Why is the White House hiding the fact that it was a terrorist attack?

Who would ever think that the Libyans would be more truthful than the White House? I, for one never thought that it was possible that a country such as Libya could possibly be truthful. However, the attack on the consulate at Benghazi has proved me wrong!! The first information that I read on the attack gave me the Clinton or State Department narrative, and only then did I learn about that picture of a dead Chris Stevens.I am not certain that some details have ever been verified, or that Stevens was alive when he was pulled from the house. On top of that I am not certain that the blood stains on the walls belong to the Americans. This is because more than 10 Libyans were either killed or wounded during the attack as they were protecting the consulate staff. Someone within their midst was a traitor to the cause, and yes it hurt the people of Benghazi and of Libya. What I did learn very quickly though, is that the Department of State, the White House, and the Obama Administration were once again caught lying about what took place.

Let’s start with the early narrative regarding a documentary of extremely poor quality that had been pasted on the Internet. How many people would have even looked at this extremely poor documentary if it was not for the White House narrative? My feelings on the matter (and yes they are only feelings, not truth) is that the documentary itself was psy-ops, a set-up. If anything it might even be that it surfaced too soon to be of use to Obama in his re-election efforts. Adding to my suspicions on this subject is the fact that it appeared on Egyptian TV with Arabic subtitles. Can no one smell the possibility of a set-up?

Keeping within the subject of the narrative here is the fact that this c- grade documentary has caused riots all over the Middle East, and it has led to the trashing of various embassies and consulates.Rage Boy was let out of his cage again!!  I note here that Obama continues to stick with this narrative, no matter what, and that he is using it in an attempt to restrict the freedom of speech of non-Muslims. His speech to the UN on this very subject was disgusting. The narrative itself was supposed to be that there was a protest happening outside of the US consulate and that what happened there was somehow spontaneous.

However, within a few days of the death of the US Ambassador to Libya, the narrative began to unravel. The first hint of fraying came from the UK where a Libyan, a former member of the LFG, and now a member of a think tank declared that the attack itself had the hallmarks of Al Qaeda. The man knew his subject because of his own association (now repudiated) with Al Qaeda in the old days of fighting against the Russians in Afghanistan. The next fraying came when the Libyan President also remarked on the same subject, and that was followed by eye witnesses to the attack (the people who were guarding the consulate) who stated that there was no protest at the time. One such witness has given quite a bit of detail that has totally shattered the narrative.

As time moves on, we are learning more and more about the intelligence reports, and the lack of response from Washington. Yes, it turns out that the POTUS has not been bothering with intelligence debriefs, and on top of that when he knew that the consulate was under attack, took himself off to bed!!

The actions of Obama are so reprehensible, that I believe people should be extremely angry over the way that he is continuing to endanger the lives of Americans, as well as the lives of those allies who have been in the field helping in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The path forward for Libya should be a lot smoother, but the fact remains that there are elements in and around Benghazi that were always of concern. Obama and Clinton should have known that there was real cause for concern in Benghazi and the State Department should have been ensuring that the building in which the consulate was operating was indeed safe from this kind of attack. It is not just Al Qaeda loyalists and affiliates, there are other sub-groups, some of them Islamists, but others are pro-Gadhafi. I have mentioned this previously, that I continue to see the Gadhafi family as a threat to Libya. So long as the other sons and daughter remain on the loose, then there are threats to Libya. This means that Libya remains unstable.  Libya is not associated with Iran, and it is foolish to even think that the people in charge would associate themselves with Iran. This is because Iran back Gadhafi but Iran did take an each way bet – Iran gave munitions to Gadhafi and medicinal aid to Benghazi during the civil war. From the point of view of those currently in charge, though, you can be sure that they are not going to fall over backwards supporting Iran. There is another reason as to why they would not align themselves, and that is Libyans are either Sunni, Sufi or Sanusi rather than being Shia. This is also why Muslim Brotherhood does not have a real toe-hold in that country. Claims that Muslim Brotherhood are in charge in Libya are simply nonsense spread by people who are ignorant with regard to the people of Libya.

To understand Libya you must study the period between the second world war and the usurpation of king Idris by a very young Gadhafi. During that period Idris was not quite pro-Israel, but certainly neutral. Gadhafi took Libyans in a different direction. Gadhafi turned Libya into a Socialist State, which was something that irked older Libyans. NO, they were not grateful that they had money in their bank account every month, or that they had free medicine, free hospital etc. They were resentful over their country being made into a Socialist State. In that pre-Gadhafi era Libya was a Sharia law country. Nothing changed when Gadhafi was in charge, except that he destroyed their various mosques and he would not allow the Berber to speak their own language.

As more and more information emerges regarding the attack on the US consulate, the more it makes the White House, and Obama look incredibly foolish. The President of Libya has contradicted the White House and he has firmly stated that it was an Al Qaeda attack, and on top of that there is the fact that there was no demonstration.

What does this mean? My mind, which does not normally run to conspiracy theories is having a bit of a field day on this one. I am starting to think that this attack was not only planned, but that the video was meant to cause the kind of mayhem that has taken place in the Middle East and elsewhere but that this was a video that was funded by people associated with the DNC and the Obama campaign. Since Obama is in the tank with Muslim Brotherhood, I am fast forming the opinion that there was a plot that has gone wrong, in that the attack on the consulate was not supposed to happen, but the other scenes from Egypt through to Pakistan were supposed to happen. How come Al Qaeda was prepared to attack at the right moment? Something smells really, really fishy about the whole thing.

The people of Benghazi strike back

There are some writers of blogs who think that they know everything when it comes to the politics of a country like Libya. One particular blog writer has been very busy sliming the current leadership of Libya and attempting to claim that they are aligned with Al Qaeda, when in fact this is not the case. I will add here that I am of the opinion that the particular writer has committed libel against a former member of the National Transistional Council in regard to his comments linking the man to secret CIA and MI6 information. As a matter of fact the writer in question is 100 per cent wrong about that person. At the same time the blog author continues to be wrong in his assessment on Benghazi as he shrieks Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda… he is wrong again, and the good people of Benghazi have once again proven him to be an idiot.

The people of Benghazi are now faced with the shame of the death of the American Ambassador. What took place gives them a very bad name in international circles. There is indeed only a small minority that is involved in jihadist activity and most of them come not from Benghazi but from Derna, which is in the nearby mountains. Not long after Ambassador Stevens was killed, people took to the streets with their signs apologizing and stating that the killers do not represent them.

Now, CNN is reporting that a larger group of people from Benghazi have taken to the streets again to let the international community know that they apologize for what has happened. They also did something extraordinary. A group of people attached to the thousands who marched to say sorry, moved off to the building that housed Ansar al Sharia and they evicted them from that building. It has now been turned over to the Libyan army. They are also intent upon evicting the rest of the jihadists from other buildings that they have been occupying.

You can read the full story at the following link.

It is not just CNN that is reporting on this matter, and this time the subject is Derna which has always been a hotbed for the jihadists. First of all, I note that something which has not hit the news was the attacks on some elderly nuns and a priest in Derna. These are people who have been handing out free medicines and the like but these Catholics were attacked simply because they are Christians. However, many Muslims in Derna are hitting back. Oddly enough it is Yahoo News that is carrying the story. Within the story is the comments from a young Muslim preacher who has had death threats because he has spoken out. More telling is the comment from another resident in Derna who states the obvious about Sharia already existing. His comment is along the lines of the fact that what needs to happen first is that the country reforms and then they can talk about sharia law.

It must always be remembered that Libya is already under Sharia law. Sharia law is not being imposed upon the people, like some have ignorantly stated. What is interesting though is that these people from around Benghazi and Derna state the obvious in that they do not want someone telling them how to dress etc. etc. Importantly, the people of the region want the police and army, not the militias.

It seems that the death of Ambassador Stevens has been a catalyst but not in the expected way. Rather it is a catalyst because people are uniting against those militias. I now hope that some good will come as a result of the deaths of 4 Americans and 10 Libyans who died on September 11.

Update: This news really is astounding but it seems that once again the people of Benghazi have led the way for the rest of the country. Benghazi evicted at least 2 of the Salafist militias. Their rage was against Ansar al Sharia, which has been accused of the assassination of the Americans (they deny that they are responsible). In Derna two units decided to go quietly, including the local unit of Ansar al Sharia. An order has been given by the President of Libya that all of these militias that are not government sanctioned must disband. Now this is being followed up by evictions in Tripoli. We have been waiting close to one year for these evictions to take place and at last there has been action.

Libyans do not want to be controlled by the Salafists. They do not want to be controlled by Muslim Brotherhood. That is why they voted for a group that are not affiliated with either, but they also voted for Independents who have their own set of allegiances.  The truth is that the Libyans are not following the Islamist rule book in either Tunisia or Egypt. They do not want Mullahs having control over their lives. They do not want the purity police telling them what they can or cannot wear. This does not mean that they reject Sharia law, it simply means that they do not want government ruling their lives.

On the other side of the coin is the fact that the White House Administration and the Department of State has been caught lying through their teeth. The C- grade documentary had nothing to do with the attack on the Benghazi consulate. The early narrative claimed that members of the security detail ran away, but that is truly sliming the brave members of the 17th February Brigade who were charged with the security of the Americans. The fact is that 10 of their number died that night, and others were wounded. It is possible that some within their ranks were a part of the plot, but then again we do not have all of the facts. Yes, it is true the Libyan security team were the ones that were also killed and injured. Much had been made of the bloody hand prints on the wall. What is not clear to me is whether those marks came from the Americans or from the Libyans who were killed and injured. One thing that is unanswered to me at the present time relates to the 6 people who had been released when the compound held by Ansar Al Sharia and the other group was overrun. Were these 6 criminals, or had they been captured?

A must read

Here is the link to the Washington Examiner article. It is a must read. Please note I was on chapter X in the link and you need to go back to the beginning.

First of all, I note some factual errors. Ann Dunham did not live with Obama Sr. until Obama was 1 year old. That is a lie that someone told and it should be corrected. Evidence of Dunham’s movements have proved that she was in Seattle when Obama was a baby, studying at the University of Washington. I do suspect that she was quite upset when she learned that Obama Sr. was married (not secretly as claimed, but was known when he came to the USA) to a woman in Kenya who was also left pregnant when he made the journey to the USA. It should have been pointed out that Obama Sr. left Hawaii to go to Harvard University where he was doing post graduate studies until he was turfed out of the country.

This is a must read because there is a lot of information that will blow your mind, especially when you consider that none of this was available prior to 2008. The involvement of all those associated with Obama who are slumlords, and who were responsible for tossing people out of their homes in the middle of winter puts Obama in a whole new light ( but only for those who were not aware of these stories).

What I do want to highlight are the following names:

Tony Rezko (Syria)

Dr. Michael Malik

Dr. Imad Almanaseer

Fortunee Massuda

Elie Malouf

Ali At

Nadhmi Auchi (Iraqi Ba’ath Party member) – was on the terror watch list

Stuart Levine

Mustafa Abdella

Khalil Shalabi

Hatem Abdulayyeh (funding of Popular Liberation Fund for Liberation of Palestine) – other terrorist groups.

Obama ran in a circle with these men. Yes, the majority are Muslim, the exception is Stuart Levine. All of them are corrupt in one way or the other. At least two of them have been on terrorist watch lists. Most of them funnelled donations to Obama. At least two of them were involved in the corrupt practices of the Health Board in Chicago with the awarding of contracts.

However, it was when I read the name Pritzker Real Estate, that a penny suddenly dropped. Sorry, I know that this is a very droll observation. Penny Pritzker is a major fund-raiser for Obama. She is the heiress to the fortune of one of the hotel chains. She is the person who is handling the trust fund and raising money to purchase a $35 million property in Hawaii for the Obamas when he leaves the White House (in January 2013).

Pritzker Real Estate is just as important in the whole story of the slumlords, how they obtained their wealth and how they have treated their low-income tenants. The Pritzkers were a part of that whole scene which includes Valerie Jarrett and Allison Davis, as well as some preacher from the Assembly of God, who dared to call himself a Bishop. (I would call this particular man a Judas).  As you read through all 10 chapters you will see the story.

We also know that Michelle, after she was forced to give up her law licence worked for Chicago Hospital on inflated wages. Her job was to push the poor away from the emergency room at the hospital. It seems to me that the Obamas have a name for turning their backs on the poor in Chicago even as they use them for their own purposes.

Now compare this story, to that of Mitt Romney who donated something like 1/3 of his income last year to charity.

Muslim Brotherhood are Shia, Salafists are Sunni

I am seeing a lot of analysis on blogs and some of it is very wrong-headed. It seems to me that there is a mental block when it comes to understanding the distinctions between the various Muslim Sects. The fact is that they all hate each other, but they will unite when necessary against the Infidel. On the other hand there are some who really are peace-loving and will only fight for their own survival. In that category I place the Sufi, which is the majority in Libya.

When people make no effort to understand the history of Libya they will end up making mistakes regarding the situation in that country. There are some in the blogosphere who simply believe their own publicity and will not take the time to learn something about the facts relating to February 17, 2011. Instead of looking into the actual history they prefer to draw conclusions that are in fact wrong-headed.

Libya is made up of three regions and it is full of tribes. Benghazi is in the East, Tripoli is in the west, and then there is the area that includes the mountains. The Berber come from the mountain regions. The majority of Libyans belong to the Sufi or they belong to what was known as the Sanusi Army. The Sanusi sect is a mixture of Wahibbi and Sufi. Neither the Muslim Brotherhood, nor the Salafists are very strong in Libya and this was borne out by the free elections that were held in June. The overwhelming majority who voted for a party was in favour of a moderate form of Islamic party – these moderates are not liberal as claimed by the media. I touched on these subjects last year and do not feel the need to repeat myself on the makeup of the religious community within Libya.

What I have noticed though, is that there are some bloggers who continue to mix up the facts relating to Egypt and Libya. I think that one particular blogger is totally wrong in his assumptions because he has ignored the actual history of those involved. It is important to acknowledge the involvement of Salafists in Derna during the civil war in Libya. They were present and they fought very hard to free Libya from the curse of the devil, Gadhafi. However, they had other aims that were not the same as the people who fought along side them. This is an acknowledgement that yes the Salafists, being those who sympathize with the aims of Al Qaeda were in fact present in Benghazi and that they had a role in the overthrow of Gadhafi. However, they were and continue to be a minority within Libya.

Now for a little bit of history: When Tunisia erupted with protests, the time was ripe for the overthrow of their president. The people could no longer stand his corruption and he really had to go. Always there were on the sidelines groups associated with both Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists. The Enhada Party has its links with Muslim Brotherhood. They have been moderate in what they have done up until now. However, as always one can never know what lies ahead with any party leadership and for the time being the moderates are winning. Encouraged by Tunisia’s success, the next to arise was Egypt and they were successful in overthrowing Muburak. I still have nightmares over the consequences of this action because Muslim Brotherhood is now in control of Egypt, and the Salafists are just as strong. The Salafists remain a danger in the region because they are the ones who want to destroy the pyramids. This uprising was followed by a number of smaller uprisings from Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, Libya and Syria. The Syrian uprising continues to simmer.

I always considered the Libyan uprising to be different in nature from those other countries, including Syria. The Libyans had been under the thumb of Gadhafi for more than 40 years and during that time they had faced repression and oppression. The people were not allowed to form any political parties. Many of them, especially students, who did join a party, usually the Libyan Fighting group, were arrested, tortured and killed. Some were killed in a very public way so that the people were being taught a lesson. One such group were thrown into prison and they were killed as a group back in the 1990s. It is the relatives of this group who were the ones who began the protests.

The history begins with a lawyer of the group being taken for questioning, but he was released. The people formed in a group in the square to protest his arrest. The army fired upon them and killed one of their number. The next day they held a funeral, the soldiers inside the fort where the funeral procession passed fired upon them as the passed by, more people were killed. There were more funeral processions, only this time the people came armed with their own versions of weapons including molotov cocktails to throw at the soldiers inside the fort. At this stage the crowd was growing as more and more people were angry over the deaths of these people. The killing continued, until one man who had heard about what happened, who had always been against the radical stuff, ran from his unit shouting jihad, jihad. I was personal, and it was aimed purely at those who were killing his fellow citizens. This man used his car and a gas bottle, and then at the end of a funeral procession he headed for the gates of the fort, they were breached, and the rest is history. It was the beginning of a more open rebellion.

By this time the people in Benghazi had coordinated with people in Tripoli, Misrata, Zintan, and other places within Libya. The protests were becoming more numerous. Gadhafi brought in mercenaries and they fired at anything that moved. Women and children were being shot and killed in the streets. By the time that the UN stepped in, Gadhafi had started to employ his Air Force against the people in Benghazi. They were pleading for a no fly zone to be imposed.

A lot of the plotting by the people of Libya happened behind closed doors, and this was especially true in Tripoli where people had to be very careful. There were men and women who took enormous risks to bring about the end of the Gadhafi rule. Many of them died as a result of being tortured after they were captured, but many more made it until the end of the civil war. Parents lost their children when they were hit by not so random bullets of snipers’ guns. The people of Tripoli suffered just as much if not more than the people of Benghazi and Misrata.  At no time can one say that this had anythting to do with Egypt or the Muslim Brotherhood. It did not. This was very much a real people movement. Many had been waiting a long time to get rid of Gadhafi. They detested him, and they detested the Communism that he brought to the country. This explains why, once the civil war ended, the issue of sharia was raised. Libya was always a sharia country, but Gadhafi had strayed and brought in his own ideas such as his “Little Green Schoolbook”. What was intended was the throwing out of these Gadhafi ideas as Libya returned once more to Sharia. Also, the people had already voted for Sharia law, so nothing in fact changed in Libya. It was simply a move to remove the things that Gadhafi had imposed.

When the end of the civil war came, and Tripoli was freed, we saw the introduction of Belhaj, a member of the Islamic Fighting Group, the man who had been the subject of a rendition. He declared himself in charge of Tripoli. However, he did not retain his power for very long, and was sidelined. The NTC were always very careful to keep any Salafists out of the way. This is what set Libya apart from the rest.

Since the end of the civil war though, there has been a power vacuum, and the weakness pointed up the lack of security in the country. The militias that had formed refused to go home. Some did terrible things, and yes they sought retribution towards those who had caused them so much misery. The people who copped it most probably deserved what happened, even though the human rights groups would tend to disagree. However, I will go out on a limb here and state that if I was in that situation, and my family had been endangered, my daughters raped, as it happened in Misrata, then I would also want to seek revenge against those responsible. Yes, I believe that is what in fact happened and why it happened. I do not blame those who sought revenge over those who had been more than willing to be Gadhafi’s stooges during a reign of terror and during the civil war. At the same time I do not condone their actions.

However, the biggest difference between Libya and Egypt is the result of their respective elections. The people as a majority rejected both the parties associated with Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists. Both parties were in the minority. This is the opposite to the situation in Egypt where Muslim Brotherhood won the majority with the Salafists close behind.

As you can see from this somewhat potted history, there is no real way that one can claim any role for Muslim Brotherhood over what took place on September 11. There is simply no link at all between Libya and Muslim Brotherhood.

However, there is a link between Ansar al-Sharia and the leadership of Al Qaeda. Muslim Brotherhood is made up of Shia who are in the minority in Libya. Ansar al Sharia are Salafists, and they are linked to the Sunni. The Sufi and the Sanusi sects are also offshoots of Sunni, not Shia. This distinction is important because it explains why there is a link to Al Qaeda rather than Muslim Brotherhood. The aims of each is similar but they are simply not the same.

The Libyan government has given the most details on what happened and who was behind it. We know that it was a deliberate attack and that a c- grade movie was used as a pretext for a protest. It could be that Al Qaeda decided to wait in order to coordinate a wider protest. The stage was set in Libya when foreigners crossed the border into Libya from Mali and Algeria. Neither of these countries are near Benghazi and that means the operatives moved across Libya without being questioned. It does not mean that they were unseen. The use of Malia and Algeria for crossing actually suggests that the remaining Gadhafi family could have financed the operation (it is a thought that has crossed my mind – just speculation based upon the fact that these people crossed from Mali and Algeria).  These operatives trained members of Ansar al Sharia over a period of months to carry out the operation. They were being watched and yes the drones knew what they were doing.

One can speculate as to the reasons why this happened. There is the statements of AQAP who have more or less claimed responsibility. There seems to be a link to the Egyptian head of Al Qaeda, Zawahiri that points to the involvement of Al Qaeda. The stated purpose was the revenge killing for the death of Al Libi. Is this the truth?

I think that there was an additional reason. I think that the operation had another purpose, and that is to drive a wedge between the government at Tripoli and the Western powers. These militants had already attacked a British convoy, and there were several other attacks. This last attack was the most deadly of the attacks. It is not hard to imagine that the intention is to force the Western powers to leave Libya.

What I am left with is a gut feel that the truth has not been totally told. I do believe the Libyan government because it was a deliberate attack. However, with Libyan security being so vulnerable I cannot ignore other possibilities that are meant to destabilize the country and force it back into a civil war. The Gadhafi family living in Niger and Algeria have retained access to a vast fortune. What if it was Gadhafi money that had in fact paid for this operation?

The White House vs Libya

As you are aware, I have supported the Libyan government from the time they formed as rebels and a force against Moammar Gadhafi the tyrant. I had my reasons, including the Lockerbie bombing to believe that Gadhafi had to go. As I read up information I did learn that Gadhafi had been sponsoring terrorism in Africa whilst he pretended to the West that he was a changed man. I see that many believed the Gadhafi lie in that they have jumped to the conclusion that the world is worse off because he was defeated and is now dead. There are many who have lumped the former rebels with Al Qaeda. They would take any little clue and then smear the good and sincere individuals with claims that they are Al Qaeda. It was not true then, and it is not true now. I acknowledge what was always known, that there were elements of the movement that had links to Al Qaeda. Some of those who did not lose their lives and survived the torture at the hands of Gadhafi have learned by their errors and their group, the former Libyan Fighting Group are now the analysts who understand terrorism. They did in fact renounce terrorism and they do not support Al Qaeda. I continue to have some respect for these people and I recognize that they are not to blame for events in the past week.

However, I am here to state what I believe to be true, and that is the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was planned months in advance. The Spaghetti Western documentary was nothing more than an excuse, a cover for this planned covert action. I agree with the Libyan government and their analysts in London, that this was an Al Qaeda operation. In fact even AQAP agree with me, that this was a planned attack. Their reason is the death of Al-Libi but I think that there is another reason which is that they want to disrupt the fledgling partnership that Libya has with the USA, Great Britain and France in particular. The Libyan President has announced the arrest of 50 individuals in relation to the deaths of the 4 Americans and he has given far more detail than what we are getting out of the White House.

The White House Administration has its collective head in the sand. Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN (an utter disgrace to the US) has doubled down on the belief that this terrible movie was somehow the motivation for the attack. As a spokesperson for the White House Susan Rice claims that the whole thing was spontaneous. My question to Susan Rice: Since when do the Rage Boys take weapons of that nature to a protest? They do not take the kinds of weapons that were used in the consulate attack. Not even protesters last February 17 used those weapons when they stood protesting against Gadhafi, but the Gadhafi government used weapons against them!!

I have seen various reports that point to the fact that the White House was warned at least 72 hours before the attack took place that something was afoot. Yet the White House Administration did not respond and did not order the consulate in Benghazi and the Embassy in Cairo into lockdown. This is a very serious matter because it is this lack of heeding the warning that in fact shows the culpability of the Obama Administration in the death of Chris Stevens.

The movie was worse than B-grade and from the trailers that I have seen it is really stretching to claim that it really was about Mo the Ped. However, there is an anomoly and that is the fact that the actors were speaking about George but the voiceover was saying something else entirely. Who did the dubbing on this C- grade documentary? Another thing to consider is that in Egypt the documentary was aired whereas in the US it had been on Youtube. For this reason, I maintain my belief that this terrible documentary was used as a blood libel. Did the Eyptian TV dub the movie with inflammatory material? Did they add Arabic with inflammatory comments? Please keep in mind here that when Rage Boy came to prominence with the protests over the Danish cartoons, which in my view were inoffensive, one imam had added material that had not been amongst the original cartoons that were in fact quite offensive, thus the libel against the Danish cartoon was that of a blood libel.

This c- grade movie should not have been the cause of the riots that took place. It has been used by Al Qaeda as a motivation to cause mayhem. What were people thinking when they decided to create this movie?

What is of concern here is not so much the movie, but the fact that the motivation for the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi has been shifted from the truth to a lie that is being spread by the American and Australian media, that a low grade movie somehow was the reason for Rage Boy to come out and play. There might be some truth because I think that the imams in their mosques, especially the radical imams have jumped on this dreadful movie to give them the opportunity to cause mayhem throughout the world.

However, truth has a habit of coming to light and in this case the Libyans are telling the truth. Al Qaeda operatives crossed the border into Libya via both Mali and Algeria (how strange that both these countries have haboured members of the Gadhafi family). They then spent several months training with a group known as Ansar al Sharia from Derna. The leader of Ansar al Shariah had been busy attempting to recruit people from Benghazi through to Brega to join him.  This was all watched via US drones and the intelligence should have reached the White House.

The White House has ignored the other attacks upon consulates and consular staff in and around Benghazi. Nothing was done to increase the security for the US Ambassador and his staff. The White House was warned prior to the attack that an attack was imminent, but the White House Administration failed to warn its own consulates to be either on the alert or to go into lockdown. Compounding these failures is the fact that the US consulate building in Benghazi was not sufficiently secure.

Then there is the matter of security. I have no doubt about the sincerity of some members of the Februrary 17th movement. However, in their midst there had been some who were never to be trusted. Their names had already been mentioned as being behind some minor atrocities during the civil war. This begs the question about those who were detailed to guard the US Consulate and they really were not trustworthy. One thing did stick out and that is these guards ran off when the US consulate was attacked. They left their posts supposedly because they too were angry about this c- grade documentary. Did they ever see it?

The White House Administration had refused to provide proper security for its Middle East embassies, and now it reaps what it has sewn. There is even more suspicion on one side and it is all against the USA.

Yet, this does not cover the fact that the attack in Benghazi was not spontaneous. It was a well planned attack under the cover of a protest. When viewed in this way, you can see why I am asking questions about that dreadful documentary and the way it was used to suddenly inflame the passions of Rage Boy.

Sydney, Paris, Belgium, Yemen, Tunisia, Benghazi and Cairo

These places have something in common. There are probably more cities to be included in this list, but these will do for now. I will start with Cairo and Benghazi because this is where the riots turned bloody when the US Ambassador plus his companions were murdered. I have not learned anything new about what happened in Benghazi over and above recognizing that this was a co-ordinated Al Qaeda attack. Ansar al Islam is an affiliate group of Al Qaeda. The reason given for the attack is the death of al Libya who was a top Al Qaeda operative back in June. The US was warned that an attack was imminent but the US top bodies failed to warn the embassy staff that they should be on high alert. What I am left wondering right now is whether or not Al Qaeda meant to also attack the US Embassy in Cairo.

However, what the MSM is not highlighting is the attack against UN forces in the Sinai where sympathisers with Al Qaeda have been attacking the compound and they have killed personnel within that compound. When I have more assembled on this particular attack I will try to do a post. I simply do not know enough.

So what is there that is a common link to these other places? Riots, and violent riots at that. In Sydney the number was very low, because there were no more than about 300 who took to the streets of Sydney where they became violent as they reached a park. There were arrests. Some people were injured, including the police. More arrests are expected. There is more to tell about Sydney because there is a conference going on this weekend – yes, the conference is regarding the rise of the Caliphate.

In each and every case the riots and protests were concerned with a film that is nothing more than a Spaghetti Western. I have seen a snippet of this film and I can tell you that it is very badly made. The man whose name is linked to the film has previously spent time in prison for fraud. He is supposed to be an Egyptian Coptic Christian. He most certainly is Egyptian, but I am not sure about the rest of the information. Rumours had been flowing concerning this spaghetti western and those who backed it, including the claim that the producer was a Jew and he had Jews backing the film. It is not true. The snippet I saw had a voice dubbed over what the actors were actually saying and it is the dubbing that is to be considered offensive. It is the reason that these people have turned into RAGE BOY.

I think I can mount a good case for motivation and I think I can mount a good case to show that the whole thing was planned to the nth degree and that even the film is part of an Al Qaeda plot. This is because of the timing of events. The assassination of the US Ambassador to Libya was a well co-ordinated plan. The assassins used the cover of the protest for their action. It all smacks of being closely linked.

This does not explain the actions in Yemen, Tunisia, Paris or Sydney, other than the fact that there is a minority who continue to push for the world wide Caliphate, and this is what seems to strengthen my belief that the whole has been coordinated. It strengthens my belief that this spaghetti western is a blood libel, and that its very purpose was to create a diversion for these other actions.

I know this comes from CNN but the information is critical to understanding what took place

Believe it or not, I found one CNN report that has some information that is critical to understanding what happened… but it does not mention certain aspects of what took place!! This report confirms some, if not all of my own speculation: that this was an Al Qaeda operation.

First of all, it is critical to mention that the security in Libya had been really bad since the end of the civil war. Almost nothing had been done to control the Salafist elements tied to Al Qaeda. Even so, American drones are being used to track the activities of one particular group that have their quarters somewhere near Benghazi (as in Derna). These elements from Derna have always been suspect and have long been mentioned as people who cannot be trusted.

Second, these people are not the same as the Islamic Fighting Group. The Libyan Belhaj who was the subject of rendition had been a leader of the Islamic Fighting Group and I am away that he had stated that he had renounced  Al Qaeda and its aims. For this reason I accept the word of the person interviewed in the report, for the simple reason that he gives an analysis of the people involved in the assault on the American Ambassador, Chris Stevens.

Third, is the information regarding the links to Zawahiri and the death of Al Libi in June. The attacks on the British consulate and a previous attack on the British embassy in Benghazi were the work of the same group that has links with Al Qaeda. According to this report, the leader of that group that is in Derna is a man with links to Zawahiri. On top of that it seems that there were intelligence reports on their operation of training camps that stretched from Derna through to Brega.

I have been trying to seek information about Libya from time to time, and at the time of their elections I noted that there was an attack that was probably meant to frighten people away from voting. The attackers were not successful at the time and the people came out to vote. The Salafists did very poorly in those elections, and the Muslim Brotherhood party also did very poorly. I am of the opinion that the fact that they failed in their aims to gain control of Libya via the elections could be the reason that they have stepped up their operations.

Fourth, the US government should not have allowed Libyans to be their Embassy security detail. In this instance, due to the publicity given to a documentary of dubious origin, the people who were supposed to be the security walked away and helped the insurgents to storm the embassy because they were angry over the content of that bad documentary.

All things considered, I remain of the opinion that the documentary itself was meant to be a blood libel. It was set up to implicate the Egyptian Copt community, with the intention of inflaming Muslim emotions to the point where riots were meant to break out and ….. I am guessing about how far it was intended to go. The other proofs that it was blood libel are based upon the rumours that the producer was a Jew with Jews backing the project, plus of course the dubbing with a script that was quite scandalous. Then of course there is the involvement of Terry Jones – what an idiot, and no I do not support what he has been doing.

There is a lot of information to digest regarding everything that took place. There is room for a lot of speculation. It is not hard to imagine that one of the aims of what took place is to cause a breech between the western nations that helped Libya free herself from Gadhafi and the Libyan government. I actually suspect that these Al Qaeda types have another plan where they intend to seize control of the government but only after they have loosed those ties between the Libyan government and the West.

My post about blood-libel is speculative but what do the Syrians think?

It was MyPetJawa who led me to have a look at this site. Yes, it is actually Al Jazeera where this story is being aired.

The Syrians are confused, because they want to know why there is so much outrage over a poorly produced film when 33,000 have been murdered by the Assad regime. Their take happens to be that the murder of these men, women and children by Assad is more offensive to Allah than a poorly produced film.

You want to know something? These people are correct. If you read the comments and the tweets related to the subject you will see that the majority think the same thing.

The documentary movie is very poorly made. The words are dubbed over what the actors and actresses in the moving are saying… and this is why I am convinced that it is blood libel.

However, it seems that Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has been taken in, and he has up a post about how the Egyptian behind the movie looks like going back to jail. The thing is that when you read the man’s rap sheet I am surprised that he is not already in jail!!  Spencer states that the man is a Coptic Christian. If that is true, then there is no blood libel, but only if Robert Spencer is correct.

This is where it gets messy and we need to know the truth. I said on the other post or at least in comments that there were rumours regarding the producer with claims that he was a Jew and that he had backing from other Jews. I also heard that Coptic Christians were involved. Then there is the involvement of Terry Jones.

What if someone used the man’s name deliberately in order to set him and Coptic Christians up?

What I am saying is that the whole thing sounds very much like a set up. It simply does not ring true in some respects. The portion of the documentary that I saw (a very small portion) showed me something that reminded me of the worst of the Spaghetti Westerns. Yes, it really was that bad.

My questions remain. Did a Coptic Christian actually produce that rubbish? If not, then what is the likelihood that someone was pretending to be a Coptic Christian or a Jew with the intention of blame being placed upon them for allowing Rage Boy to be unleashed?

UPDATE: Ann Althouse has a post that is worth a look. It also supports the idea that the attack was planned. There is a twist and I think it makes perfect sense. I am sticking with the idea that this was a planned attack by Al Qaeda and there is more evidence to support this than all the denials in China (make that CNN and that dumb Amanpour woman). Here is an aspect that I had not thought about but it makes sense: This was a revenge attack because of a drone strike that took out an Al Qaeda operative who went by the name Al-libi meaning the Libyan. Does that make sense now?

UPDATE: Something brought to my attention, which I feel needs full verfication, but sickens me, is that Chris Stevens was possibly raped. There is a lot of confusion about what happened. I had seen reports stating that he was taken to the hospital, but where I saw what seems to be verification of what really took place shows a very different story, and it is very sick. This kind of behaviour is the work of Salafists.

UPDATE: It could be that CNN refuses to tell the whole truth, yet I found one report that is quite lengthy and I might add gives a lot of decent analysis. I want to point out that some of the opinion in the report comes from people who were associated with the Libyan Fighting Group who were considered to be linked to Al Qaeda in the past. The comments need careful study because the person making the comments is someone who knows the subject better than others.

Specifically, what this report points out is that the attack coincided with a statement from Al-Zawahiri and that it is indeed a revenge attack because of the death of Al Libi which was the work of a drone attack.

What is more, the report contains some extra detail about how the attack was timed with the protests and that the attack came in waves. The officials in the embassy were removed to what was supposed to be a secure location. That location was also attacked.

The name of the Salafist group is identified. What is more, this is the same group that attacked prior to the election. It is also the group that attacked the British Embassy in Benghazi.

The Libyan government does not have the ability to protect foreign embassy personnel, thus all are vulnerable anywhere outside of Tripoli. What is more the people behind the attack were keeping tabs on the US officials. They must have known that one of them was there to search for the very weapons that were used in the attack.

UPDATE: The truth about the attack is filtering out of Libya. The interim President has gone up in my estimation because he is not holding back on the truth. Yes, it is true that he talked about this being a foreign plot…. and it was a foreign plot… but Libya is now saying that 50 individuals have been arrested over the deaths of the 4 Americans. This was an Al Qaeda plot. I am not sure if the Egyptian Zawahiri was the originator and for all I know al Libi could have been the one who originated the plot. Apparently there were some foreigners who slipped into Libya via the borders of Mali and Algeria. Now you must understand that Benghazi itself is a long way from those borders. I can understand if there is mention of this being a pro-Gadhafi plot because the remaining Gadhafi family are in Algeria and there is a link between the Gadhafi family and Mali. It would not surprise me if we were to learn that Gadhafi money paid for the weapons that were used to carry out the attack. However, I add to this that the AQAP (Yemen based) knew of the plot.

On top of that there is the intelligence that the leader of the local group Ansar al Sharia had been busy recruiting people over the past few months. This suggests to me that they were planning something a lot bigger. I am not convinced that Chris Stevens was the target of the attack, but I do feel that perhaps one of the other men who died was the target. I suspect that one of the two ex-Navy SEALs was the target because he was there on a secret mission to find those weapons. The activities of Ansar al Sharia were known. It was not their first attack upon foreign diplomats. It always had the hallmarks of Al Qaeda.

A new blood libel?

I am putting this question out there, because of information that I have seen regarding the film that caused the protest that has ended in the death of the US Ambassador to Libya. I am by no means certain that this is a blood libel but I am smelling a very big set-up meaning that this could have been an Al Qaeda plot. Here are my reasons for thinking that way:

1. “Pastor” Terry Jones, is the type of person who is ripe to be used by Al Qaeda as a means to cause a situation that could blow up into a full blown war. This probably sounds like a very harsh assessment of Jones, but please hear me out. Jones has been getting his 15 minutes of fame by doing things like burning a Koran. This has the fundamentalist Salafist Muslims very angry. I have no doubt that they would be looking for the means of a “pay-back”.  Like a fool, Jones associated himself with the making of this documentary.

2. The film producer is Egyptian. The question that needs to be asked is whether or not the man is a Coptic Christian Egyptian or is in fact a Muslim. The first information that I heard about the documentary happened to be that it was the work of Coptic Christians in the USA. However, wait there is more, I then heard that the producer was a Jew and that he got his funding from other Jews, but this has been denied.

3. This brings me to the next point which is why I am beginning to think that this was a blood libel. The point here is that it has been rumoured that the producer is a Jew and that he got funding from Jews in the USA for his documentary.

Can you see the set-up that is going on here? First the documentary is made in the USA which immediately implicates the USA for its production. Second, it is claimed to be the work of Coptic Christian Egyptians thus the Copts are maligned yet again. Third, is the involvement of Terry Jones of Florida, thus further implicating Christian Americans in the production of the documentary. Fourth, there is the implication that in fact the film producer is a Jew, which in turn implicates the Jews in what is seen to be a blasphemous movie.

One source that I have read pointed out that the documentary looks like it has been dubbed. The “actors” are saying something entirely different from what is being stated by the voice over. The actors appeared to be mouthing something like “George” and instead the people viewing the documentary are hearing “the prophet Mohammed” etc. etc. This is the kind of information that has me thinking that this was a well planned set up that was meant to be a blood libel against both the Coptic Christians and Jews. It is an attempt to kill two birds with the one stone.

Who then could be behind this documentary? I am going out on a very big limb to state that I actually think that Al Qaeda is behind the documentary. I have my reasons for thinking this is the case:

1. The release date and the protest in Cairo and in Benghazi coincides with a very important date, September 11, which is the anniversary of the declaration of war by Al Qaeda against America as the twin towers of the World Trade Centre were brought down. I do not think that this was merely coincidental. I think it was deliberate.

2. My second reason is based upon the fact that the protesters, especially in Benghazi are Salafists, and these are the group that are aligned to Al Qaeda. The leaders of Libya have distanced themselves from the Salafists, and I must add here that the people of Libya also distanced themselves when they voted to not give them a representative voice in the determination of their move towards self-government after the reign of the dictator Moammar Gadhafi. I will also point out that the people who killed Gadhafi and his son were also Salafists.

I base my second point here on information that I saw from a third party in Benghazi at the time that the whole shebang erupted last year. The people of Benghazi got involved at the point when those who were protesting were being mowed down by Gadhafi’s goons. The protestors were being killed during their funeral processions, and as more were killed, more people joined in. Even the man who breached the wall of the fort by blowing up his car that he was driving, was motivated less by jihad as he was motivated against those who were killing fellow citizens (it was his private jihad because he had rejected the other kind of jihad). That source had shown pictures of elderly people in Benghazi and its surrounds who were extremely grateful that NATO enforced the No Fly Zone. They were not out to hurt anybody at all, and in fact even the pilots who crash landed had nothing to worry about because the people who came to rescue them were very thankful for what they were doing.  HOWEVER, even though the majority were like that, there remained a sub-group who were Salafists, and they had other ideas.

One of the reasons that the civil war in Libya lasted so many months was the fact that there was this disparity between the way that people think, and there was a disparity in the purpose for the fighting. In some ways the people were forced to accept the Salafists. The outcome was he death of General Yousef (although I actually think that he was going to end up being killed as a spy anyway), since it appeared that he had been summarily executed. The Salafists were the ones who were videoing their own hideous crimes. There had always been noises that there were some atrocities, and you can be sure that those committing those crimes were Al Qaeda link. What I do not know is whether or not Qatar was involved with the Salafists, and the reason that I bring this up is that Qatar, despite backing the rebels, was a loser when the people rejected the Salafist party during the elections.  They also rejected the Muslim Brotherhood Party which was called something like Peace and Justice. This is just a thought about possible motivation and where it might have originated.

After Gadhafi had been captured, and I have to add here that the leadership moved themselves to Tripoli, the Salafists became bold in Benghazi and actually flew the Al Qaeda flag from the Court House. I cannot say for certain that the leadership ever approved of such a thing. Somehow I doubt that they did approve of this action.

If as I am thinking, Al Qaeda was involved in the production of the documentary, then it is possible that Al Qaeda planned this to the point that the US embassy in either Cairo or Benghazi would be invaded. The Salafists in Egypt did in fact breach the embassy in Cairo. From what I have read, the Libyan security detail had moved Stephens and his staff out of the Embassy but someone pointed out where they had been taken. The crowd used a hand-grenade and other weapons during the attack. Ambassador Stephens and his staff were overcome by smoke during the attack… and the rest is history.

This whole action has been performed by what I call very hardcore people, and that is why I suspect to the point of claiming that those who protested at the embassy were Salafists and that they are associated via their ideological bent to Al Qaeda. I am almost ready to believe that the attack was so well planned that it was an Al Qaeda operation that was disguised as a protest using that blood libel documentary as the pretext.

This action is not a declaration of war by Libya as some people such as Pamela Geller have been claiming. I am prepared to make this bold statement because the man who is the interim President in Libya has already stepped forward to make a proper apology for what has taken place. I really do believe in the sincerity of the people who have formed government in Libya. They are not to blame for what took place. I do, however, blame the members of the security detail who failed to protect the American Ambassador and his staff.

Why does Hot Air think that this is a new revelation?

I do not get it, something that I have known for the past 4 years is a new revelation to the people at Hot Air. This is a revelation involving the Class Action Law suit against Citibank involving Obama. The clients in that law suit got virtually nothing but the lawyers got more than $1,000,000. Ultimately this story is related to the whole sub-prime lending scandal and it is the evidence that Obama was behind the collapse in 2008.

If you do not know the story then I will have to give just a synopsis of the background. The whole story goes back to the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. It was under Carter when the rules for lending began to change. Next came the demands that banks were to be forced to give loans to people who could not meet the repayments. The crisis in the mortgage industry began to build at this particular stage until it reach global financial crisis proportions in 2008. I am leaving out a lot of detail in this synopsis. One thing that I have known for the past 4 years was that Obama actually went to D.C. to push through the legislation that led to banks being forced to make these loans under penalty of law if they did not comply.

The banking regulations in the USA became a joke in the 1990s because that is when the sub-prime mortgage market really took off. This history of this blight sheets down to a few people, and all of them are well known such as Franklin Reynes, and of course one leading contender for notoriety over this subject has to be Barack Obama. He had a leading role in the whole fiasco. Franklin Reynes and his cronies ripped off the money but Obama helped to create the whole scenario.

I have to add here, that Australia followed the same path when the financial institutions began lending to low income families to purchase homes that they could not afford. Yes, I have been at the other end of a bank’s discrimination when we wanted to purchase a second-hand car and we were told we could not have a loan for a very small amount of money because we did not own our home at the time. So yes, I do know what that feels like, but I also know that there are finance companies that charge a very high interest rate to lend to people in a similar situation (my husband had a steady job at the time).

The law suit was based upon “racial discrimination” but the fact is that such was not true, because the criteria for lending money had not been about race, but affordability. The banks have to assess each loan application based upon what the client can or cannot afford to pay.  That has nothing to do with race.

As a matter of fact, I have faced discrimination from one bank based upon my gender. In that instance, I already had a credit card and I wanted to change from one institution to the other, but that other institution refused my application based upon the fact that I was a married woman “and I might get divorced and then how would I pay back the credit card” or words to that effect. Yes that really did happen to me around 1988. I am not joking at all. That is exactly what I was told and I did hit the roof over it, since there continues to be a lot of this kind of discrimination. It is the real thing… but I have not attempted to sue anyone over such remarks. (as a matter of fact that institution no longer exist).

However, back to this story that has found its way into the Daily Caller and Hot Air, because what has surprised me is that so few had even known about the Obama connection to the whole sub prime lending fiasco, even though I knew about it 4 years ago!!