequently became known as "Al Qeada" The role the US played in this took various forms, such as supplying arms, ammunition, financing, intelligence provision and training etc etc

2) We can also be reasonably certain, given recent events in Syria and Libya, that the US Gov't (and other 'Western' Gov'ts along with several obviously 'Western'-installed "Puppet" Rulers of various Arab/Gulf/Muslim states etc) is currently working hand-in-hand with numerous violent groups of individuals, that fit the description of everything we have been told so far regarding the aims and activities of the mythical "Al Qeada". This help takes various forms, such as supplying arms, ammunition, financing, intelligence provision and training etc etc

Some people would have us believe that between steps 1 and 2 there was an intermediate step where the group(s) referred to as "Al Qeada" supposedly turned their backs on the people that originally helped create them (The US) and started to attack them and their facilities, both civilian and Military.

These Class-A liars/morons (delete as appropriate) invented a phrase to describe this ridiculous theory that they are propagating - they call it "BlowBack"

Others (myself fer instance) have put forward a far more reasonable and far less moronic theory that all the aforementioned groups actually work together. (And that there really is no such thing as "al Qeada" as described to us by the MSM and various Gov't liars.) People like me have repeatedly pointed out over the last 11 years that there is no evidence whatsoever that the US (etc) EVER STOPPED working hand-in-hand with these groups which it has repeatedly claimed are "deadly Enemies"

No evidence has ever been put forward that would provide some sort of reliable proof that all these groups are NOT all working together.

In fact point #2 above would indicate that, despite an 11-year gap in which they were supposedly "deadly Enemies", their recent activities in Libya/Syria etc would strongly indicate that ALL of these afore-mentioned Govts&"Jihadi"groups have ALWAYS been working together hand-in-hand, towards the same end-goal.

Yet for some reason, despite the absolute stupidity of such a notion, and the fact that it flies in the face of from recent evidence, (the NATO-Qeada attacks on Libya&Syria) some (truly-dishonest/totally-fuckin-retarded (delete as appropriate)) individuals here here still insist on propagating the idea that the lesser members of this conspiracy, the "Puppet"-Rulers of various Arab/Gulf/Muslim nations are in fact really Major Autonomous Actors in their own right, in this charade - and that their actions CAN be divorced from the larger reality.

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 25, 2012 9:16:33 AM | 31

Hubris, just that real life tells me that people with different interests very rarely work seemlessly together ...

Posted by: somebody | Sep 25, 2012 9:33:39 AM | 32

1) you have yet to provide so much as one scrap of evidence that all these groups have " different interests"

2) The more-than 11-yr continuity of co-operation, as proven by the recent events in Libya & Syria, suggests a)these people have no real problems working together, which strongly supports the notion that b) their supposed "different interests" (according to YOU) are to all intents and purposes non-existent - ie: the notion, which you are endlessly promoting, that these supposed disparate Gov'ts & supposed-Jihad-groups have "different interests" is complete and utter bullshit.
Much like yourself in fact

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 25, 2012 9:56:58 AM | 33

A strategy that is receiving some attention is The Third Way that fits the situation in Libya especially considering Ambassador Stevens' activities.
Anthony Wile--

Just yesterday, a staff report entitled, "Islam Yearns for a Third Way, US Intel Will Provide," predicted "a third way for Islam that will allow Western-style central banking and finance."

Right on schedule, just as if scripted, Libya has erupted once again as "moderate Islam" battles against "radicals."

It could not be clearer or, of course, more illogical. To make the script work, Western Intel planners conjuring this nonsense have to gloss over just how these "radical Islamic" entities got into Libya in the first place.

These al Qaeda types and "extremists" reportedly infiltrated Libya and then were then supported until Muammar Gaddafi's reign fell. Now they are expendable. But expendable or not, they are the same types of individuals apparently employed under Osama bin Laden – the same types now being insinuated into Syria.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 25, 2012 10:41:29 AM | 34

Wile goes on--

So this is what's really going on. The Middle East has been destabilized by the US State Department's AYM youth movement. Now that the Muslim Brotherhood is empowered, a surge of violence may give way to a "third way" regarding Islamic society, polity and economics.

Muslims are right to believe they are being manipulated. What they don't understand perhaps is that the "third way" that many long for has already been prepared for them and it, too, is under Western control.

And here's reportage from an article in today's UK Telegraph:

Libya: Benghazi crowds drive out Islamist militants ... Cheering crowds swept through the Libyan city of Benghazi clearing Islamist militias from their bases after protests triggered by the killing of the American ambassador, Chris Stevens. etc.


And this explains why the U.S. State Department is playing "stupid," not a difficult role. Remember, the West has its own stooges running Libya now, President Mohammed Magarief and PM Mustafa A.G. Abushagur

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 25, 2012 10:48:30 AM | 35

@ Don

I have long ago concluded that this 11-yr 'war' could in fact be best summed up by the phrase "The Clash of Banking Systems" rather than the bullshit "The Clash of Civilisations" being frequently pimped by the likes of MOA's very own resident Bullshit Artist, who goes by the pseudonym of "somebody"

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 25, 2012 11:19:07 AM | 36

Isn't it amazing that in that spontaneous demonstration by 30,000 Libyans there were so many signs in English: like here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here & here.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 25, 2012 12:51:15 PM | 37

I always thought the real reason The US/NATO cabal decided it was time to burn Libya was because Qaddafi was about to pour billions into an African banking system.

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Sep 25, 2012 1:01:53 PM | 38

"Isn't it amazing that in that spontaneous demonstration by 30,000 Libyans there were so many signs in English: like here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here & here."

Only if you're a moron/liar or you go by the name of "somebody" . . . ( but I repeat myself ). . . .

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 25, 2012 1:09:23 PM | 39

President Obama at the UNGA today:

Chris Stevens loved his work. He took pride in the country he served, and he saw dignity in the people that he met. And two weeks ago, he traveled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital. That’s when America’s compound came under attack. Along with three of his colleagues, Chris was killed in the city that he helped to save. He was 52 years old.

LATimes
He recently took what his brother described as “a great trip” to Stuttgart, Germany, for a conference and to visit museums, followed by attendance at a wedding in Sweden and a sojourn in Vienna. “He got back to Libya not too long ago,” Tom Stevens said. “He wrote this email home, saying he had a ton of work waiting for him and he’d write a more detailed email later. That email never came.”

Isn't that amazing. Ambassador Stevens had been on a visit to Germany, Austria and Sweden and had just returned to Libya. Stevens visited Stuttgart, probably to attend a meeting at AFRICOM, the US command that ran the "no-fly zone" AKA regime change in Libya. Then some pleasure trips to Sweden and Vienna, and back to Libya where "he had a ton of work waiting for him."

But that "ton of work" could wait longer. Stevens had only arrived in Libya as ambassador on May 26. During his absence in Europe a new President and Prime Minister had been elected. And he had a ton of work. But not to worry. First to the consulate in Benghazi "to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital." His staff had decided that the trip could be undertaken safely during the 9/11 period. According to security sources the consulate had been given a "health check" in preparation for any violence connected to the 9/11 anniversary.

The Benghazi consulate was “an interim facility,” which the State Department began using “before the fall of Qadhafi.” The consulate wasn't secured by Marines, but had “lock-and-key” security, not the same level of defenses as a formal embassy. That means it had no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors or other features common to embassies.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 25, 2012 3:12:34 PM | 40

And did I mention that Petraeus had a dozen agents in the compound at the time? Yes I did. (I'm trying to sound like Penny.) Put it all together and whaddya got?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 25, 2012 3:31:32 PM | 41

"Put it all together and whaddya got? "

I don't know - but whatever it is you can be sure that "somebody" will LIE about it repeatedly

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 25, 2012 3:38:05 PM | 42

"And did I mention that Petraeus had a dozen agents in the compound at the time"

Petraeus? THE Petraeus that ordered, paid-for and shipped hundreds of Thousands of weapons DIRECT to Al Qeada in Iraq, so that they could be used against HIS OWN SOLDIERS?

THAT David Petreaus?

Yes . . I think you did.

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 25, 2012 3:47:27 PM | 43

The comments to this entry are closed.

 

Site Meter