Category Archives: arms deals

In a nutshell

Trey Gowdy has been consistent with his questions relating to Benghazi and unlike some others, he has managed to distill the issues in a meaningful way. Why does it matter? This is a question that only a progressive liberal would ask, yet Trevor Gowdy provides a thought provoking response. I am not talking about the cracks regarding the fact that the NYT and other LSM have no idea about how to spell Benghazi, but I am talking about the way in which he has distilled the reason why this is so important.

In Gowdy’s own words, you do not leave people flapping in the breeze after sending them into a dangerous situation. You make an effort to get them out again. This, in a nutshell is one of the things that was so very wrong during the Al Qaeda attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.

However, that fact is only a portion of the full story. There are many unanswered questions. Hillary Clinton has been less than honest in her answers. The “investigation” conducted by Thomas Pickering was a sham. At least one of the State Department employees removed from his/her position had nothing at all to do with the security issues relating to Benghazi and he has been unfairly punished. The question is why was he removed?

From the earliest days after the attack, we knew that the security officers who were with Ambassador Stevens were there to try and track weapons that were floating about the area. In those early days there was talk about an AQ training camp and that people were aware of this training camp. The weapons issue is in my opinion a bit of the iffy side and the reason for my expression of “iffiness” is due to the fact that Gadhafi had a large cache of weapons that included the rocket launchers etc. My question here is whether or not those weapons had already been rounded up so that they could not end up in the wrong hands.

My next issue relating to the weapons is who did the supplying when Qatar was doing the buying. To refresh your memories in relation to the weapons, oil money was used to pay Qatar for shipments of weapons. These were shipments that ended up being used in Misrata. There must have been other weapons that were also shipped in because there was no shortage of the supply of rocket launchers and the like as that war had dragged on. However, what also needs to be pointed out that the French and the British also supplied weapons. The French dropped weapons into the mountains in the region that was closest to and outside of Tripoli. The group who received those weapons were not Al Qaeda affiliated but they were Bedouin, and they belonged to a minority group inside of Libya. (This group had a particular beef against Gadhafi because he had banned them from using their own language). One commander of this group had a book where he noted the serial numbers of the weapons and who they were issued to before they set out on what was a successful campaign that led to the downfall of Tripoli.  What I do not know is whether or not those weapons were collected and returned to the French, as agreed.

Another issue to keep in mind is that Gadhafi also armed those who were loyal to him, and this means that there was a separate group that also have weapons. Amongst those Gadhafi loyalists are the Touareg, and it is this group that had been active in Mali. Please keep this in mind, because it means that it was Gadhafi money that had been used to launch the attack on the government in Mali. It is also a possibility that the Touareg had helped themselves to some of the weapons caches within Libya. There was ample evidence immediately after the end of the civil war in Libya that weapons were missing from some of these weapons caches. The question remains who took them? The members of LIFG were too busy fighting to have had the time to have taken the weapons and sent them across the border hundreds of miles away from where they were fighting. The question I think remains open.

Despite my above comments, I accept that there is also ample evidence of weapons remaining in the wrong hands in Benghazi after the war ended. The real problem was Ansar al-Shariah who were acting as though they had the right to dictate to the population of Benghazi with regard to how they conducted themselves. Some of these individuals were responsible for the flag of AQ flying over the ministry of justice building, yet the people of Benghazi did not welcome them.

Looking back at the timeline of events does not reveal much about the identity of those involved in the actual conflict. The February 17th brigade seems to have been made up of a disparate group – those who were “good” and those who were Islamists and had other motivations. If you did not follow the conflict you would not be aware that a lot of the young men were getting themselves wounded and killed because they had absolutely no experience with warfare. If they were shot at then they would run away. In those early days the “rebels” would advance, gain a small victory, and then when Gadhafi’s loyalists hit back they would run away. Eventually they were taught how to deal with the situation. This group of young men I would classify as the “good”. They were fighting for their lives and not a cause. Ansar al-Sharia joined with them but they were also the ones that seem to have committed most of the war crimes that were done by the rebels.

A big risk was taken when this particular group i.e. Ansar al-Sharia was supplied with weapons such as the rocket launchers. From what I understand, Ansar al-Sharia is not the same organization as LIFG but there can be some intermingling because LIFG had the political motivation to be rid of Gadhafi. That leaves open the question as to whether or not members of LIFG took part in the AQ attack on the US consulate.   It does appear that it was Qatar who was doing the funneling of weapons that were supplied by the USA, Great Britain and France in particular.

Whilst the civil war in Libya was winding down, the civil war in Syria was winding up. Certainly in the early days of the conflict the rebels had been a mixture of Islamists and others opposed to the Assad regime.  Turkey was dragged into that conflict and remains on the periphery because Syrians fled across the borders and they remain in the refugee camps on the border between Syria and Turkey.  It must be kept in mind though, that with the Libyan conflict, Nigeria, Algeria and Tunisia were also dragged into the conflict in the same way. There was always the opportunity for the weapons held by the Gadhafi regime to end up across the border. It really is that messy.

There are many questions that need answers including:

1. Did Obama secretly agree to supply weapons to the Libyan rebels? Did Libya pay for the weapons via Qatar?

2. Did Obama make a secret agreement with Turkey to supply the Syrian rebels with weapons?

3. At any stage did Obama consider the risk of these weapons ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda sympathisers?

4. What was the real reason for Ambassador Stevens to be in Benghazi? I have heard several versions including the tracking of weapons, and the latest version was the talk of making the consulate a permanent feature.

5. Why did the Department of State ignore the requests for greater security?

6. Why did Obama persist in the lie about a C grade documentary that had nothing to do with the AQ attack on the consulate? In other words, what were the ulterior motives for the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi? How much bigger is the cover-up?

I note here that I have seen some interesting speculation regarding the truth about the use of the c-grade documentary, and yes that speculation revolves around the issue of Muslim supremacy and the fact that Muslims want to shut down our ability to state the truth about Islam.

Fast and Furious – did you know about the July 4 testimony?

American Thinker has the story on this one, and it is very, very interesting. Darrell Issa now has very direct evidence that the DOJ has been involved in an attempt to cover-up for those involved in the scandal. The head of BATF, Melman, testified on July 4. This is despite the efforts of the DOJ to stonewall any testimony, and despite the DOJ attempting to stifle any attempt to get hold of a variety of documents associated with the scandal.

This is huge because the testimony leads very much to the conclusion that Eric Holder lied to those investigating the matter. Since there is mounting evidence that Eric Holder lied, it could also lead to none other than the pResident in the White House having had the last word on what was taking place… and why it was taking place.

Melman chose to come forward to the committee and give his testimony. There had been a little bit of shennanigans with Patrick Leahy attempting to roll Issa and other committee members and get them to clear some Østupid appointments. It looks like Patrick Leahy and the DOJ have been foiled because there was a little known clause that allows for an official to step forward to testify using his own lawyer, rather than the department lawyer. This is what Melman did in order to get his testimony moving. The department had been deliberately preventing him from testifying about what he knew.

Please take the time to read the article at the American Thinker. This scandal could be the one that has legs, and it really looks like the fingers will continue to point in one direction. Someone better check his diapers……….

Italy considers helping the National Transitional Council of Libya

Italy is one of many players involved in the Libyan crisis. At first Italy was reluctant as far as enforcement of the no-fly zone is concerned, however Italy allowed bases to be used by the NATO alliance.  When the action began Italy began to beg off just a little bit, even expressed regrets about the use of bases, that is until the deputy Libyan Foreign Minister (now Foreign Minister after Moussa Khoussa defected) paid a visit to Greece, Italy and a few other nations. It seems that the visit did not go down very well, because there has been a monumental shift in alliance from Italy.

The first shift came when Italy decided to follow the French and Qatar lead and recognize the National Transitional Council of Libya as the legitimate government. It has been the first tentative step. After that first tentative step Italy is now prepared to help the NTCL to sell its oil, as well as provide some military equipment such as the much needed night vision equipment, radar and equipment to block communications.

Please read the whole article on the matter .

Libya has descended into the battle to win the propaganda war

Yesterday I read about a fire in the oil fields. Daffy Duck claims that British fighter jets were responsible (sure Daffy!!) but NATO have denied the charges. This morning I read that once again NATO has fired upon rebels on the road and that 13 have died (unlucky number) and again this appears to be a bit suspicious. Did NATO fire thinking that the convoy was Daffy goons? Or did Daffy manage to get something up into the air? Keep in mind that there have been some trainer aircraft that had not been bombed to bits… you just never know until it is straightened out. However, it is good propaganda for Daffy Duck in the meantime.

At the same time Moussa Khoussa has been interviewed by the Scottish police regarding what he might know about Lockerbie. That is not so remarkable to me, because Khoussa was in a position where he might have had a role but Khoussa was the one that turned over the two people accused of the bombing to the Brits in the first place!! However, what is more interesting is that Daffy’s sons have weighed in on the matter claiming that Khoussa knows nothing. It seems that the former justice minister was probably telling the truth – that Daffy Duck ordered the bombing to take place. Stay tuned on this one, there is more to be revealed.

However it is this story regarding Misrata that needs to be spread so that people start realising the truth of what is happening inside of Libya – that Daffy and his goons are deliberately targetting civilians with the aim of killing them.  To this I add that the snipers are paid by Gadhaffi to kill everyone. They are not Libyans but they are paid mercenaries from Chad and Mali.

I have heard rumors that the rebels are allegedly supplying Hamas with weapons. I am taking those rumours with a grain of salt until the facts are substantiated. I am not saying that it is impossible, I am just saying look for the source of the rumour. If it is claimed that they are taking the weapons via either Chad or Mali, then I would be thinking that it is Daffy Duck who is doing the supplying and that the blame is being placed upon the wrong people. It is a very big “IF”.   Also, I need to verify if the mustard gas cache was in fact found or not. Again, I am not prepared to accept any rumour at this point of time.

One reason that I have for being cautious is that there have been large stashes of weapons found in Benghazi, and the international community is aware of the find  –  the National Council has had people on the ground looking at the warehouses full of landmines. It has also been revealed that the Daffy Goons placed landmines on the road outside of Adjabiya (sp) which were there to kill innocent people.  The warehouses of landmines that have been found have been turned over to the appropriate authorities.

Another reason for being cautious about those rumours is that the rebels have been using the weapons that they have found. Why then, would the supply the weapons that they desperately need to Hamas? I am talking about missiles and the like here.  I do not recall seeing any reports about finding the mustard gas… so until there is some confirmation from other sources, I remain sceptical regarding any supply to Hamas.

This is all about controlling the propaganda. Daffy has attempted to use human shields to protect himself. He is using dirty tactics against civilians, using them as human shields in Misrata whilst sytematically murdering the population there, and NATO with its rules of engagement is not fighting back. He has also stolen people and bodies from hospital morgues and taken them to bomb sites claiming that they were victims of NATO bombing.

However, there is one bright spark in this story – the journalists, having faced some horrendous situations at the hands of Daffy, are not always believing his side of the story. This is a clear turnaround from 1986. I remain hopeful that the press will continue to be sceptical and that they will tell the truth, and not just the propaganda.

ICC says that Daffy Duck planned killing of civilians

I just came across this article this morning and it is in reality a vindication of my own position with regard to Libya (and only Libya). I have always stated that I started to watch Libya before the outbreak of the protests. It was clear to me, as I saw other snippets of information, that Daffy Duck planned the assault on unarmed civilians. This is why I remain in favour of the no-fly zone, because it is unacceptable behaviour.

Whilst there have been violence against protesters in those other countries, it has been more along the lines of a response to a situation where the flies and mosquitoes will not leave a person alone. Libya on the other hand was a very cold-blooded decision.

Here is a snippet from the article:

ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said the plan, which the Gaddafi government began developing in January, authorised the use of tear gas and, if necessary, killings.

His comments mark the first time since Libya was referred to The Hague-based institution in February that a senior international legal official has said evidence exists the Gaddafi government planned to kill its own people.

Western political leaders have previously alluded to this.

“We have evidence that after the Tunisia and Egypt conflicts in January, people in the regime were planning how to control demonstrations inside Libya,” he said.

“They were hiding that from people outside and they were planning how to manage the crowds… the evidence we have is that the shooting of civilians was a pre-determined plan.

and here is another snippet from the same article:

“The fact is that when we warned different people, including Moussa Koussa, that the troops were committing crimes, if someone cannot control them, defecting is a valid option and that is what Moussa Koussa did. We will see what responsibility he had,” he said.

“We would like to see what Moussa Koussa knows. But the fact that he defected is a factor we will consider seriously.”

ICC investigators say at least 565 unarmed civilians were killed in Libya between February 15 and February 28.

Daffy Duck and his sons, as well as other remaining members of the regime are under investigation for crimes committed against civilians.  I also draw your attention to the high number of civilians that have been killed up until the implementation of the no-fly zone. This number has increased since then, with hundreds being murdered in Misrata.

Britain had supplied arms to Daffy Duck

In a new report, just released, it has been revealed that over the last three years Great Britain had supplied tear gas and shotguns to Libya, machine guns and sniper rifles to Bahrain and military technology to Yemen.

It seems that successive governments in the UK ignored the risks involved in supplying arms to these tyrannical regimes in the Middle East. They ignored the risk of the possibility that these regimes would use such arms against their own people. 

It should have been obvious that the supply of arms to those nations carried great risks, yet it seems that the desire for arms sales actually outweighed the impending risks. In my view, the supply of arms to these tyrannical regimes was a very bad thing, and that is especially how I feel about the supply of arms to the Gadhaffi regime. It was always bound to be a very bad thing.

To give you an idea of the gravity of those arms sales, here is a snippet from the report that has been tabled:

In 2009, licences were approved to sell combat shotguns, military cargo vehicles and communications equipment to Libya.

A year later, ministers sanctioned the sale of infrared and thermal imaging cameras, tear gas and crowd control ammunition.

Licences to sell assault rifles and aircraft cannons to Bahrain were approved in 2009, and clearance for the sale of smoke grenades, submachine guns and sniper rifles granted the following year.

Defence firms also were given the go-ahead to sell electronic warfare equipment and machine guns to Egypt, ammunition to Tunisia and body armour, night-vision goggles and military camera components to Yemen.

Read more:

In each of these countries those weapons have been used against civilians. The excuse being used by Daffy Duck that he is fighting street thugs and Al Qaeda is a joke.  Sadly there are many people who have believed this story, and who really think that all of the rebels are members of Al Qaeda when this is very far from the truth.
When the protests first began, and Daffy started his suppression, he had already hired mercenaries from neighbouring African nations. He uses these mercenaries as snipers in Tripoli, Misrata, Zawiyah and other cities around Libya. The snipers have been killing and wounding anyone who steps onto the street, including children. In Misrata for example 3 children and their mother were killed in a car when the car was hit by sniper fire. Also in Misrata, the snipers are aiming at the entrance of the makeshift hospital so that no one can enter or leave the premises. The wounded are being left in the streets to die because of the sniper fire.  This is what Daffy Duck is doing with those weapons that were sold to him by the UK.