The hidden real truth about Benghazi
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/7015#more-7015
By Douglas J. Hagmann
26 October 2012: Most people know that we’ve been lied to about
the attacks in Benghazi, but few realize the extent of those lies or the
hidden secrets they cover. After all, the lie is different at every
level. Thanks to a well placed source with extensive knowledge about the
attack, the disturbing truth is slowly beginning to emerge and is
lining up with information contained in my previous articles published
here weeks ago. The truth reveals the most serious situation in the
world today as it involves the interests and destinies of us all.
A mosaic of lies
According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and
three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the
consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged
over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not
classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted
a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which
was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012.
The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men
during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous
hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.
Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere,
the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies
that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions
taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary
objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels”
in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other
destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon. Regarding the threat to
Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the
persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador
Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how
could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”
First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean
Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate
office in Benghazi as there is not such office there. They died at one
of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was
located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms
and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.
Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in
securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once
under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that.
The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but
those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually
separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use
in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S.
not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would
endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic
as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood led regime
would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.
The Turkish warning
According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September
11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned
Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that
Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians,
of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were
these nefarious activities?
It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than
just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of
Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and
arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside
intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition
to numerous surface to air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained
unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown
how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the
border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the
CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups. If
so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation – one
that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.
The blow-back by the international community would be swift and
punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding
his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and
Russia’s moral position within the international community would be
weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was
compromised and that they had to stop?
A Nation/State sponsored attack?
While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was
conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate
otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy
military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue
Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of
need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was
perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have
easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue
operation?
Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta,
U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the
essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “…the
basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without
knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what
was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta
mean by this statement?
Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If,
however, once considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated
and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer.
Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew
exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised.
They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being
conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in
Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.
Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as
Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however,
protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces
to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed
forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted
or facilitated by Iranian assets – perhaps as many as three teams of
assets in Benghazi.
As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in
real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state
sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to
arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner.
They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew
they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they
risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end
up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that
scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take
another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make
more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?
As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the
Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of
the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished.
And sadly, it was.
Fallout
From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum
attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies,
bombings and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the
arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than
understood by the Western media.
Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of
Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A
ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian
refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into
Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion
of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.
It is also of critical importance to note that last weekend, Russia completed large-scale exercises of their Strategic Nuclear Forces
under the watchful command of President Vladimir Putin. These were the
first such nuclear exercises conducted since the fall of the Soviet
Union.
To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of
World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will
not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”
===================
please also read:
Radical Islam: Arms Flow to Syria May Be Behind Benghazi Cover-Up
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment