Libya: The Islamization of Universities

Gatestone Institute, by Anna Mahjar-Barducci, May 14, 2014:

The new prime minister of Libya, Ahmed Maiteeg, is supported not only by the Muslim Brotherhood, but also by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. Department of State.

Islamist militias are now dictating their agenda to the academic authorities in Libya.

Under the monarchy and the former Gaddafi regime, university courses were attended jointly by male and female students. Now, however, things are changing, as the “new Libya” moves backwards.

Recently, the academic authorities of the University of Omar al-Mokhtar, in Derna, a terrorist stronghold in eastern Libya, signed an agreement with a local Islamist militia aimed at the construction of a wall meant to segregate male from female students within the campus. The agreement also calls for the introduction of a strict dress code for female students, including the loose abaya over-garment and the hijab, covering the head and chest.

 

A section of the gender-segregation wall being built at the University of Omar al-Mokhtar, in Derna, Libya.

Building the wall at the University comes after two years of pressure by Islamist militias in the city of Derna: extremists denounced the University, weapons were introduced inside the campus and death threats were made to professors and students. Many professors have consequently, left Derna and are looking for jobs in Benghazi or Tripoli.

The Islamist Abu Saleem Brigade eventually offered the university administration a deal: the Islamist group would provide security on campus in exchange for the introduction of an “Islamic” dress code for female students and the construction of a wall to separate women from men. To stop the harassment, the university’s president, as well as Derna’s local council, accepted this proposal.

In 2013, the highest Islamic authority in Libya, Grand Mufti Sheikh Sadik Al-Ghariani, himself launched a call for the separation of sexes in all workplaces, classrooms and government offices.

In a communiqué to the Libya’s parliament, the government and to the leaders of different militias, the Grand Mufti asked for quick measures aimed at “moralizing” public life, saying that he received complaints about “the deterioration of morals and the widespread phenomena of free mixing between sexes, with no restrictions or regulations, in all state institutions.” In the communiqué, he stated that the mixing of sexes is “immoral.”

The Grand Mufti is evidently trying to impose a strict interpretation of Islamic law on the country and to make radical Islam the mainstream Islam in Libya. The Islamist groups clearly share his views and seem to feel supported by the Grand Mufti in the Islamization of the education system.

The new prime minister of Libya, Ahmed Maiteeg, whose support from Islamic extremists launched him to power, will doubtlessly not stop them from trying to achieve their goal.

In an interview with the Saudi-owned channel, Al-Arabiya, Libyan writer Mohammed El-Houni said that Maiteeg is supported not only by the Muslim Brotherhood, but also by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, listed as Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. Department of State.

In the meantime, other Universities in Libya are also being Islamized. The Libyan Herald reports that gender segregation and strict dress codes are to be implemented at Sirte University, halfway between Tripoli and Benghazi. The Islamist movements seem to understand that the education system should be the first institution to be changed to shape a future Libyan Islamist society.

Why Now? U.S. Nabs Top Al-Qaeda Suspect Known for Years

USS San AntonioBY CLARE LOPEZ:

This past weekend, U.S. Delta forces converged on a man parking his car in broad daylight in the middle of Tripoli, Libya and nabbed a senior al-Qaeda operative who went by the nom du guerre Abu Anas al-Libi. Al-Libi was wanted by the United States for his role in the 1998 East Africa Embassy bombings.

He is alleged to have conducted pre-attack casing and surveillance of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya prior to the August 7, 1998 suicide truck bombing there that killed more than 200 people and injured another 5,000. It is likely that al-Libi will be brought to New York City, where he is under indictment, to stand trial.

Al-Libi’s involvement with Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’eda (AQ) goes back much further than 1998, however, and his command position within the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group probably brought him into contact with former U.S. Liaison to the Libyan Opposition Christopher Stevens during the 2011 Libyan revolution.

Why al-Libi hadn’t been put away much earlier by either the U.S. or our British allies takes this story deep into international intrigue and a long history of Western intelligence associations with known al-Qa’eda jihadis.

******************

The August 2012 Library of Congress study, “Al-Qaeda in Libya: A Profile,” suggests that al-Libi’s role in Libya was coordination between Ayman al-Zawahiri and AQ Central and the Libyan militias.

By the time that U.S. career diplomat Christopher Stevens was named official U.S. Liaison to the Libyan rebels in mid-March 2011, AQ-LIFG fighters like al-Libi, Ben Qumu and Belhadj were leading the revolution against Qaddafi. Stevens’ job was to coordinate U.S. diplomatic, intelligence, logistical, military and weapons support to al-Qaeda jihadis such as these. The pending NYC Federal District Court indictment against al-Libi for the 1998 Nairobi Embassy bombing would just have to wait.

And wait it did … until a random day in early October 2013, when the U.S. government suddenly decided that it needed, urgently, to snatch an unsuspecting al-Libi off the street in Tripoli, where he had been living since the end of the Libyan revolution with his wife and four children.

Soon, Secretary of State Kerry was crowing about how terrorists “can run but they can’t hide” – but the thing was, al-Libi hadn’t been running or hiding for a long time. The U.S. knew perfectly well where he was for at least the prior two years — and didn’t seem to care.

Just to recap: ​

  • Al-Libi lived openly in the UK from 1995-2000, with the permission of the British government and no extradition request from the U.S., which knew he was there.
  • Al-Libi may have been in CIA custody from 2002 until an unknown date.
  • Al-Libi returned to live in Tripoli, Libya in December 2010, with his home address published by the UN Al Qaeda Sanctions Committee.
  • Al-Libi was likely a close working partner of Christopher Stevens, the U.S. Liaison to the Libyan al-Qaeda rebels in 2011.
  • Al-Libi continued to live at the published address of his Tripoli home from 2011-2013.

 

Al-Libi’s seizure now makes as little sense as did the apparent U.S. and UK indifference to his outstanding Nairobi indictment and his jihadist credentials for all the years that preceded it. (Despite the close relationship among former LIFG jihadis like al-Libi and Abu Sufian ben Qumu, until now, there has been no indication that al-Libi was involved in 9/11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans.)

Still, al-Libi undoubtedly would be able to answer a lot of questions about events leading up to that assault, as well as questions about those individuals and militias involved in its planning and execution. Reportedly, an FBI interrogation team is headed out to the USS San Antonio in the Mediterranean Sea (where al-Libi is being held) and plans to ask al-Libi about AQ operations in Libya.

Funny: If that’s what they’re after, seems they could have just read the cables Chris Stevens had been sending back for the last several years. “Die Hard in Derna” from June 2008 would have been a good one to start with.

Read more at The Clarion Project

Commission Seeks Answers on Benghazi

20130519_BENGHAZI_LIBYA_WHITE_HOUSE_LARGEby BETHANY STOTTS:

The Obama administration has been supporting jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, thereby furthering the goals of Islamists in the Middle East, argued several speakers at Accuracy in Media’s Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) conference last week. Why is this important to the exploration of what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012? First of all, it provides context for the terrible conditions that Ambassador Stevens faced when he traveled there that September, and the make-up of those who attacked our facilities there. It could also partially explain the administration’s eagerness to falsely blame the attack on a YouTube video that Muslims found offensive, rather than acknowledge poor security conditions and a growing al-Qaeda movement in the region. After all, the President believes that core al Qaeda is on the run.

“Here’s the sentence, here’s the headline, that the Obama administration does not want broadcast anywhere or printed anywhere: ‘Obama Administration Arms Al Qaeda,'” Chris Farrell, Director of Research and Investigation at Judicial Watch, said at the conference. “That’s it, right there.”

Judicial Watch is the only organization litigating in Federal Court on Benghazi to date. It recently issued a new report, the second of two, on the Benghazi attacks and the administration’s subsequent stonewalling.

“Look, this attack in Benghazi did not happen in a vacuum. It wasn’t a fluke. It didn’t just occur,” argued author and investigative journalist Ken Timmerman. “It was a policy shift that took place as soon as Obama took power to overturn our longstanding national security alliances in the Middle East and to support the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“I think the path, I think the green light, if you will, even, was given by President Obama in his 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt, when he green-lighted the Islamic uprising that would follow over the next two years,” said Clare Lopez, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy. Lopez is a former CIA operations officer and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. “What happened in Libya was a follow-on to that green light, as well as what happened in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood rose up and seized power for a time.”

During the aforementioned Cairo speech, noted Timmerman, “sitting behind the President of the United States as he’s giving the speech, so they’re pictured in all of the news footage of it, are top members of the Muslim Brotherhood-at that point still an outlawed group although tolerated by the Mubarak regime.” Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt at that time, was not invited. This sends a clear message from our President.

As for Muammar Qaddafi, he was a brutal dictator, but “He had al-Qaeda jihadis in his jails,” said Lopez. “And yet, in March of 2011, the United States, together with NATO allies Italy, France, and others, decided to intervene in Libya. Why? To assist al Qaeda militias to overthrow a sovereign government that was no threat to the United States.” Those skeptical of the al Qaeda connections to Libya Shield, Ansar al Sharia, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), and other Libyan “liberation” freedom fighters should read John Rosenthal’s The Jihadist Plot, which details al Qaeda’s intricate plan to overthrow the apostate Qaddafi.

Source: Family Security Matters 

 

‘Branding Terror’ and the Art of Propaganda

Branding-Terror-HR21-272x350By :

Branding Terror, The Logotypes and Iconography of Insurgent Groups and Terrorist Organizations is a new book that claims to present an objective analysis of terrorist symbols. The authors, Odessa-born, German Artur Beifuss, a former United Nations counter-terrorism analyst, and Italian professional graphic designer Francesco Trivini Bellini, produced a beautiful but biased reference guide for members of the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Merrell, the book’s publishing company, specializes in art, fashion and gardening books, which should be the first clue that the information in this counter terrorism reference guide is problematic. The book’s 60 beautifully illustrated emblems, accompanied by a symbolic analysis and description of each group’s ideology, have a decidedly anti-American, anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian liberal bias that only serves to perpetuate the propaganda issued by the very terrorist organizations that are included in the book.

Beifuss and Bellini are more fascinated with the branding, marketing and visual communication of the terrorist groups than with the ugly realities of what these symbols represent. The book smells of political correctness, beginning with its disclaimers and apologies for the terrorist groups represented in the book, making it clear that the selected emblems were the result of a combination of designated terrorist lists from five countries.  As if compensating for having to have to include so many Palestinian terrorist organizations, the authors perpetuate anti-Israel bias in their analysis of five Palestinian group symbols that include the map of Israel in their logo (Palestinian Islamic Jihad p. 173, Palestinian Liberation Front, p. 255,  Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine p. 263, PFLP military wing p. 265 and the PFLP General Command p. 271). In each emblem the authors neglect to identify the obvious image as the map of Israel and choose to refer to it as an outline of Palestine. It is difficult to imagine that Beifuss, who worked for the United Nations as a counter-terrorism analyst, would not be aware of the fact that depicting the map of Israel as Palestine proliferates this classic anti-Semitic propaganda. This is reinforced by their descriptions throughout the book of the perception of Israel as occupying Palestine.

Political correctness is also evident in Beifuss and Bellini’s analysis of the emblems of Islamist jihadist terrorist groups, particularly their choice to camouflage the meaning of very significant concepts such as jihad, dawa, sharia and the phrase “Allahu Akbar.” The phrase “Allahu Akbar” appears in three emblems in the book and in each symbol the authors refer to it as the “takbir” which they define in their glossary as ‘The Arabic term for the Arabic phrase Allahu Akbar (“god is the greatest”) used by Muslims as an expression of faith; in prayer; in times of distress; and to express celebration or victory, determination or defiance” (p. 329). The terrorist organizations in the book that used this phrase in their emblems include: the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is linked with the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi; The Caucasus Emirate, the Chechen group that is likely affiliated with the Boston Marathon bombing; and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which committed numerous suicide attacks, killing dozens of civilians. The phrase “Allahu Akbar” in their emblems does not represent a benign expression of faith, it represents the battle cry of the Mujahideen before, during or after they are killing the enemies of Islam.

Read more at Front Page

Here’s another example of “branding”, from Bare Naked Islam:

Oh MY! Striking similarity between Obama’s logo and Egypt’s radical Islamist Salafi al-Nour party’s logo

The Al‑Nour Party is an ultra-conservative Islamist party maintaining a strict version of Islam, known as the Salafi methodology. Salafis believe in practicing Islam as it was practiced by the Prophet Muhammad, with their main source of governance strictly based on the Quran and the Sunnah.

1013410_10152947660065142_1489660670_n-1

US smuggling weapons to Syrian rebels: The real Benghazi story

By Daya Gamage:

Washington, D.C. 16 May (Asiantribune.com):

There is a ‘side story’ going on in the American media – both the electronic and print about the Islamist jihadists lethal attack on the American ‘post’ in Benghazi, Libya last September 11 which killed American ambassador Christopher Steven and three others; The emphasis and the debate is on why the event was twisted by the Obama administration to conceal a terrorist attack on eve of the presidential election.

US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens killed in attack on 11 September 2012

With the killing of Osama bin Larden on May 2 last year the administration, which was approaching the re-election of Mr. Obama in November, wants to convince the American people that the al Qaeda was now annihilated for good.

When the Islamist jihadist group affiliated to al Qaeda lethally attacked the American ‘post’ in Benghazi the Obama administration twisted the events to convince that a anti-Islamic video produced by someone in California was the cause of the attack.

These days the highlights and debate is about why the ‘talking points’ were changed twelve times to give that different picture.

As Obama rightfully said a couple of days ago about this debate, mostly spearheaded by the Republicans, was a ‘side show.’

The ‘real show’ is in fact buried. And the ‘real show’ is that the United States, Ambassador Steven playing a major role, was in the process of shipping arms to Syrian rebels to topple Basher el-Assad’s regime.

It was on October 25 last year that FoxNews.com broke the story that a mysterious Libyan ship was reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels would have had some link to the September 11 terror attack on the U.S. ‘post’ in Benghazi.

Why do we use the term ‘post’ in this report? Because when changes were made to the Benghazi attack story by the Obama administration it changed from ‘American Consulate’ to ‘American Post’. The reason: Benghazi operation was entirely a CIA operation.

Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means “The Victory,” was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun — 35 miles from the Syrian border — on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officers were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants.

On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the ‘posts’ front gate one hour before the assault began.

Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

When asked to comment, a State Department spokeswoman dismissed the idea, saying Stevens was there for diplomatic meetings, and to attend the opening of a cultural center.

According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria’s rebels on the frontlines.

The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG’s and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

The Internet Media reported at that time that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

The Asian Tribune has also found that the Internet Media further reported that if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died.”

As noted earlier, the Obama administration has since described the American facility in Benghazi not as a ‘Consulate’ but as a ‘Post’.

The U.S. Republican Senator Rand Paul, who is expected to run for his party presidential nomination in the year 2016, was the only American lawmaker who disclosed about this ‘arms deal’ which he connects to Ambassador Steven’s brutal muder in the hands of the Islamist Jihadists.

In an interview aired on CNN May 9 evening, Sen. Paul said he hasn’t ruled out the possibility that last year’s attack unfolded as a result of a secret arms trade. The confusion in the immediate aftermath of the event — including unfounded admissions from America’s United Nations envoy Susan Rice that contradicted what is known today about the attack — could actually be a cover-up, the senator said.

The Obama administration sent its ambassador to UN Susan Rice on the following Sunday talk shows to say that the offending Islamic video was the cause of the attack in Benghazi.

“I’ve actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria,” he said.

Read more

Q & A: “The Jihadist Plot” by John Rosenthal

By Diana West:

I will never forget the unmitigated horror of watching as the United States openly switched sides in the 2011 “Arab Spring,” abandoning allies in the war on terror (jihad) to support those same jihadist forces instead. There was precious little company in the press gallery on this one as US media, shouting slogans of “revolution” and “democracy,” blindly failed to perceive or actually covered up the obvious truth: The US, with NATO, was now supporting the Other Side — the same Other Side that had struck us in 9/11, killed and maimed our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and threatened Western liberty everywhere. It was in this crazy atmosphere, John Rosenthal’s independent reporting from Europe provided essential information and context.

John’s long-awaited book, The Jihadist Plot: The Untold Story of Al-Qaeda and the Libyan Rebellion,  is now out from Encounter. It contains much new information on this shameful, perplexing, dangerous episode — whose jarring reverberations, by the way, have yet to play out.

71R3zfkB+jL._SL1500_

Here is our Q & A.

DW: Whose side is the United States on in Syria?

John Rosenthal: Objectively, we are on the same side as Jabhat al-Nusra in the Syrian conflict. The administration’s listing of Jabhat al-Nusra as a terror organization changes nothing in this regard and amounts in fact to a kind of sleight of hand. It allows the administration to claim that it is supporting
the Syrian rebellion, but somehow not its “extremist” component. But this distinction is completely bogus. The response to the listing from other rebel brigades — many of which hastened to express their solidarity with Jabhat al-Nusra — makes this clear. Jabhat al-Nusra is part of the
mainstream of the Syrian rebellion. If it is extremist, then so is the rebellion as such.

DW: You explain in your book that in mid-2011, the US changed sides in the so-called war on
terror, which was originally mounted as a war against Al Qaeda; and, moreover,
that the US media missed this story. Could you state the case in brief?

JR: The US changed sides in the “war on terror” during the 2011 Libya conflict
and it did so in two senses. In the first place, it did so by virtue of
forming an alliance with some of the very same Islamic extremist forces that
it had been combating for the previous decade. As I show in the book, the
military backbone of the rebellion against Muammar al-Qaddafi was formed by
cadres of the so-called Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The LIFG was
listed as an al-Qaeda-linked terror organization by both the US government
and the UN Security Council. It was, in effect, the Libyan chapter of
al-Qaeda and had a long shared history with the al-Qaeda “mothership” of
Osama bin Laden. Several of the leaders of the rebellion had in fact been
previously detained by US authorities, either during the invasion of
Afghanistan or in subsequent covert counter-terror operations. In the Libyan
war, the US and its NATO allies were providing air support to troops led by
these very same people.

The second sense in which the US changed sides in the “war on terror”
concerns terror itself as a tactic. I know you are not a fan of the
expression “war on terror” and I agree, of course, that it is very
problematic. But, as I say in the book, the expression at least had the
advantage of making clear that the US abhorred terror as a tactic,
regardless of the ideological background of the groups employing this
tactic. But from the very first weeks of the Libyan rebellion — well before
it was possible to know just who the rebels were — there was already
abundant evidence that the rebels were employing terrorist tactics. This
evidence included videos documenting torture, the summary execution of
detainees, and at least one beheading — a beheading that was particularly
horrific by virtue of the fact that it occurred in public in front of a
cheering crowd.

It would have previously been impossible to imagine the US making common
cause with groups that decapitate their perceived enemies. In the meanwhile,
in Syria, it has become the new normal, and apparently no one is shocked
anymore to hear about Syrian rebel forces that behead Syrian soldiers or
real or perceived supporters of Bashar al-Assad. During the Libyan war,
however, the media — including both old and new media — for the most part
simply ignored the evidence of rebel atrocities. What I heard at the time
was that it was not possible to “verify” the videos. But the fact is that
they made no effort to verify them. Moreover, media like CNN had no problem
broadcasting “unverified” videos that allegedly documented atrocities
committed by pro-Qaddafi forces. Those videos, by the way, almost surely
showed atrocities that were likewise committed by the rebels.

Similarly, at least until the rebellion triumphed, the American media either
ignored or hushed up the al-Qaeda connections of the rebel leadership. They
did so even though one rebel commander, Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, was happily
holding forth to European reporters about his jihadist past in Afghanistan
and his support for al-Qaeda in Iraq.

DW: Switching sides required other core trade-offs as well. One point you make that underscores the disavowal of Western values that took place in the Libya War concerns the leading role played by NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen. You called Rasmussen’s role the greatest irony of the whole war. Could you elaborate?

JR: Before he was appointed as NATO Secretary General, Rasmussen was undoubtedly best known internationally for his role in the famous “Mohammed cartoon” controversy. The cartoons were, of course, first published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. At the time, Rasmussen was the Danish prime minister. When, in October 2005, representatives from several Muslim countries appealed to him to do something about the publication of the cartoons, he stated that he did not have the power to do anything about them and he did not want any such power. It must be said that not all Western leaders were as unequivocal in their defense of freedom of expression. Rasmussen and Denmark thus drew the wrath of radical Muslim clerics like none other Yusef al Qaradawi and the wrath of those Muslim masses that followed Qaradawi’s injunction to “rage” against the cartoons.

What most people do not know, however, is that the unrest that broke out in Libya in early 2011 had one of its main roots in just such a protest against the “Mohammed cartoons.” The protests that sparked the Libyan rebellion were called for February 17, 2011, which is why the rebellion is commonly known as the “February 17 Revolution.” But the 2011 protests were called to commemorate protests that occurred in Benghazi five years earlier, on February 17, 2006, and the object of the earlier protests was precisely the “Mohammed cartoons.”  More specifically, the 2006 Benghazi protestors were enraged about a member of the Italian government, Roberto Calderoli, who had appeared on Italian public television wearing a t-shirt with a cartoon of Mohammed printed on it. If albeit made in more flamboyant fashion, Calderoli’s point was the same as Rasmussen’s: that freedom of expression is non-negotiable. Thousands of young men descended upon the Italian consulate in Benghazi, attempting to break into the building and setting it on fire. Eventually, the Libyan security forces at the consulate opened fire in order to protect the Italian diplomatic personnel inside. A reported eleven people were killed.

In 2011, Rasmussen as NATO chief would facilitate the triumph of a rebellion whose fundamental values are absolutely antithetical to the values that he defended in 2005 as Danish prime minister. At some level, I imagine he must know this. If no one else, his Italian colleagues will surely have told him about the background to the 2011 protests. It is really a remarkable case of an individual and his convictions being completely overwhelmed by the position he holds. Rasmussen is a kind of tragic figure.

DW: Who is Abu-Abdallah al-Sadiq?

JR: Abu-Abdallah al-Sadiq is the historical leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. He was a confidante of Osama bin Laden. Indeed, he is reported to have been with Bin Laden at Tora Bora in late December 2001, as American and allied forces laid siege to the al-Qaeda leader’s mountain hideout. The LIFG ran its own jihadist training camps in Afghanistan prior to the American invasion. In 2004, al-Sadiq was detained in a covert American counter-terror operation in southeast Asia. He was subsequently repatriated to Libya and turned over to the custody of the Libyan government. In 2010, he was amnestied by the Libyan government as part of a terrorist “rehabilitation” program. I suspect that the American government encouraged Libya to “rehabilitate” al-Sadiq and other imprisoned LIFG members. We know, in any case, that the American ambassador was present at a ceremony “celebrating” his release.

The international public finally got to know al-Sadiq about a year and a half later, in August 2011, though under a different name. “Al-Sadiq” was a nom de guerre. Now he was known as Abdul-Hakim Belhadj and he was the new military governor of Tripoli. Intensive NATO bombing had forced Muammar al-Qaddafi and forces loyal to him to abandon the Libyan capital and had allowed rebel forces to walk in and seize control of the city. Al-Sadiq/Belhadj was the leader of those rebel forces. Just seven years after detaining him, America and its NATO allies, in effect, conquered Tripoli on al-Sadiq’s behalf.

There is much more at Diana West’s blog

 

Also see:

 

‘White Out’ on Benghazi: State Dept. Issues Report

Attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Sept. 11, 2012. (Photo: Reuters)

Attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Sept. 11, 2012. (Photo: Reuters)

The real issue — which is what the CIA, the State Department or anyone in the U.S. government has been doing backing regime change operations across the Middle East and North Africa region in the company of and for the benefit of Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood jihadis — never gets addressed, much less explained by the ARB or anyone else.

by: Clare Lopez

On December 19, 2012, Ambassador Thomas Pickering, Chairman of the State Department (DoS) Accountability Review Board (ARB) delivered the ‘White-Out” report on Benghazi that he’d been selected to provide. “White-Out” is the perfect term for this report, as Diana West notes, because the entire senior national security leadership of the U.S. is completely missing from it. There is simply no mention whatsoever of President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper or the disgraced former CIA Director David Petraeus.

According to Pickering, who was hand-picked by the Obama administration to head the ARB, none of these officials had anything to do with the failure to provide the reliable armed, trained security that the Benghazi Mission asked for repeatedly and was denied, or for the catastrophic outcome of the terror assault on the mission the night of September 11, 2012 that took the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith and two former Navy SEAL CIA security contractors, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

Instead, four lower-ranking State Department officials took the fall: Eric Boswell, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security; Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary responsible for embassy security; Raymond Maxwell, the deputy assistant secretary of state for North Africa; and an unidentified official in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security all resigned on  December 19, after the Pickering report cited a “grossly inadequate” security posture at the Benghazi mission.

This is very convenient, of course, because none of those truly responsible for what happened at Benghazi that night is called to account in the Pickering White-Out for establishing the policies in the first place that sent Americans to work with treacherous Al-Qaeda militias in Libya that ultimately turned on their long-time comrade-in-arms, Christopher Stevens, and killed him.

It is strange, though, that the report would mention that there were “known gaps…in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist.”

Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri’s September 10, 2012 video call for revenge for the June 2012 drone killing of his deputy, the Libyan Abu Yahya al-Libi, doesn’t seem to have made the cut for “immediate, specific tactical warning” and the Pickering White-Out doesn’t even mention the possibility that this message from the commander of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) affiliates just possibly could have been the “green light” for the September 11 attack.

In any case, though, the White House, State Department and Intelligence Community should have been extremely familiar with some of these militia characters, having engaged together with them in the jihad struggle against Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi for so many months.

There was Abdelhakim Belhadj, for instance. He was the former self-described jihadist leader of the Al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LFG) who, on behalf of the new, liberated Libyan government, later went on to join forces with the similarly Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian Free Army rebels.

Read more at Radical Islam

Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at RadicalIslam.org and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez served for 20 years as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The Benghazi Betrayal

imagesCAIT6D8Tby Justin O Smith

The Benghazi Betrayal is far from forgotten by many Americans, and an independent counsel must be commissioned to investigate President Obama’s and his Cabinet members’ actions that contributed to the deaths of four of our finest Americans. Many questions remain unanswered, and with new charges being levied weekly, the known facts alone are damning to this administration, which is now engaged in a cover-up of unseen proportions in the history of the U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stated in November that “key pieces of evidence are being withheld from Congress,” specifically real time reports from the CIA station chief in Libya and FBI interviews with survivors conducted immediately after the attacks.

During a November press conference, Obama claimed that he had divulged all pertinent information regarding the attacks on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi, and he pledged to “put forth every bit of information we have,” however, to date, Obama and his administration have failed to provide the major news networks with White House drone photos, details concerning Obama’s and his staff’s decisions, ground-level surveillance images and documents from the night of 9-11.

For weeks after this horrific tragedy, the American people heard first hand testimony from officials, such as Eric Nordstrum, who explained that according to the State Department funding did not exist for more security personnel and measures. And yet, the Obama administration gave $770 million to the Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund for the Arab “Spring”/Winter and $469 million for global climate change; this State Department also funded the restoration of the 15th century Gobarau Minaret in a predominant Muslim area of Nigeria, where Boko Haram islamofascist terrorists
murder Christians by the score on a daily basis!

Anyone familiar with military security protocols understands that Obama knew within minutes that the U.S. Consulate was under attack, and he knew it was a terrorist attack. The personal security detail for Ambassador Stevens notified the communications room
in Tripoli, which sent a flash message, like an instant message, to the White House Situation Room that Ambassador Stevens was in imminent danger as soon as the attack began; this coded message activated standard operating procedures and alerted the geographic combatant commander and his In-Extremis Force (special unit). This “critical flash” message also had to receive an immediate response and an acknowledgement receipt; the watch officer then informed the senior watch official, “This is a critical element of information. POTUS needs to hear this.” A senior official close to POTUS informed the President that the Ambassador in Libya was in peril.

In the absence of permissions, the geographic combatant commander has standing orders to preserve the lives of American citizens. The Joint Special Operations Task Force Crisis Element, CENTCOM and AFRICOM were all monitoring this situation in real time and were mounting a rescue operation, which would have reached Benghazi from Djibouti in approximately three hours. We had all the information necessary to ensure a successful rescue mission contrary to Defense Director Leon Panetta’s assertion, “Well, we didn’t have enough intel.” Obama, Panetta, Biden and Clinton made the conscious decision to do nothing and allow our Consulate to be overrun due to their own political agendas and avarice.

Obama lied to America. He did not issue any orders to the CIA, our Armed Forces and the State Department to “secure our personnel” and “do whatever we need to do,” because if he had, it would have been done. Surely Panetta would have followed such an order from the President. And we also know that the CIA did not unilaterally decide to abandon Ambassador Stevens and the eight others with him; a CIA spokesman stated on October 27, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in
need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

As the evidence and the truth of events surrounding the Benghazi attacks unfolded, it became quite obvious that not only had Obama advanced a lie regarding a “spontaneous protest”, but he had also politicized the CIA’s response and enlisted CIA
Director David Patraeus, National Intelligence Director James Clapper, UN
Ambassador Susan Rice and many lesser officials, such as under-Secretary of
State Charlene Lamb, in order to propagate the notion that ‘Innocence of
Muslims’, an anti-Islam film, was the root cause of these attacks on the U.S.
Consulate and the CIA Annex. Claire Lopez, a senior fellow at the Center for
Security Policy, gives credible supporting facts that show the Obama
administration intended to advance an Islamic agenda it had already endorsed,
which centers on the implementation of the UN Resolution 16/18; this
“resolution” was constructed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in order
to criminalize the criticism of Islam in U.S. law and legal systems
globally.

Prior to Muammar Gaddhafi’s ouster, many of us tried to warn the Obama administration that Gaddhafi was neutralizing the Islamic Maghreb, Al
Qaeda, Ansar al-Shariah and other islamofascist terrorist groups in the region.
Now Libya’s Transitional Council relies heavily on these same groups for
security, even though many Libyans rallied against Ansar al-Shariah after
Ambassador Stevens’ murder. The 17th of February militia that was guarding the
U.S. Consulate is a splinter group of Ansar al-Shariah, which has ties to Al
Qaeda.

Recently on December 6th, the New York Times finally reported some
old news presented earlier in October 2012 by former CIA agent Claire Lopez. Ms
Lopez’s account incredibly details the manner in which Obama released a known
terrorist with close ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abdul Hakin Belhaj, from U.S.
custody at Guantanamo Bay. Belhaj entered Libya with Obama’s blessings and soon
became the leader of Libyan rebel forces fighting Gaddhafi; the NYT’s piece
shows that the U.S. furnished money and weapons through Qatar to support Libya’s
rebel forces, and the Qataris subsequently provided training, money and weapons
to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group controlled by Abdul Hakim Belhaj. Many
other jihadist groups received the same assistance.

Time and again, the world has witnessed Obama work with Al Qaeda linked militias and jihadists to overthrow Gaddhafi in Libya and now Assad in Syria, along with throwing Mubarak to the merciless wolves of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And now, Americans see Obama’s policies backing Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and the
islamofascist jihadists across the Middle East who have pledged to implement Sharia law and reconstruct the Islamic Caliphate, due to large scale infiltration by Islamists/ Muslim Brotherhood operatives throughout every level of the U.S. government. Obama has accepted the “Muslim victimization” theories presented by the same islamofascists the U.S. has fought for decades.

Many Republicans, such as Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Kelly Ayotte are incensed and alarmed by Obama’s handling of the actual attack on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi, and they are outraged by the Obama administration’s outright lies in the aftermath of Benghazi. But not nearly enough on either side of the aisle in Congress or the Senate are willing to confront Obama on this issue in the most serious manner, yet.

Millions of Americans believe, just as retired Gen W.G. “Jerry” Boykin, retired Gen Paul
Vallely and retired Gen Joe Stringham, that President Barack Obama meets the
standards for impeachment for multiple reasons, especially those correlating to
the Obama administration’s actions in Benghazi that constitute high crimes and
misdemeanors, and many of us across the nation are calling for an independent
investigation led by men and women of proven integrity, reputation for fairness
and expertise in foreign affairs and national security protocols. And while
impeachment proceedings may fail, since the Democrats hold a majority in the
Senate, the Republicans must leave the coward’s path even if only for a symbolic
act of courage, because Obama’s actions as a failed Commander-In-Chief led to a
tragedy that by all indication was avoidable; as Obama fretted over his
reelection and “the short term payoff exacting retribution on Al Qaeda”, four
families were burying their loved ones and still Obama lied. There should be no
indecision or hesitation whatsoever… the murders of Ambassador Stevens, FSO
Sean Smith, CIA contractors and ex-Navy SEALs Glenn Dogherty and Tyrone Woods…
the murders of these four brave Americans demands retaliation, retribution and a
full account of the events prior to and after their deaths. Obama and his staff
must be held responsible for their high crimes as Commander-In-Chief and
accomplices, because all combined evidence makes it apparent that Obama, Biden,
Panetta and Clinton allowed the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi to go down!

Muslim Brotherhood Fox Was Hired To Protect Our Benghazi Consulate Henhouse

LIBYA-UNREST-USLarry Bell interviews Joan Neuhaus Schaan:

Joan Neuhaus Schaan is a Fellow in Homeland Security and Terrorism at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston.  Her first involvement in the field of terrorism and homeland security came as an officer with the United States Naval Reserve in the mid-1990’s, where she served as an anti-terrorism training officer for her squadron and was responsible for the force protection briefings for deployments to the Americas and Pacific. She was appointed to the Texas Commission on Private Security by Governor George W. Bush in 1999, and was later reappointed by Governor Rick Perry.

Larry Bell: Joan, in our discussions you have pointed out that our Benghazi consulate which was attacked on 9/11 was being “guarded” by a militia with Muslim Brotherhood ties, and that the Al Qaeda-associated assailants may have used weapons provided to Libyan rebel militias with support from the U.S.  Please provide some background.

Joan Neuhaus Schaan: Yes, this is my concern.  To begin, the U.S. supported rebels in the overthrow of  Mu’ammar al-Gadhafi, even though our government was aware that a significant portion of the Libyan rebels were comprised of Muslim Brotherhood and/or al-Qaeda affiliates who subsequently formed a coalition in Libya’s  new transitional government. That support was provided on the basis of a secret presidential order that bypassed congressional approval under the War Powers Act

The Muslim Brotherhood had been outlawed in Egypt prior to the fall of Hosni Mubarak, and in its 80 year history it has been responsible for the founding of many foreign terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East and Africa named on the U.S. State Department list. Much of the Al-Qaeda senior leadership came from these same terror organizations.

The press has reported that U.S. support to the Libyan rebels was provided with the assistance of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and some portion was funneled through the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.  I have not seen a report on the exact form U.S. support for the rebels took, but clearly at some point the support would have been translated into funding, intelligence, weapons and/or manpower from the U.S. and/or its partners.

For example, the European press reported that Qatar provided experts to help train fighters at a camp operated by a known member of Al Qaeda and the LIFG, Ismail Sallabi.  A blogger reported that Ismail Sallabi was the founder of the Feb. 17th Brigade, and held meetings with NATO officials in Qatar.  This would be the same Feb. 17th Brigade that provided the U.S. Benghazi consulate security.   Press reports immediately after the September 11th attack indicated that LIFG was in contact with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood just prior to the consulate attack.

The military leader chosen by the post-Gadhafi transitional government was Emir of the Libyan al-Qaeda affiliate Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which was founded upon Muslim Brotherhood ideology.

The Muslim Brotherhood had intimate ties with the February 17th Brigade which was assigned to provide security for our Benghazi consulate. In fact, the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood prime minister candidate, upon winning the election, had planned to have the February 17th Brigade commander become Minister of Defense.

And you believe that rebel organizations that benefitted from U.S. support may have had direct roles in the deadly attack?

Yes, there is a distinct possibility that the weapons, training and/or intelligence used in the assault that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens, were obtained as a result of aid we provided to the Libyan rebels or relationships we had developed with the rebels. The U.S. played an integral role in assisting militant Islamists with taking control of a country rich in resources and in close proximity to Europe. Ultimately, these resources can be used to finance the extremist Islamist agenda. A similar scenario appears to  now be playing out in Syria.

Joan, you also believe that the White House and CIA knew much about our dangerous partners before the attack?

That is clearly the case. As reported in the European press and in Wikileaks cables, Benghazi, and particularly near-by Derna, were well known strongholds for al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, and former U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz knew of the rebels’ Islamist tendencies from the onset.  So when President Obama signed the secret order for the CIA to help the Libyan rebels,  senior members of his administration must have known that their leader, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, had a long-time al-Qaeda affiliation, and also that many of the rebel military commanders were LIFG members. According to a New York Times interview, Belhadj had led fighting against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Incidentally, President Obama also signed a secret order to support rebels of a similar background in Syria. Libyans comprise one of the largest contingents of foreign fighters in Syria, and David Sanger has reported that most of the weapons are falling into the hands of the Islamists

And Ambassador Stevens was aware of all of this?

Chances are slim that he wasn’t aware of the circumstances. According to his resume published on the internet, Ambassador Stevens had been active in Libya since at least 2007, serving as Benghazi Deputy Chief of Mission, Interim Ambassador to Libya, Special Representative to the Libyan Transitional Government, and finally as Ambassador.  The ambassador had monitored the status of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the leader of the group that later killed him, upon his transfer from Guantanamo Bay to Libya, and Stevens  is believed to have personally  visited with Qumu  when he was being held in a Libyan prison. Abu Sufian, a member of LIFG, had joined al-Qaeda in Afghanistan where he was captured. Under pressure to release detainees, the Bush administration returned him to Libya to be imprisoned by Gadhafi, who also considered Al Qaeda a serious threat.

All of this obviously challenges any notion that the White House ever believed its own long-repeated talking points attributing the attack on our consulate to an anti-Muslim YouTube video protest in Cairo that spread to Benghazi.

As the Cairo protest was building on Sept. 10th, it was clear that the  crowd was protesting the  U.S. imprisonment of the Blind Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman who was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and provided the fatwa for the 9/11 attack in 2001…not about any video. President Mohamed Morsi, who replaced former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, had called for release of the Blind Sheikh in his inaugural address.

The brother of the Blind Sheikh, along with the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, participated in the protests that began on September 10th which resulted in the burning of the U.S. flag and hoisting of a jihad flag over the U.S. embassy in the early hours of Sept. 11th.  News footage of the ensuing Cairo protests show banners honoring the Blind Sheikh in the background.

Read more at Forbes

 

Why Did Al-Qaeda Target Ambassador Stevens?

By Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen

Most of the questions related to the Benghazi debacle are about the mechanics, both offensive and defensive. What did the White House know and when? What assets were available to the military? Did someone order a stand down, and if so, who? Why was “the video” blamed long after the administration knew the truth — and didn’t the administration know the truth from the beginning? If it didn’t, why didn’t it?

All reasonable questions, but a generally unasked one deserves attention: “Why did al-Qaeda want to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens?”

The ambassador had good relations with some of the most extreme Libyan militias, including those with al-Qaeda ties. Did he upset them with something he did, or didn’t do? Was the White House fully apprised of his connections and dealings with the militias? Was he killed because of something the administration told him to start doing or to stop doing?

There are things we know and things upon which we must speculate, including the entry of surface-to-air missiles to the Levant.

———————————–

Emerging from the chaos is a dim understanding that the U.S. was operating a clandestine arms operation from the CIA post that was loosely — and incorrectly — described as a “consulate.” Before and during the revolution, Ambassador Stevens had helped arm the anti-Gaddafi militias, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIF), whose leader Abdulhakim Belhadj later became the head of the Tripoli Military Council.

The LIF’s Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi told an Italian newspaper [1] in 2011 (later reported in the BritishTelegraph [2]) that he had fought the “foreign invasion” in Afghanistan. Captured in Pakistan, al-Hasidi was handed over to the U.S. and returned to Libya, where he was released from prison in 2008. Speaking of the Libyan revolution, he said:

Members of al-Qaeda [3] are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.

Belhadj met with Free Syrian Army representatives [2] in October 2011 to offer Libyan support for ousting Assad. Throughout 2011 and 2012, ships traversed the Mediterranean from Benghazi to Syria and Lebanon [4] with arms for the Syrian rebels. Turkish and Jordanian intelligence services were doing most of the “vetting” of rebel groups; in July 2010, the Washington Post reported that the CIA had no operatives on the ground [5] and only a few at border posts even as weapons were entering Syria. Said a U.S. official, addressing the question of even non-lethal aid:

We’ve got to figure out who is over there first, and we don’t really know that.

In August, a report [6] by Tony Cartalucci, a supporter of the Syrian nationalist opposition, detailed the extent of Libyan and al-Qaeda involvement in Syria, calling it a “foreign invasion.” In November, the Washington Post noted a $20 million contribution by the Libyan government to the Syrian National Council [7] — of which the Muslim Brotherhood is a member.

Ambassador Stevens would have known all of that; he was the go-to man. He didn’t seem to have a problem with it, so why did they want to kill him?

In 2011, it was reported that the Libyan rebels had acquired surface-to-air [2] missiles from Gaddafi’s arsenal, and smuggled them into their own. They were not used in the revolution because the skies were filled with allies of the militias, but American sources [8] worried that as many as 15,000 MANPADs (man-portable air defense systems — or mobile surface-to-air missiles) might have “gone missing.” Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro told USA Today [9]:

The frank answer is we don’t know (how many are missing) and probably never will.

He added that the Obama administration took “immediate steps” to secure the weapons, launching an effort to recover them even before collapse of the regime. Which is interesting, because the U.S. claimed to have no “boots on the ground.”

So who was looking for them? And if they found them, what did they do with them?

Some, at least, appear to have emerged in Syria — in August there was a report of a Syrian government plane downed by the rebels. [10] In October, the Russians claimed the rebels had U.S.-origin Stinger missiles. [11] (Stingers are designed to hit helicopters and low-flying planes — they wreaked havoc with Russian aircraft during the war in Afghanistan.) The BBC [11] reported that the Syrians had old Soviet SA-7 missiles that can destroy an airplane flying at higher altitudes.

Whether Russian or American, the introduction of MANPADS into the region would be cause for alarm. The Levant is not isolated to Afghanistan, and the multinational nature of the Syrian rebels puts a number of countries and their interests in harm’s way. A stray shot — or a deliberate diversion — could be used against Israeli commercial or military aviation. Or American aviation. Turkey would have to worry that the Kurdish part of the anti-Assad revolution might divert its energies to assist in the Kurdish guerrilla movement against Turkey; Turkey’s war against the PKK is largely conducted with helicopters. Jordan would have to worry that the Muslim Brotherhood part of the Syrian rebellion could divert its energies to assist the MB in Jordan against U.S. ally King Abdullah II. Russia would worry that missiles could be diverted to the anti-Russian Sunni jihadists of the Caucasus or Central Asia.

In October, the IDF confirmed [12] that a surface-to-air missile, said to be an SA-7, was fired at a helicopter from Gaza. Iran had not provided such weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, perhaps understanding that such an escalation would produce Israeli retaliation. The fact that Israel struck the Sudanese Yarmouk rocket/missile factory [13] at the end of October may have been a reminder of the consequences of escalation.

So far, only the last bit is speculation.

But what if Turkish, Jordanian, Russian, or Israeli concerns about the appearance of MANPADS close to their borders made the administration decide that it had to exercise more control over weapons shipments to the Syrian rebels? What if the State Department told Ambassador Stevens to clamp down on the shipments or to stop them all together? If Stevens had told his militia allies that he was cutting back or cutting off the CIA-organized shipments to Syria, could they have been angry enough to kill him?

Read more at PJMedia

Libyan Leaks: Secret Document reveals Al-Qaeda ‘brother’ put in control of U.S. Embassy in Tripoli

 

Abdel Hakim Belhaj

By Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack:

A treasure trove of secret documents has been obtained by a Libyan source who says that secularists in his country are increasingly wanting to see Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama on November 6th. This charge is being made despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last July which resulted in victory for the secularists. One of those documents may help explain this sentiment.

It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to Al-Qaeda in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012.

The National Transitional Council, which represented the political apparatus that opposed Gadhafi in 2011 and served as the interim government after his removal, made an extremely curious appointment in August of 2011. That appointment was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an Al-Qaeda ally and ‘brother’. Here is a copy of that letter (translation beneath it):

Translated, the document reads:

National Transitional Council – Libya 8/30/11

Code: YGM-270-2011

Mr. Abdel Hakim Al-Khowailidi Belhaj

Greetings,

We would like to inform you that you have been commissioned to the duties and responsibilities of the military committee of the city of Tripoli. These include taking all necessary procedures to secure the safety of the Capital and its citizens, its public and private property, and institutions, to include all international embassies. To coordinate with the local community of the city of Tripoli and the security assembly and defense on a national level.

Mustafa Muhammad Abdul Jalil

President, National Transitional Council – Libya

Official Seal of National Transitional Council

Copy for file.

As for Belhaj’s bonafides as an Al-Qaeda ally, consider the words of the notorious Ayman al-Zawahiri. In a report published one day prior to the date on the memo above, ABC News quoted the Al-Qaeda leader as saying the following – in 2007 – about the man the NTC put in control of Tripoli in 2011:

“Dear brothers… the amir of the mujahideen, the patient and steadfast Abu-Abdallah al-Sadiq (Belhaj); and the rest of the captives of the fighting Islamic group in Libya, here is good news for you,” Zawahiri said in a video, using Belhaj’s nom de guerre. “Your brothers are continuing your march after you… escalating their confrontation with the enemies of Islam: Gadhafi and his masters, the crusaders of Washington.”

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) was founded by Belhaj.

In a BBC report from one month earlier – on July 4, 2011 – a man named Al-Amin Belhaj was identified as an NTC spokesman and said the following:

“Everyone knows who Abdel Hakim Belhadj is. He is a Libyan rebel and a moderate person who commands wide respect.”

Abdel Hakim Belhaj had been identified in a video report embedded in the the BBC article as…

“…about the most powerful man in Tripoli.

Abdel Hakim Belhaj is many things but moderate is not one of them.

Interestingly, according to a report by the Jamestown Foundation in 2005, the man who attributed the ‘moderate’ label to Abdel Hakim Belhaj was actually a leader with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood:

This last week Al-Amin Belhadj, head of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, issued a press release on the Arabic language section of Libya-Watch, (Mu’assasat al-Raqib li-Huqquq al-Insan) calling for urgent action on behalf of 86 Brotherhood members imprisoned since 1998 at Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison and on hunger strike since October 7.

The nexus between Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood comes into clearer focus when one looks at the Libyan Ambassador to the United States. His name is Ali Sulaiman Aujali. He had the following to say about Belhaj according to an ABC News report:

“(Belhaj) should be accept(ed) for the person that he is today and we should deal with him on that basis… people evolve and change.”

Really? How many times do westerners have to fall for this line before they trip over it?

Read more at shoebat.com

Walid Shoebat is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and author of For God or For Tyranny

Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the book, Unsung Davids, which features a chapter on Walid Shoebat

The Real Reason Behind Benghazigate?

Center for Security Policy

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

President Obama’s once-seemingly-unstoppable march towards reelection hit what he might call “bumps in the road” in Benghazi, Libya late on September 11, 2012.  It might be more accurate to describe the effect of the well-planned and -executed, military-style attack on a diplomatic facility there as the political equivalent of a devastating improvised explosive device on the myth of the unassailability of the Obama record as Commander-in-Chief.

Thanks to intrepid investigative reporting – notably by Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge at Fox News, Aaron Klein at WND.com and Claire Lopez at RadicalIslam.org – and information developed by congressional investigators, the mystery is beginning to unravel with regard to what happened that night and the reason for the subsequent, clumsy official cover-up now known as “Benghazigate.”

The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have now taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, the leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

Once Qaddafi was overthrown, Chris Stevens was appointed as the ambassador to the new Libya run by Belhadj and his friends.  Not surprisingly, one of the most important priorities for someone in that position would be to try to find and secure the immense amounts of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution.

One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi.  It now appears that Amb. Stevens was there – on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now-copiously-documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates – for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria.  As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.

Fox News has chronicled (http://video.foxnews.com/v/1913235018001/) how the Al Entisar, a Libyan-flagged vessel carrying 400 tons of cargo, docked on September 6th in the Turkish port of Iskenderun.  It reportedly supplied both humanitarian assistance and arms – including deadly SA-7 man-portable surface-to-air missiles – apparently destined for Islamists, again including al Qaeda elements, in Syria.

What cries out for further investigation – and debate in the remaining days of this presidential election – is whether this shipment was part of a larger covert Obama effort to transfer weapons to our enemies that could make the Iran-Contra scandal, to say nothing of Operation Fast and Furious, pale by comparison?

Investigative journalist Aaron Klein has reported (http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/this-is-what-benghazi-consulate-really-was/) that the “consulate in Benghazi” actually was no such thing.  He observes that, while administration officials have done nothing to correct that oft-repeated characterization of the facility where the murderous attack on Amb. Stevens and his colleagues was launched, instead they call it a “mission.”  And what Klein describes as a “shabby, nondescript building” which lacked any “major public security presence” was, according to an unnamed Middle Eastern security official, “routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assad’s regime in Syria.”

We know that Stevens’ last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.”  Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria.  But it may also have involved getting more jihadi fighters there.  After all, Klein reported last month (http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/sources-slain-u-s-ambassador-recruited-jihadists/) that, according to sources in Egyptian security, our ambassador was playing a “central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”

It gets worse.  Last week, Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow and former career CIA officer Clare Lopez observed (http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/arms-flow-syria-may-be-behind-beghazi-cover) that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with the so-called “consulate” whose purpose has yet to be disclosed.  As their contents were raided in the course of the attack, we may never know for sure whether they housed – and were known by the local jihadis to house – arms, perhaps administered by the two former SEALS killed along with Amb. Stevens.

What we do know is that the New York Times – one of the most slavishly pro-Obama publications in the country – reported on October 14, 2012 article that, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”

In short, it seems President Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale.  The effect has been to equip America’s enemies to wage jihad not only against regimes it once claimed were our friends, but inevitably against us and our allies, as well.  That would explain his administration’s desperate, and now-failing, bid to mislead the voters through the serial deflections of Benghazigate.

Arms Flow to Syria May Be Behind Benghazi Cover-Up

by: Clare Lopez

The day after the big Obama-Romney debate, as media and politicians were engaging in the usual after-action assessment frenzy, some of the most important issues surrounding the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, remain unaddressed.

While it clearly matters (a lot) if and when the President told the truth to the American public about the terrorist nature of that attack and why the Department of State refused repeated pleas from its own diplomats in Libya for more and better security, the deeper, unaddressed issue is about the relationship of the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya with Al Qaeda.

During the 2011 Libyan revolt against Muammar Qaddafi, reckless U.S. policy flung American forces and money into the conflict on the side of the rebels, who were known at the time to include Al Qaeda elements. Previously the number two official at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Christopher Stevens was named as the official U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition in March, 2011.

Stevens was tasked with helping to coordinate U.S. assistance to the rebels, whose top military commander, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the Al Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). That means that Stevens was authorized by the U.S. Department of State and the Obama administration to aid and abet individuals and groups that were, at a minimum, allied ideologically with Al Qaeda, the jihadist terrorist organization that attacked the homeland on the first 9/11, the one that’s not supposed to exist anymore after the killing of its leader, Osama bin Laden, on May 2, 2012.

Although Belhadj reportedly now has moved on to Syria to help lead the fight against the Assad regime being waged by the Syrian Free Army (SFA), other Libyan fighters, who were formerly members of his LIFG and other Al Qaeda affiliates formed a new terror militia in Libya (and elsewhere) called Ansar al-Shariah (Supporters of Sharia/Islamic Law).

According to an August, 2012 report from the Library of Congress and the Kronos organization, “Al-Qaeda in Libya: A Profile,” Ansar al-Shariah is an Al Qaeda franchise operation, established in Libya with the assistance of senior Al Qaeda operatives dispatched from Pakistan specifically to supervise the set up of a new clandestine Al Qaeda network in Libya that would refrain from using the Al Qaeda name.

The Derna, Libya Ansar al-Shariah cell is led by a former GITMO detainee named Sufian Ben Qhumu. The September 11, 2012 attack on the Benghazi consulate compound that killed Ambassador Stevens, his staffer Sean Smith and the two Navy SEALs was directed and led by Ansar al-Shariah.

One of the key unanswered, even unasked, questions about the U.S. and Ambassador Stevens relationship with Abdelhakim Belhadj concerns not so much the 2011 period of the Libyan revolt, but rather what followed. Was Ambassador Stevens still in touch with Belhadj and/or other Al Qaeda-linked figures even after Belhadj traveled to Istanbul, Turkey, in November, 2011 to make contact with the Syrian Free Army?

According to August, 2012 reports leaked to the media, sometime earlier in 2012, President Obama signed an intelligence finding to permit the CIA and other US government agencies to provide support to the Syrian rebels, whose ranks are reported to be dominated by Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadist fighters who already are supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other jihadist regimes. Was Belhadj a conduit for U.S. support, perhaps via Turkey?

It might be recalled that, according to the Department of State’s transcript of a October 9, 2012 telephone conference call held to brief reporters on what happened in Benghazi, the final meeting that Ambassador Stevens held the night of September 11, 2012 before the attack began was with a Turkish diplomat.

Was that the meeting that was so important that the ambassador felt compelled to slip into Al Qaeda-held Benghazi on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attacks, knowing that Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri had called for revenge for the killing of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al-Libi, concerned that he might have been on an Al Qaeda hit list and fully aware that he was terribly exposed with completely inadequate security? Was Ambassador Stevens directing a weapons pipeline from Libya to the Syrian rebels with Turkish assistance?

Read more at Radical Islam

Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at RadicalIslam.org and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Governor Romney’s study guide for the upcoming foreign policy debate

By Kerry Patton:

The Vice Presidential debate concluded and only two more debates will occur before this upcoming November election. Governor Romney is racing to get his ducks in order for next week’s foreign policy debate. He doesn’t need stacks of documents to study—he only needs this one article.

Since President Obama took office, the war in Afghanistan has turned for the worse. This is a fact supported with horrifying numbers. Only one number needs to be revealed to the American public proving this point—American service members killed in Afghanistan.

In the seven years that President Bush oversaw the war in Afghanistan, approximately 569 US troops were killed. In the three and a half years President Obama has been our Commander-in-Chief, that number has spiked approximately 70% to 1,431. How could President Obama explain the stark differences in these numbers?

Basic counter insurgency (COIN) requires you to treat the population as the center of gravity. In doing so, you protect that population while sharing their risks. This convinces the people you’re serious about helping them. However, if the Commander-in-Chief announces the date you’re leaving, it makes it extremely difficult to convince the people you’re going to protect them.

The people of Afghanistan know that after we leave, the Taliban will move in and anyone who helped Americans will be killed. So what do they do? They hedge their bets and bide their time until we leave. By announcing the 2014 pull-out, President Obama has cut the legs out from the very strategy he has bound our military to follow.

President Obama’s foreign policy has not only endangered our service members, it also endangered American values of life, liberty, and adequate due process among everyday American citizens. Since President Obama took office, he authorized the indiscriminate killing of US citizens Anwar Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. They were Al Qaeda operatives staged in Yemen.

In 2010, President Obama authorized the two Al Qaeda operative’s lives come to an end by means of a drone strike. These citizens were never granted their Constitutional rights of due process. Which American citizen will be next and when will this abuse in power end?

In 2009, the “Green Movement” in Iran unfolded. This was a movement inside Iran meant to topple the current regime. That current regime is the very regime that threatens the world with nuclear developments.

The Obama Administration did nothing to support the pro-democracy “Green movement” which could have ended the current Iranian regime’s initiatives of procuring a nuclear arsenal. It could have also reduced an unprecedented amount of violence throughout the entire Middle East that has been sparked and fueled by Iranian backed operatives.

Supporting the Green Movement could have marginalized the atrocities that continue to unfold in Syria as well as stabilized security for our ally, Israel. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity that the Obama administration failed to capitalize on. Instead, the current US administration continues to support oppositions closely aligned with Al Qaeda.

As Libyan oppositions fought to topple the Qaddafi regime, the United States took a leading role in a multi-national air campaign supporting anti-Qaddafi fighters. US tax payer dollars were used to support an opposition which later assassinated Ambassador Chris Stevens.

US intelligence revealed that the very opposition that fought Muammar Qaddafi’s regime incorporated Al Qaeda based terrorists into its mix. These fighters comprised of terrorists from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Al Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) among others.

Read more at Canada Free Press

Kerry Patton, a combat disabled veteran, is the author of Sociocultural Intelligence: The New Discipline of Intelligence Studies’ and the children’s book ‘American Patriotism. You can follow him on Facebook or at kerry-patton.com.

 

The Obama Doctrine Exposed

The Obama Doctrine has been implemented and its net result has been to accelerate an inevitable war by a generation, and as the two-thousandth soldier killed in Afghanistan returns home in a flag-draped coffin, that victim of Obama’s cynical politics of appeasement is one of a number that may one day fall into the millions.

By :

On Monday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney took President Obama to task for his administration’s disastrous handling of American foreign policy, which has had catastrophic consequences — most recently in the form of the heinous attacks against our embassies in Libya and Egypt. To understand what happened in Benghazi or in Cairo requires more than poking around the rubble, wiping off some of the ashes and pronouncing the whole thing a tragedy. The German invasion of Poland wasn’t the tragedy; the Munich Agreement was. Similarly the tragedy wasn’t the consulate and embassy attacks, but the foreign policy that caused them to happen.

The underlying philosophy Romney pointed to, the Obama Doctrine, has often been described as appeasement, but that’s a vague and general criticism. The Munich Agreement was appeasement, but the Obama Doctrine goes beyond anything as simple as appeasing as a single nation’s territorial ambitions.

The Obama Doctrine sought to resolve the War on Terror by dividing Islamists into two camps: the moderate political Islamists and the extremist violent Islamists. These categorizations were wholly artificial and everyone from Obama on down knew how artificial the differences between the so-called extremists and moderates were.

In Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood had transitioned the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group from the status of violent extremists allied with Al Qaeda to political Islamists committed to political reforms. That did not actually make the LIFG, which exploited its newfound moderate status and the freedom that came with it to go on fighting Gaddafi as part of the civil war, non-violent. The difference between the Al Qaeda-affiliated LIFG and the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated LIFG was a few pieces of paper.

But the gruesome absurdity of the whole thing was laid out plainly for all to see in Afghanistan. The plan for Afghanistan was not to defeat the Taliban, though that was how it was sold to the American people, it was to divide the Taliban into moderates willing to engage in a democratic political process and extremists who would be defeated and isolated.

The Afghanistan surge, which cost nearly 1,500 American lives, was a brute force mechanism for engineering a divide that was supposed to result in the military defeat of the Taliban and their transformation into a political party. The Taliban would be free to lock up Afghan girls again, so long as they did it after winning a democratic election.

The Muslim Brotherhood was called in to oversee negotiations between the United States and the Taliban, as it had between Gaddafi and the LIFG, but unlike the LIFG, the Taliban showed no interest in following the Muslim Brotherhood’s devious route to political power.

The difference between Afghanistan and the Arab Spring countries is that those countries had strong governments capable of suppressing Islamist groups and forcing them to resort to the political process to accomplish what they could not manage through violence. However Obama’s withdrawal timetable made it clear to the Taliban that all they had to do to win in Afghanistan was wait him out.

“Our enemies are little worms. I saw them at Munich,” Hitler told his generals. The Taliban commanders have likely shared a similar opinion of Obama’s coterie of amateur peacemakers and of the great man himself.

1,500 American soldiers died in Afghanistan to improve Obama’s leverage in his failed bid to transform the Taliban into a political party. It is hard to think of any aspect of his foreign policy more hideously repulsive than this simple fact.

Read it all at Front Page