Amb. Christopher Stevens appears to have been killed in premeditated al-Qaeda attack

abu yahya al libi
Abu Yahya al-Libi

This morning bright and early the blogger b. at Moon of Alabama broke an explosive counter narrative to the attack in Libya  which killed American Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

b. speculated the attack was carried out to avenge the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi a high ranking al Qaeda operative who was targetted in a drone strike in June. The video confirmation of al-Libi’s death preceded the attack.

Moon of Alabama:

The real reason, though unmentioned yet in the media, was likely this:

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has released a video coinciding with the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, confirming for the first time the death of his deputy, US monitors said.

The 42-minute video is Zawahiri’s first release in three months, and confirms that Abu Yahya al-Libi was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan’s Waziristan tribal area on June 4, according to SITE and IntelCenter.

Yesterday’s confirmation of Abu Yahya al-Libi’s death seems to be a much better explanation for yesterday’s raising of al-Qaeda’s flag in front of the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the deadly attack on the consulate in Bengahzi. The AQ people in the area certainly had an urge and a plan to avenge al-Libi (the Libyan). That this happened on the anniversary of 9/11 is, as the Zahwahiri tape demonstrates, NOT a coincidence! These people used the movie story only to raise additional rabble to cover for them…..

…….(cut)

The U.S. went to Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaeda. There it also captured and tortured one Abu Yahya al-Libi before he fled from Bagram. The U.S. was also working with Gaddhafi in Libya to keep Jihadis like al-Libi down. But in 2011 the U.S. suddenly changed course and Chris Stevens and others worked in lockstep with al-Libi and Salafi forces in Libya to overthrow Gaddhafi. Now, as these forces are out of control, the powers the U.S. unleashed in Libya are coming back to haunt it. Those lovable rebels that heroically dragged Gaddhafis body through the streets of Libya’s are now “thugs” for doing the same to the U.S. ambassador. This is obviously a self inflicted wound.

As ambassador Chas W. Freeman explained in a speech last week:

The so-called “global war on terror” or “militant Islam,” as so many now openly describe it, has become an endless run in a military squirrel cage that is generating no light but a lot of future anti-American terrorism. It turns out that all that is required to be hated is to do hateful things. Ironically, as we “search abroad for monsters to destroy,” we are creating them – transforming our foreign detractors into terrorists, multiplying their numbers, intensifying their militancy, and fortifying their hatred of us. The sons and brothers of those we have slain know where we are. They do not forget. No quarter is given in wars of religion. We are generating the very menace that entered our imaginations on 9/11.

The killing of the U.S. ambassador in Libya will make further U.S. support for the insurgency in Syria, which is also supported by Al Qaeda and by Libyan Salafist fighters, more unlikely.

Hours later CNN reported Attack may have been al Qaeda revenge plot, and has now doubled down more assuredly: Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack:

(CNN) — A pro-al Qaeda group responsible for a previous armed assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is the chief suspect in Tuesday’s attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, sources tracking militant Islamist groups in eastern Libya say.

They also note that the attack immediately followed a call from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for revenge for the death in June of a senior Libyan member of the terror group Abu Yahya al-Libi.

There’s lots more data and links at b’s report, I recommend.

B as been out in front of the news before, breaking both the IAEA Nanodiamonds report as well as his prescient analysis of how Iran acquired a stealth drone, way out in front of the main stream media as two examples within the last year.

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani
Posted in Middle East, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics, War on Terror

{ 125 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. jimbowski says:

    I’m always weary whenever someone uses the name “al-Qaeda.” A bomb goes off? Blame al-Qaeda. A massacre by Salafis in Iraq? Blame al-Qaeda. The temperature is hot? Blame al-Qaeda. I believe government officials worldwide have an incentive to blame “al-Qaeda” because it makes American taxpayers support more “aid” for those governments. That’s because, for Americans, al-Qaeda means “September 11.” Also notice there are different types of “al-Qaeda” mentioned in the news media. There are “pro-Al-Qaeda” groups (as this article says), al-Qaeda “affiliates”, al-Qaeda “inspired” groups and al-Qaeda “off-shoots.” LOL. We are all being played like a cheap banjo by governments and even local terrorists who use the word “al-Qaeda” but have no designs to be international terrorists.

    • bilal a says:

      ap should apologize for its blood libel

      If initial reports that the anti-Muslim film that triggered riots in Libya and Egypt is the work of an Israeli filmmaker supported by Jewish donors are incorrect, then the media is guilty of a “blood libel,” Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said Wednesday. He said that the media will have to answer for its role in spreading controversial and possibly false information about the makers of the purported film The Innocence of Muslims without thorough fact-checking.

      link to hollywoodreporter.com

    • bilal a says:

      an actrees in the film: “She also claims that Bacile, who says he is an Israeli (though the country has no record of his existence), spoke Arabic and told her he was Egyptian. :

      link to hollywoodreporter.com

      Israelis fund a hate film with an egyptian producer who claims to be Israeli , then is discovered to not be, then the adl / Wiesenthal centers condemn the media. Donors and producer are never found or identified. lol,

    • ToivoS says:

      Al Qaida is not a real organization, but it is not inaccurate to call those Islamic militants , under the influence of Salafists, who have gained military training in wars in Afghanistan or Iraq as Al Qaida.

      I wonder if Phil is still exultant over the glorious victory that the Nato rebels obtained over Kadaffi’s forces. This is the blow-back that many of us predicted when it became obvious within the first week of the Libyan insurrection that the forces that over ran the garrison in Benghazi were in fact Islamic militants who were already trained fighters.

      • marc b. says:

        yes, toivo, and syria needs us too.

        i appreciate MofA’s (usual) great analysis, but i’m reserving judgment on the A-Q connection. i’m still shaking my head over al-libi’s ‘escape’ from bagram. his is one of many curious ‘escapes’ of high value prisoners in the war on terror.

      • American says:

        @Toivo

        It’s possible these attackers were ALQ who were waiting for an opportunity. BUT that does not the mean the leadership in Libya is involved with ALQ.
        ALQ has infiltrated Iraq and the Iraq government is fighting them there. Check the news on Iraq.
        When 9/11 struck the CIA estimated that OBL had only about 200 soldiers…BUT he had some sympathizers in the region and it’s not impossible that there are cells ‘similar’ to the AQL operations that share their ideology. So I wouldn’t totally dismiss the possibility that these are ALQ clones not regular Islamic radicals.
        OBL’s whole plan was to draw the US into the ME and drown us there, or death by a thousand cuts so to speak. So to the AQL brain any attacks on America is furthering that that plan.

        • Walid says:

          “OBL’s whole plan was to draw the US into the ME and drown us there”

          American, you’ve got that one backwards. OBL was about getting the US out of the ME.

        • Kathleen says:

          “check the news on Iraq” which of course will not be from US MSM outlets they have not touched any news about Iraq in years. Sweep that pile of dead, injured Iraqi bodies under the U.S. carpet along with the over a million Iraqi people displaced. I wonder what the percentage of Americans still believe the invasion of Iraq was linked to 9/11?

          But when you had everyone in the Bush administration repeating those lies over and over on a complicit MSM what the hell are most people going to believe?

        • American says:

          @ Walid

          six of one, half dozen of the other….. OBL wanted to keep taking bites out of the US until we hollared uncle….and left. We weren’t/aren’t going to get out until we can’t or won’t pay the price of staying any more….that was his theory at least. It’s working on the US public if not on Washington…we are all OD’ed on the ME.

    • Just as long as “blame the Jews” is not invoked.

      [see: link to huffingtonpost.com ]

  2. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Israel lobby will do its best to link Iran to this attack, despite the fact that Iran considers Sunni fanatics to be deadly enemies.

  3. bilal a says:

    Funny how the focus conveniently turns from an Israeli, Jewish funded (allegedly, then denied by goldblob) piece of anti Muslim bigotry and hate, into an Islamist planned terrorist attack. (with analysis from B who has some understanding of drone detection , moon over redstone arsenal alabama ).

    It seems likely that the ambassador and his cohort were killed by a small killer team that lit up his car as it exited, by whose orders, and how they knew he would leave, is unknown. Perhaps the fire forced his removal and this was a known SOP. The killer team has probably already left Libya for debriefing elswehere. Next news cycle will indicate Iranian sponsorship. check with B.

    But Chris Stevens was not your usual cable pushing diplomat, he arrived in Libya on a greek cargo ship under darkness, led the rebels for the US as its envoy, and then supervised the victory as the rebels murdered the son of the Libya leader, having previously served in Jerusalem and Iraq. He was then a combatant in the Libyan civil war, a military target, not the angelic peace corps activist mourned, and if not a little Eichman, then perhaps a little Menachem Begin.

    He who lives by the sword shall often die by it… or, by ,an american provided, RPG.

    • chuckcarlos says:

      you mean, you mean

      one does not bring light mortars or RPGs to a street demonstration of some twobit movie made in some guys bathroom in Bakersfield?

      Salafists

      but it does not matter Sunni, Shiite

      Israel is a recruiting poster for every teenage Muslim freedom fighter who comes down the block…and since the USA finances, COMPLETELY, Israel…the USA becomes the target

    • But Chris Stevens was not your usual cable pushing diplomat, he arrived in Libya on a greek cargo ship under darkness, led the rebels for the US as its envoy, and then supervised the victory as the rebels murdered the son of the Libya leader,

      yes, b lays out stevens history in his post, there is a lot more there.

  4. Patrick says:

    The MSM have been slow off the mark, but they are coming around to the same view of these events. The NY Times now has this:

    While the protesters in Cairo appeared to be genuinely outraged over the anti-Islam video, the attackers in Benghazi were armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. Officials said it was possible that an organized group had either been waiting for an opportunity to exploit like the protests over the video or perhaps even generated the protests as a cover for their attack.

    Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a former FBI agent, agreed. “Clearly the event in Libya was a planned, targeted attack and I believe they selected the date probably for a reason,” he said. “As an old investigator, I can tell you, you can’t have that many coincidences on the same day. I don’t believe it.”

    link to nytimes.com

    • I believe they selected the date probably for a reason

      9/11? wow he’s really smart.

      • piotr says:

        That actually makes a lot of sense. As AQ mode of operation, an attack on US embassy or a consulate and connecting the date to 9/11 seem is quite typical, but finding a video and covering their movements with a mob that probably did not mean to demonstrate violently is tactically brilliant (surely, not morally correct).

  5. sheesh.

    Below is an interview of Eric Margolis.

    link to lewrockwell.com

  6. Linda J says:

    This picture does look like Stevens being “gaddafied” link to imgur.com
    Found it on twitter. Not vouching for it.

    • ToivoS says:

      Lindaj says: “Not vouching for it.”

      Nor should you. But the opponents of US hegemony in the Mid East will run with it nevertheless. It is an image that will stimulate even more opposition to US intervention Libya. Life is so unfair: why is it that bogus images like this are used by America’s enemies to degrade our wonderful, democracy loving, image.

      I guess that is the price that US efforts to impose our will on Muslim have to pay.

      • there are two photos of him here. fairly definitive in my estimation.

        • MRW says:

          Those two photos show the one thing that religious Muslim men are forbidden to do: adorn themselves in gold, especially gold necklaces.

          The man holding Stevens has two gold necklaces around this neck, visible in the second photo. One necklace appears to be a locket or religious icon.
          “The reason why gold is forbidden for men”
          link to islamqa.info
          Photo one:
          link to static.vg.no
          Photo two:
          link to twitter.com

          I am deeply appreciate of moonofalabama’s reporting because if he ever discovers he’s wrong, he corrects it in a digital nanosecond. My spidey sense goes off, however, when I see that the sources, or discoverers, of the Zawahiri videos are SITE and IntelCenter, the former a two-person former Mossad team who were the sole source for the discredited bin Laden videos after 2001, and the latter a secretive “key resource for obtaining terrorist videos from al-Qaeda before the group released them publicly” according to their website.

          I’ll sip the kool-aid in a couple of weeks, after it has fermented a little.

          EDIT: BTW, isn’t it interesting that after 24 hours, we’re still trying to find out who did it, but on 9/11 everyone seemed to know in 90 minutes; ie: before noon.

        • Walid says:

          MRW, there is no Quranic prohibition for men to wear gold and because Salafists like most fundamentalists pick and choose which rules to follow, you can’t go by the gold necklace to determine that the man in the photo is not a Salafist. Your link says fundies avoid wearing gold (and silk) to not act effiminate while another theory advanced by the scholar al-Bukhari says the prohibitive custom started when the Prophet permanently discarded the gold ring he wore and since good Muslims must emulate his customs, they should not wear gold.

        • MRW says:

          OK, I stand corrected.

        • LeaNder says:

          I am deeply appreciate of moonofalabama’s reporting because if he ever discovers he’s wrong, he corrects it in a digital nanosecond.

          that’s not my impression. Try to write a comment and contradict or deconstruct his narrative and you can watch your comment disappear in a nanosecond.

          This is a really simplistic tale:

          The protesters were exactly the Salafist rabble Saddam warned of, but of course the West and the US did not listen.

          I had an immense respect for Billmon, I do not have too much for “b”. He is an entertainer with a strict basic ideology. In a way Gadafi was such an entertainer too. Yes this “emperor’s” costumes were slightly funny. He did stick out among the other Arab representatives. But I can’t pretend I ever prayed on his green bible. Bernard seems to have loved “Brother Leader”, and as a leftist describes the protest against him as rabble, that’s enough for me to take one step back and wonder.

        • seafoid says:

          It is very unusual to see a white CEO type with that face shape and that haircut come to such an end.

        • Kathleen says:

          Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith and the rest of the lies team knew before the Bush administration took office. Certainly at their earliest cabinet meetings according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil.

        • Walid says:

          “Bernard seems to have loved “Brother Leader”, and as a leftist describes the protest against him as rabble…” (LeaNder)

          I think he’s more against Western imperialism than being a cheerleader for Gaddafi or for Assad, as he is now appears to be doing. Inspite of his intransigence with those that disagree with his views as you mentioned, overall it’s still a good site.

          Speaking of Gaddafi, here’s an apt reminder of Clinton gloating over his assassination; whoever killed the Americans in Libya, the arms used were undoubtedly supplied by the US. Ironic.

        • Joe Catron says:

          If those are Salafis, wearing not only gold chains but in one case a keffiyeh, with distinctively Western clothes and – most importantly – no beards, then I’m a Jainist monk.

        • Joe Catron says:

          To me, these pictures all look definitive of exactly two things:

          1. Stevens is in bad shape, and probably dead;

          2. Libyans are carrying him somewhere.

          Have you ever seen shebab transporting their wounded? I have, dozens of times over. It’s a chaotic mess that often looks exactly like this.

          link to mondoweiss.net

          I see nothing here incompatible with what I believe is still the official story: that Stevens died of smoke inhalation, then Libyans carried him towards a hospital.

        • LeaNder says:

          Thanks, Joe, that was on my mind.

          2. Libyans are carrying him somewhere.

          There are reports that Lybians carried him to the hospital. Were he was diagnosed to suffer from asphyxiation, he was declared dead sometime later.

          Of course this group of Arab men can’t be up to any good, can they be?

        • LeaNder says:

          I think he’s more against Western imperialism than being a cheerleader for Gaddafi or for Assad, as he is now appears to be doing.

          Walid, strictly I like the paradoxes one encounters in orthodox “anti-imperialism”. I have pondered these matters a lot over time. The Bader Meinhof group combined being on the extreme left with anti-imperialism too. But their money to quite some extend didn’t come from the people suppressed by imperialism, but from their native masters. Which meant they also had to do their dirty jobs, partly. That’s how masters function pretty much everywhere.

          Inspite of his intransigence …

          A quick glance suggests, he is closer concerning Syria, but strictly in that context, I prefer one of his main sources. I think he is wrong about Lybia.

          It doesn’t matter and I fully accept Annie’s rapture about “b”, I simply do not understand it.

          Suppose Mondoweiss would close down, would I be interested in some kind of copycat version? Billmon versus “b”? Phil and Adam versus “p” and “a”? …

          In one case that concerned Germany, I looked a little into b’s bragging and did a little research. It was interesting.

        • Walid says:

          “A quick glance suggests, he is closer concerning Syria”

          I don’t think so, LeaNder, discussions on the conflict are limited to events going back to only 18 months; today’s conflict is actually rooted in events of decades earlier that are tied to the rise of Baathism and its clash with the rise of the Syrian MB and its subsequent suppression.

          Sorry I can’t follow you on Billmon; he is new to me.

        • Suppose Mondoweiss would close down, would I be interested in some kind of copycat version? Billmon versus “b”? Phil and Adam versus “p” and “a”? …

          leander, your comment suggests your link supports what you’re saying , it doesn’t. anyone who knows the history of billmon and moa (or was there, like i was) knows moa began not as a copycat version but as a place the community of commenters could go after billmon shut down his comment section because it became flooded with trolls (as your link explains and references ” Moon of Alabama, a companion site “ which is completely contrary to your allegation). b started up moa (at the time with the assistance of jerome of paris)because the community wanted to stay intact. billmon remained open (on an off) for a few years after that and sometimes billmon would comment on moa but always, with every post, moa published billmon’s work and that was where the conversation took place. it was a complimentary site as the design and name implies, all with billmon’s approval. billmon even had a link on whiskey bar for a long time directing comments to moon (which became intermittent on occassion). had there been any initial objection to b and jerome opening the site it would have opened with an alternate design and name.

          as for your allegation Try to write a comment and contradict or deconstruct his narrative and you can watch your comment disappear in a nanosecond. that is completely ridiculous. there are regular commentors there who disagree with almost everything he writes and he gets insulted regularly. he’s much more tolerant of opposing views and trolls than i would be. he also gives warnings about bannings.

          just go to some of his threads about the iranian elections and read all the opposing views by the mirad of ‘iranians’ who were commenting there. if your comment doesn’t go thru just resubmit it because there have been times the comments don’t post easily.

          I fully accept Annie’s rapture about “b”, I simply do not understand it.

          i don’t care if you understand my thinking about b’s analysis. here’s what i won’t do..characterize your opinion as a vendetta or an obsession. this is in regard to your ‘rapture’ framing.

  7. bilal a says:

    Now apparently a link to the Russian mafia ?

    LOS ANGELES, Calif. – The search for those behind the anti-Muslim film that triggered mobs in Egypt and Libya has led to a California man once convicted of financial crimes. The man acknowledged his role Wednesday in managing and providing logistics for the film production.

    Nakoula Basseley Nakoula told The Associated Press that he was manager for the company that produced “Innocence of Muslims,” which mocked Muslims and the prophet Mohammed and was implicated in inflaming mobs that attacked U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya

    Nakoula denied he directed the film or that he knew the self-described director, Sam Bacile. But the cellphone number that the AP contacted Tuesday to reach Bacile traced to an address near Los Angeles where Nakoula was found. Federal court papers said Nakoula’s aliases included Nicola Bacily and Erwin Salameh.

    link to medicinehatnews.com

    Nakoula Basseley Nakoula ? Federal court papers said Nakoula’s aliases included Nicola Bacily and Erwin Salameh.?

    wonder if he ever worked for adelson in macao or vegas ?

  8. ‘This Does Not Represent Us’: Moving Photos of Pro-American Rallies in Libya

    link to theatlanticwire.com

    Al Quida’s philosophy can only be destroyed by muslim themselves. A little positive help from US will go a long way but dont hold your breath with allies like Saudi and Qatar and Pakistan.

    • bilal a says:

      Neocons/ Israel r already using the incident against Egypt; they r the beneficiaries of the AQ trope pushed by Israeli Blitzer:

      “For the United States, “politically the bigger issue is Egypt,” said Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel. “On the one hand, you didn’t have Americans getting killed, but this was the fourth time an embassy was assaulted in Cairo with the Egyptian police doing precious little,” Indyk said. “And where was President Morsi’s condemnation of this?””

      link to startribune.com

      • Kathleen says:

        “And where was President Morsi’s condemnation of this” Right where U.S. condemnations are as Israel continues to expand illegal settlements, Israel deciding Israel is not guilty in the Rachel Corrie killing, the Mavi Marmara executions, the Gaza slaughter. Where were those U.S. condemnations Mr. Indyk? Monkey see monkey do

  9. I want to beleive that movie thing is a distraction .But since it has raised the on going scum activities(film) to the US consciousness level , the same promoters and supporters of hateful movies on Islam like those that were sent on the back of the news appers in 2010(?) to US homes free ,are coming out in droves to confidently deny any connection between the film and the 100 or so donors and between any Isareli citizen.

  10. Neocns are good to deny when things go openly wrong and questions are raised by American..Didn’t they just try to demonize Kurt Eichenwald ?

  11. ColinWright says:

    How did ‘al Qaeda’ know that this movie was going to be produced and fed to Salafi groups?

    Whoever mounted the attack in Libya knew that they would have this opportunity — and I’m inclined to suspect they were the same folks as those who made the movie.

    I also find it damned odd that ‘al Qaeda’ staged this attack but ‘al Qaeda’ hasn’t taken credit. The idea seems to have been, on the contrary, make the killings appear to be the work of the mob.

    My suspicions are further heightened by the markedly calm and measured response of the Obama administration. Publicly, they’re saying what they have to say — I wonder what they know in private?

  12. seanmcbride says:

    There’s a Wikipedia entry up over “Innocence of Muslims”:

    link to en.wikipedia.org

  13. ColinWright says:

    The more I think about this, the more I think at least some elements of Mossad or Mossad-sponsored groups must be involved.

    I’ve been saying they’ll need to get some Americans killed if they want to get our war on Islam back on track — and the Americans have gotten killed.

    More substantially, it all just fits together too well. This deliberately inflammatory footage is put together and fed to YouTube — and there’s a hit squad sitting in Benghazi, ready to go. The people who made the video are connected — probably unknowingly — to the ones who carried out the killings. I can’t guarantee it, but that’s my suspicion.

    • bilal a says:

      exactly right, like joe pesci in the jfk cover up movie, ‘You want me to tell u who killed the [ ambassador ], even the shooters dont know . “

    • @Colin

      ‘Sam Bacile’s blaming the Jews for the video isn’t enough, Colin. You also have climb into the gutter too and blame Jews?

      • seanmcbride says:

        proudzionist777 said to ColinWright:

        “Sam Bacile’s blaming the Jews for the video isn’t enough, Colin. You also have climb into the gutter too and blame Jews?”

        Colin has done that — and on the basis of not a scrap of concrete evidence.

        Since the initial reports about “Innocence of Muslims” and Sam Bacile proved to be false, one should wait for all the facts to come to light before pouncing on any more ungrounded speculations — remain in a holding pattern until the story settles.

        Reasonable questions one could look into: what are the historical relations between the Copts and Israel? What are Nakoula Basseley Nakoula’s past relations with Israel, if any? What does a Google search on [mossad copts] turn up? (I don’t have time to look into all this — perhaps someone else will.)

        In the meantime, this situation looks like a black op, but one still shrouded in mystery.

      • ColinWright says:

        proudzionist777: “@Colin

        ‘Sam Bacile’s blaming the Jews for the video isn’t enough, Colin. You also have climb into the gutter too and blame Jews?”

        Qui bono? Who could have coordinated all three parts of this? This is Israel’s stye. It’s been obvious something like this was her only hope.

        If you walk outside, and there’s a shit on the lawn, do you have to blame a dog? It could have a lion that escaped from the circus, been the neighbor himself, all kinds of things…

  14. Kathleen says:

    There was quite a bit of a buzz back in 2011 in the blogosphere about a former Al Qeada member being the head of the Libyan rebels. Remember Qaddafi was even pointing the finger at Al Qeada playing a part in his downfall. A great deal talked about that the Obama administration did not really know who the rebels were.

    And now the enemy of my enemy is my friend comes back to bite the U.S. in the ass. So sad for the families of those slain

    • ColinWright says:

      “…And now the enemy of my enemy is my friend comes back to bite the U.S. in the ass. So sad for the families of those slain…”

      I still don’t think it was ‘al Qaeda’ in the first place. For one, even if my own theories are mistaken, ‘al Qaeda’ ceased to be an actual organization years ago.

      It’s merely an idea. You want to be ‘al Qaeda,’ you’re al Qaeda. Various smaller groups find the label congenial, and appropriate it.

      It’s even possible that the group that carried out the attack genuinely consider themselves ‘al Qaeda’ — and were steered into place by the Mossad. The two ideas aren’t mutually exclusive.

      • Kathleen says:

        Early on during the international coalitions militarization of the Libyan rebels it was reported by a few reporters that one of the heads of the Libyan “rebels” was a former Al Qeada member.

        Keep thinking about the recent story out about CIA’s rendition and water boarding of Libyan rebels.

  15. ColinWright says:

    Also of interest is that apparently the attackers knew the exact escape route the ambassador would take and targeted the ‘safe house’ with what was described as a very professionally executed mortar barrage. Not to mention, they seem to have known the ambassador would be in Benghazi in the first place.

    This was a hit carried out with inside knowledge. The whole thing was scripted as hell, and whoever the actual attackers thought they were working for, my guess is it was either Mossad or the equivalent.

    I think the US government is guessing the same. Play time may be over.

  16. ColinWright says:

    And more oddities.

    “…On Wednesday night, residents of both Tripoli and Benghazi staged demonstrations to condemn the attack and express their sorrow at the loss of Mr. Stevens. Stationed in Benghazi during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi, Mr. Stevens, who was fluent in Arabic and French, had become a local hero for his support to the Libyan rebels during their time of greatest need. Benghazi residents circulated photographs online of Mr. Stevens frequenting local restaurants, relishing local dishes, and strolling city streets, apparently without a security detail…”

    This thing keeps walking like a duck and quacking like a duck. Anyone notice how no one is claiming responsibility?

    • ColinWright says:

      In connection with this, the ambassador’s role in the revolt suggests that the attackers might not have imagined they were ‘al Qaeda’ at all, but might have been disgruntled ex-regime soldiers recruited by Mossad — either knowingly or unknowingly. Somebody certainly had them in place and fed them the information they would need.

      • Izik says:

        Well. Of course. Mossad. How come I didn’t think of it sooner?

      • might have been disgruntled ex-regime soldiers recruited by Mossad

        just as likely they were recruited by Qatar or UAE. there are a lot of people with interest is securing africom in libya.
        link to globalresearch.ca

        Ham also spoke of AFRICOM’s Operation Odyssey Dawn being the model for expanding war-time cooperation with traditional NATO allies to include military partners in the Arab world, which is to say those outside Africa; to wit, the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Last year Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, long-standing U.S. military partners and since 2004 members of NATO’s Istanbul Cooperation Initiative program, supplied warplanes under NATO command for the merciless six-month bombardment of Libya.

        this attack will definitely create a situation for the US to secure it’s hold over libya. and contrary to all the bruha the main intent of overthrowing gadaffi, geopolitically , was to reassert control over wheelus air base to establish the africom home base.

        Africom Forms Military Relationship With Libya
        STUTTGART, Germany, June 15, 2012
        link to defense.gov

        • ColinWright says:

          Annie Robbins says: “…this attack will definitely create a situation for the US to secure it’s hold over libya. and contrary to all the bruha the main intent of overthrowing gadaffi, geopolitically , was to reassert control over wheelus air base to establish the africom home base…”

          If it was us, a couple of things don’t fit.

          First, it really isn’t our style to whack our own personnel.

          Second, and more convincingly, this guy was very popular in Libya. If we were seeking to cement our control over Libya, he’d be a damned odd choice of target.

          On the one hand, I will freely admit I’d be very happy if it could be shown that Israel had done this — and I will admit that my theory is largely speculation. On the other hand, that this was Mossad is the one explanation that fits all the data and provides a motive.

        • seriously colin, in this instance it is not appropriate to cherry pick and present a response without taking the entire comment into consideration. for your edification “just as likely they were recruited by Qatar or UAE. there are a lot of people with interest is securing africom in libya“.

          the attack does create a situation for the US to secure it’s hold over libya. but there are other parties interested in africom in libya, and probably other parties interested in who is at the helm in libya, besides the US.

          now , if you care to argue “the main intent of overthrowing gadaffi, geopolitically , was to reassert control over wheelus air base to establish the africom home base…” by all means. but i am not going to feel cornered into defending an assertion i didn’t make.

        • also, take into account i commented as a response to your idea it was mossad.

          while there are an abundance of implications islamophobes might be interested in this development there are also reasons to believe there are also interests not aligned with israel . some might even consider diversions. for one thing, it focuses attention away from iran into another area of the globe of massive strategic interests to the US. so, at a time heading into elections when the opposing team is going to be hammering obama on a perceived weakness wrt redlining iran where might obama look strong? by retaliation operations in libya, and there are warships on the way there right now AND they are just a tad ahead of schedule because:

          June 17, 2012

          The war against Libya was the inauguration of AFRICOM as an active military force capable of waging large-scale combat operations, as it was NATO’s first war in Africa, building on a strategy first unveiled in the massive Steadfast Jaguar war games in Cape Verde in 2006 to launch the global NATO Response Force.

          During his congressional testimony, AFRICOM chief Ham applauded new military-to- military relations with the barely functioning government of Libya, which was bombed into power by NATO warplanes and U.S. Tomahawk cruise and Hellfire missiles, specifying the activation of an Office of Security Cooperation at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli that, according to the Pentagon press service, “can help coordinate security assistance, international military education and training and other security cooperation. “

          The same source reported that “Ham said military operations in Libya drove home the point that all U.S. combatant commands including Africom must be capable of operating across the full spectrum of conflict,” and quoted him directly as pledging:

          “It is probably not going to be very often where Africa Command goes to the more kinetic, the more offensive operations in Africa. But nonetheless, we have to be ready to do that if the president requires that of us.”

          As he already has. U.S. Army Africa commander Major General David Hogg recently disclosed that the Army will begin the deployment of over 3,000 troops to Africa beginning next year [1], complementing special forces operations in Central Africa, a counterinsurgency campaign in Mali, involvement in the ongoing war in Somalia (especially from Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti where the U.S. has 2,000-3,000 troops, aircraft and ships), drone missile attacks in Yemen and Somalia directed by U.S. military personnel in Seychelles and Ethiopia and other, more covert, military operations throughout the continent.

          link to globalresearch.ca

          i am merely suggesting there are other actors/powers in the region who possibly take action that do not revolve around israel. they are not all benign, and some of them may have an interest in the upcoming election. and maybe they don’t want a romney presidency.

          did you ever think of that? or is the only actor capable of manipulation..israel?

        • ColinWright says:

          Annie Robbins says: “…“just as likely they were recruited by Qatar or UAE. there are a lot of people with interest is securing africom in libya“…”

          The point remains. If anyone’s motive was to secure africom in Libya, they picked a damned odd target. If you want to secure British influence with the Sheriff of Mecca, you don’t kill Lawrence of Arabia.

        • so the important thing to remember is “professionals”.

        • ok, besides our consulate..name one other american target in libya likely to achieve equal or more public sentiment wrt supporting immediate retaliation by our government. not including a massive amount of death. relatively minor number of deaths like 4.

        • ColinWright says:

          Annie Robbins says: “…ok, besides our consulate..name one other american target in libya likely to achieve equal or more public sentiment wrt supporting immediate retaliation by our government.”

          Our embassy?

        • marc b. says:

          annie, not that you don’t spend enough time down the rabbit hole of the internet, but there is an interesting summary of the strange collection of persons surrounding the movie.

          link to cannonfire.blogspot.com

          i have not had a chance to look behind the links at this point, but here’s a taste:

          When Nakoula’s anti-Muslim movie was filmed, the script did not mention Muhammed and bore the title “Desert Warrior.” An actress involved with the production, Cindy Lee Garcia, has come forward to denounce the thirteen minute segment of the film that appeared on YouTube. She also provided a copy of the original casting call, which offers a clue as to another shady individual involved with this bizarre production. Interested parties were directed to contact this email address: [email protected].

          Believe it or not, there really is a person in Hollywood who calls himself Jimmy Israel. You can write to him at [email protected] and [email protected]. Here’s his webpage.

          Even though he’s trolling for screenplays, he advertises himself as running — you guessed it — a real estate company. Actually, he refers to his company as a group of “financer/investors.”

          As you may recall, “Sam Bacile” originally claimed to be in the real estate business. So now I’m wondering: Is “Sam Bacile” a pseudonym for Nakoula Nakoula or Jimmy Israel — or both? Perhaps Nakoula worked with Jimmy in the same office…

          Jimmy also runs a seminar program/multi-level marketing scheme called Nouveau Riche. Here’s his spiel. To my eyes, this thing has scam written all over it. In fact, nothing about this guy’s web site feels legit. I’m getting a definite “Brent Wilkes” vibe from this guy.

          Israel’s partner in the Nouveau Riche scheme — which has apparently given rise to a lawsuit — is a fellow named Jim Piccolo. (I’m not making up these names, honest!) The guy apparently makes his living selling various get-rich-quick “opportunities.”

          Everything about this crew reeks of con-artistry and possible criminality — well, actual criminality in the case of Nakoula. Nothing about these guys suggests that they are motivated by religion or a sincere desire to help the Copts of Egypt.

        • wow, i loove cannonfire blog. have not been there in awhile but back in the days they were wy ahead of the pack. i already knew about garcia..but the rest. ok, thanks will check out.

        • American says:

          “Everything about this crew reeks of con-artistry and possible criminality — well, actual criminality in the case of Nakoula. Nothing about these guys suggests that they are motivated by religion or a sincere desire to help the Copts of Egypt”

          That was one of my thoughts earlier also….that this film started as scam to lure in some investors and skim off some of the production money.
          True believers in a cause are perfect targets to get money out of.

        • ColinWright says:

          Anie says: “…i am merely suggesting there are other actors/powers in the region who possibly take action that do not revolve around israel. they are not all benign, and some of them may have an interest in the upcoming election. and maybe they don’t want a romney presidency.

          did you ever think of that? or is the only actor capable of manipulation..israel?…”

          Oh I agree…we have a distinct lack of information. It could have been a lot of people. However, what I’ve seen so far points at Israel a lot more than it points at ‘al Qaeda’ or anyone else.

          I’m not saying it was Israel. I am saying the weight of the evidence points that way now. There are major problems with every other conceivable actor.

  17. Kathleen says:

    Annie the Rehm show covered this topic the last hour. Diane blew off the idea that adversaries of Obama could have funded the film.She called these “rumors” Amazing what Diane chooses to call “rumors” and the unsubstantiated claims she has persistently allowed to be repeated about Iran on her program. Another guest brought up the idea of Salafists killing the Ambassador.She called this “far fetched” But on her program not “far fetched” when guest repeat the debunked “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map” purposely mistranslated statement.

    She is very selective about what she will call a rumor or far fetched. Telling. You might be interested in the program

  18. Dan Crowther says:

    the title of this post should be “amb stevens killed in premeditated terror attack by the same salafists the US backed in their war against Gaddaffi”

    Is Phil Weiss still feelin’ good about US Intervention in Libya?

  19. piotr says:

    The movie was released a few months ago, so it could be used in planning by anyone. Anti-Kaddafi rebels form a number of factions, and it suffices that one of them wanted al-Qaeda banner. I call such groups pet cobras (it applies best to Pakistan): you can support them, but controlling is a different matter.

    • ColinWright says:

      piotr: “The movie was released a few months ago, so it could be used in planning by anyone…”

      Was it? When’s the first clear record of it being in public circulation? Was ‘the movie’ ever finished — or was it just the trailer that was made?

      • marc b. says:

        according to what i have read, the movie was screened in LA a few months ago, and a trailer posted on youtube in english in july, but was not dubbed into arabic until september. it does not appear that there is any controversy that the movie is partly responsible for the recent protests. i agree with colin’s earlier comment that this movie and the assassination of stevens are linked somehow. i also agree that those involved in the movie production may not have known of its full intended use, though they can’t have been stupid enough not to expect that it would provoke a heated reaction. it seems curious given the facts (well not so curious) that the MSM continually links the general reaction to the movie and the death of stevens. coming out of the city, the al jazeera guy on NPR had to keep reminding the news reader that steven’s death appeared to be carefully planned, and probably required detailed intelligence on steven’s security, means of transportation, communications, etc.

  20. ColinWright says:

    Whoever mounted this attack had the following qualities:

    1. They were able to assemble a reasonably professional team of attackers.

    2. They weren’t interested in getting caught. No ‘martyrs.’

    3. They had inside information about the ambassador’s movements and the escape route.

    4. They were in place when that trailer went to You-Tube dubbed in Arabic.

    5. They had a reason to want several Americans to be killed right about now.

    6. They haven’t claimed credit.

    I see only one plausible candidate for the part.

  21. American says:

    OT…but didn’t know where else to mention it and it’s worth mentioning.

    Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:22 GMT

    Source: reuters // Reuters
    by Basil Katz

    NEW YORK, Sept 12 (Reuters) – A federal judge made permanent on Wednesday her order blocking enforcement of a U.S. law’s provision that authorizes military detention for people deemed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces.”

    U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan had ruled in May in favor of non-profit groups and reporters whose work relates to conflicts in the Middle East and who said they feared being detained under a section of the law, signed by President Barack Obama in December.

    Wednesday’s 112-page opinion turns the temporary injunction of May into a permanent injunction.
    The permanent injunction prevents the U.S. government from enforcing a portion of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act’s “Homeland Battlefield” provisions.

    The opinion stems from a January lawsuit filed by former New York Times war correspondent and Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges and others. The plaintiffs said they had no assurance that their writing and advocacy activities would not fall under the scope of the provision.’

  22. irishmoses says:

    I admit I am not up to speed or as down in the weeds as some of you on this. My main area of inquiry is whether there really is first amendment protection for this type of speech. It seems more like intentional incitement to me. Hopefully I’ll get some time over the weekend to do a bit of 1A research.

    As to this thread, I heard an eye witness interview this morning on NPR. This woman described what she saw as first an angry demonstration in front of the consulate. Then she heard some gunfire from the consulate, then some return gunfire. She said that at that point lots of the male participants went home to get their big guns (including a few machine guns and some RPGs). She said the problem in Benghazi (and perhaps most of Libya) is that a lot of guys found weapons during the revolution and have kept them. She also talked about different groups, like Salafi, etc. being better organized, but other smaller ones not so much, but still very well-armed from warehouse-seized weapons.

    This sounds to me more like a demonstration/riot turning into a full-on battle when everyone went home and brought back their big stuff, not some well-planned al Qaeda-like op. This makes more sense to me particularly since Ambassador Stevens died of smoke inhalation resulting from a fire.

    So, my preliminary theory is the above rather than dark conspiracy/al Qaeda, etc. We shall see in the days ahead.

    • ColinWright says:

      irishmoses says: “As to this thread, I heard an eye witness interview this morning on NPR. This woman described what she saw as first an angry demonstration in front of the consulate. Then she heard some gunfire from the consulate, then some return gunfire. She said that at that point lots of the male participants went home to get their big guns (including a few machine guns and some RPGs). She said the problem in Benghazi (and perhaps most of Libya) is that a lot of guys found weapons during the revolution and have kept them. She also talked about different groups, like Salafi, etc. being better organized, but other smaller ones not so much, but still very well-armed from warehouse-seized weapons.

      This sounds to me more like a demonstration/riot turning into a full-on battle when everyone went home and brought back their big stuff, not some well-planned al Qaeda-like op. This makes more sense to me particularly since Ambassador Stevens died of smoke inhalation resulting from a fire.

      So, my preliminary theory is the above rather than dark conspiracy/al Qaeda, etc. We shall see in the days ahead…”

      Well, I don’t know…

      We have the US government (of all people) saying there was clear evidence that this was the result of a planned attack by a small group with inside information…and then we start getting the ‘it was spontaneous after all’ from other sources.

      What’s going on? Maybe my Israel conspiracy theories are overblown, and the ‘spontaneous attack’ really is the true story…but then I remember Jonathan Pollard and why he’s still in prison, and the Liberty, and the bombing of the USAID (?) library in Cairo in the fifties, and I think, no — Israel really does things like this. I’m not crazy — she really does.

      …and maybe now the ‘spontaneous attack’ is being pumped out by people who don’t like where the ‘it was planned’ version is going to go.

      …This is starting to get less like Le Carre and more like Kafka.

  23. Djinn says:

    This angle was reported yesterday in Australia’s biggest broadsheet newspaper. Not sure how this is remotely ‘explosive’ (pretty obvious I’d have thought) and it certainly wasn’t a story exposed by a blogger.

    • djinn, why don’t you check the timestamp on australia’s biggest newspaper and then get back to us. this was published yesterday (scroll up and note the date). i was following the story unfold and when moon of alabama first published (open the link and check the time stamp) this had not been published anywhere because i googled it and there was nothing. cnn first confirmed b’s analysis. i was in email exchange with adam over how to cover b’s story before it first broke on a cnn blog during our conversation. you don’t believe me ask adam. you can read the comment feed/thread over on moon of alabama and note when the msm reports started coming in real time. you can be sure it wasn’t all over the place when phil and adam published their report a few hrs earlier, they would have said something.

      also, it was reported in both the guardian and by garth porter in AJ the b broke the nanodiamonds story busting the IAEA propaganda prior to even the report being released. days before, this is not the first time that’s happened.

      you’re just wrong. did you even bother opening the links and checking the dates?

      • Djinn says:

        Sorry Annie, why dont you check out the time differences between Oz and Australia not to mention how early a story has to be submitted to make into print copies and get back to me. I had already checked which came first before commenting so not sure you need to be so patronising. A google search is not exactly a thorough search method.

        • telegraph is 9:00PM BST 12 Sep 2012

          how does that compare with b’s time stamp?

          dailymail UPDATED: 18:22 EST, 12 September 2012

          The assault ‘came to avenge the death of Abu Yaya al-Libi, al Qaeda’s second in command killed a few months ago’ in Pakistan, think tank Quilliam told CNN, noting the rocket-propelled grenade launchers used in the attack do not normally appear at peaceful protests.

          now here’s cnn’s blog

          link to news.blogs.cnn.com

          check the timestamp for yourself when they first published.

          also, i apologize for sounding partronizing.what is the name of the paper? i can find the link if you let me know.

        • ok djinn, can you link to the paper in australia then, please. even daily mail said they got it from cnn. please link so i can read the australian coverage you’re referencing.thanks.

      • also, the story was morphing on cnn while i was writing the draft. because when i started it it was only mentioned as a theory on a blog suggested by ‘a think tank in london’ and by the time i finished the draft, about 1/2 hr later it had the version i blockquoted. i linked to both the blog and the story which appeared shortly thereafter. again, this story was published here yesterday. it’s a day old thread now.

        • Djinn says:

          Annie – did you read the MOA piece? in it there is a link to an AlJ story where the theory that this was a planned attack in relation to Al-Libi is reported.

          So MOA was the first to report a story even though IN the story he/she links to a very mainstream article saying the same thing yet somehow MOA posted first?

        • djinn, your article says
          Last Modified: 12 Sep 2012 18:20

          it also cites the british think tank.

          b’s report came out at 6:52 am EST sept 12th when people all over the world were waking thursday to the news the killings were as a result of a movie, even in australia.

          also re he/she, b is a he. i know him. his name is listed in the very first link in my article.

        • here: link to moonofalabama.org

          in the comments almost 5 hrs after he posted he links to link to quilliamfoundation.org

          which is cnn’s source:

          That British Quillian Foundation comes to the same conclusion I came to:

          The Attack on the US Consulate Was A Planned Terrorist Assault Against US and Libyan Interests

          We at Quilliam believe the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was a well planned terrorist attack that would have occurred regardless of the demonstration, to serve another purpose. According to information obtained by Quilliam – from foreign sources and from within Benghazi – we have reason to believe that the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi came to avenge the death of Abu Yaya al-Libi, al-Qaeda’s second in command killed a few months ago.

          The reasons for this are as follows:

          24 hours before this attack, none other than the leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, released a video on Jihadist forums to mark the anniversary of 9/11. In this video, Zawahiri acknowledged the death of his second in command Abu Yahya and urged Libyans to avenge his killing.

          According to our sources, the attack was the work of roughly 20 militants, prepared for a military assault – it is rare that an RPG7 is present at a peaceful protest.

          According to our sources, the attack against the Consulate had two waves. The first attack led to US officials being evacuated from the consulate by Libyan security forces, only for the second wave to be launched against US officials after they were kept in a secure location.

          The weak security environment in Libya including in Benghazi and the failure of the government to project its power outside of the capital have been used as a cover for the attack.

          Posted by: b | Sep 12, 2012 11:22:04 AM | 12

          shortly thereafter cnn posted it on their blog. which is also posted over there in the comments. wouldn’t you find it a tad odd no one linked to the story in the comment and said..hey b, that’s already been reported? because it wasn’t at the time he published that.

        • also, it is not my intent to sound offensive but we do take our work seriously here. i don’t just get to say anything i want. adam and phil are rather particular about accuracy. we had an email exchange about how to frame the ‘theory’, and adam in particular is very up on twitter and the news. the news had not broken, was no where to be found when i first emailed him.

          he never would have published/allowed me to pump another blog with breaking this story without fact checking. there was no news about this when i first emailed him. none. even the headline ‘appears to have been’ was edited for caution because it was not verified by cnn at that time. it was framed , by cnn as a theory from the think tank, about 4-5 hrs after b published. really.

        • LeaNder says:

          Annie, “b” posts from Germany, my time here now is: 14 September 12:40, let’s check how it shows here.

        • yes i am aware he posts from germany leander, but his blog posts read EST.

        • LeaNder says:

          The IP address of Moon of Alabama is: 204.9.177.195 blogs.typepad.com.

          So, no, I do not wonder that the blog posts read EST. Maybe that is were the server is?

          It is EST:
          Registrant:
          SAY Media, Inc (SAYMEDIA71921)
          180 Townsend St
          San Francisco, CA, 94107 US

          DNS Servers

        • marc b. says:

          annie, i still find the AQ ‘connection’ flimsy stuff. even the reasoning in the block quote above is faulty.

          We at Quilliam believe the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was a well planned terrorist attack that would have occurred regardless of the demonstration, to serve another purpose.

          it’s not accurate to say that ‘the well planned attack’ would have occurred independently ‘of the demonstration.’ the demonstrations were clearly exploited, at a variety of levels, by those planning and carrying out the attack. they would have had to have coordinated the attack with intelligence on the ambassador’s movements in response to the ‘protests’, and the protests were in response to the movie, or so the story goes in news reports.

          and this cited as evidence of AQ involvement:

          24 hours before this attack, none other than the leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, released a video on Jihadist forums to mark the anniversary of 9/11. In this video, Zawahiri acknowledged the death of his second in command Abu Yahya and urged Libyans to avenge his killing.

          so zawahiri calles on libyans to avenge the death of his second in command, and 24 hours later ‘libyans’ are able to stage a sophisticated attack on an american ambassador? nonsense. and i have a problem with the bona fides of these terrorist videos in any event. some guy with a video camera, brown skin and fluency in arabic disseminates a video saying he’s ‘al -qaeda’, so he must be AQ. really, what’s the evidence of a large scale, sophisticated AQ presence in libya in the first place? is it the ‘al qaeda in the magreb’ varsity jackets they wore when they assassinated stevens? AQ is like ‘communism’ was 30 years ago; the universal smear for any military activity or ideology in the ME or africa that is contrary to US interests.

        • marc b. says:

          link to independent.co.uk

          The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

          American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

          The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.

          Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

          According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

          Mr Stevens had been on a visit to Germany, Austria and Sweden and had just returned to Libya when the Benghazi trip took place with the US embassy’s security staff deciding that the trip could be undertaken safely.

        • eljay says:

          >> AQ is like ‘communism’ was 30 years ago; the universal smear for any military activity or ideology in the ME or africa that is contrary to US interests.

          Al-Qaeda is the current face of terrrrrrrrr. Well, one of its two (’cause you can’t trust terrrrrrrrr!) faces, the other being Iran.

          I was shocked yesterday to read just how incredibly scary Iran really is:
          —————-
          The United States is being urged to establish a major missile interceptor site two hours from Ottawa in upstate New York or in Maine to defend itself and Canada against potential future strikes from Iran.

          The proposed site, “would protect the eastern United States and Canada, particularly against Iranian ICBM threats should they emerge,” says a blue-chip panel report delivered to Congress this week.
          —————-

        • it’s not accurate to say that ‘the well planned attack’ would have occurred independently ‘of the demonstration.’

          i do not know anything about Quilliam marc. but i would like to point out they didn’t say ‘‘the well planned attack’ would have occurred independently ‘of the demonstration.’ they said ” a well planned terrorist attack that would have occurred regardless of the demonstration, to serve another purpose.

          so zawahiri calles on libyans to avenge the death of his second in command, and 24 hours later ‘libyans’ are able to stage a sophisticated attack on an american ambassador?

          i don’t think b said ‘libyans’ carried out the attack. obviously the attack was planned well in advance. i think i have posted repeatedly “professionals” carried out the attack. for all i know they could have been operatives flown in for the event.

          the demonstrations were clearly exploited, at a variety of levels, by those planning and carrying out the attack. they would have had to have coordinated the attack with intelligence on the ambassador’s movements in response to the ‘protests’, and the protests were in response to the movie, or so the story goes in news reports.

          i think their point that the attack would have occurred regardless of the demonstration, means had it not been for the demonstration they would have arranged a counter strategy. i think the meaning is that they would have found a way to carry out the attack, that it was not dependent on this particular MO.

        • Kathleen says:

          Professor Juan Cole has one up over at Informed Comment on the who?

        • ColinWright says:

          “…The proposed site, “would protect the eastern United States and Canada, particularly against Iranian ICBM threats should they emerge,” says a blue-chip panel report delivered to Congress this week….”

          Wouldn’t do us any good anyway. The Iranians could just shoot straight down at us from their base on the Moon.

        • libra says:

          Annie: “i do not know anything about Quilliam marc.”

          They certainly receive UK government funding. Beyond that, plenty of speculation if you Google them. But this comment at the end of the press release you quote from is telling:

          Noman Benotman, President of Quilliam says:
          “These are acts committed by uncontrollable jihadist groups. We hope Libya will seize this opportunity to revive its policy of Disarmament, Demobilisation and Re-integration (DDR) in order to facilitate an end to the spread of such attacks, with the help of the International Community. We hope that the International Community, including NATO member states and especially the US, will continue their excellent work in Libya which began with the overthrow of the dictator Gaddafi after 42 years in power.”

  24. ColinWright says:

    Another slightly peculiar straw in the wind. I’ll grant it’s not evidence, but…

    link to maannews.net

    It seems unlikely the ambassador was one of Israel’s firmer friends. On the whole, he seems to have been a bit of an Arabist.

    As I say, the whole thing really is like a John Le Carre novel.

    • bilal a says:

      The Zionist involvement in the film production is being censored by AP supported by DOJ, the key is the link to an unknown initial organizer who sought funds from the Middle East, one ‘Jimmy Israel’, the only person involved with any film industry experience:

      see cannonfire
      link to cannonfire.blogspot.co.uk

      • LeaNder says:

        I scanned that site, shortly yesterday, and strictly I get into trouble if I do not stop babbling “webwise” immediately.

        Have you looked at Jimmy Israel’s traces on the internet?

        Here his “nouveau riche” business. Doesn’t sound real to me, apart from the fact that is done almost as amateurishly as the movie itself. And here is his screenwriter profile What puzzles me a bit at the moment that every single website I encounter in this context is registered with my provider: 1 & 1 . Is this provider know in the US to such an extend?

        The US headquarters are in Chesterbrook, again. In Chesterbrook the Egyptian Coptic site I encountered earlier is registered.

        Yes, this somehow fits the early information “Sam Basile” gave to the press, but strictly it could be simply a new aka he uses.

        In a big Christian democratic party scandal over party sponsorship over here some claimed that the money was from Jewish legacies. All the Jewish allusions could be a red herring, as they were in that case. Or should we expect a Mossad agents use the name Jimmy Israel, in the hope that antisemitism provides the best cover? Feels slightly far-fetched to me.

        I hope that Libyan and US investigators manage to bring a little light into this obviously murky affair. In these matters, my mind tends to spin like a whirlygig, just as I tend to be skeptic about fast assumptions.

      • American says:

        At the cannon fire site it gave a link to jimmy israel’s site and showed his picture….a grey headed man….one of the film actress said the man who hung around the set and claimed to be Sam Bacile was a grey haired man….should be simple to show her that picture and ask if he was the man.

  25. ColinWright says:

    Anyway, the Libyan government has arrested four individuals in connection with the attack.

    Safe to say things will now take another twist, anyway. Whether they’ll actually become clearer is another matter.

  26. ColinWright says:

    The New York Times makes an unintentional funny.

    “… But it remains unclear precisely what American military firepower can do. If the attackers were not part of a larger international plot, there are no obvious targets for American retaliation…”

    No fear. This is a problem we have overcome before.

  27. quickly, Diane Feinstein said that it appears to be “spontaneous, not planned”..Hillary said “work of a small, savage group”..Obama:”won’t affect cooperation between the 2 countries”..and to this end, US and their Libya puppets may be telling a fib about the way Stevens died, there is evidence he was tortured, lynched, photos on web seem to bear this out..

    • ColinWright says:

      Now, why the sudden back-pedaling to ‘spontaneous’?

      They seemed so convinced that there had been a deliberate attack, too…

      Obviously, I’m invested in a theory here — but could it be they realized who it was who carried out the attack?

  28. wes says:

    They killed the drone pilot sean smith who was a info specialist gamer who killed the libyan al libi. Point is how did they find out and how smart was it to release movie on youtube and attack at the same time.the diplomat was his boss

    The only nation who stand to gain are the chinese who invested heavily in libya and are investing in the rest of africa from north to south.

  29. Marlene says:

    I have my own 9/11 theory which has nothing to do with “Al Qaeda” or “terrorists,” phrases that have been so etched into the minds of the American public to create fear and to justify any actions of the United States as well as its support for Israel.

    This vile film, released just around 9/11, was and is the provocation for the attack and the turmoil, which obviusly was the intention to create. It preceded all of what is happening now in the Middle East. So, the question becomes, what exactly was the deep motivation behind this? My thoughts go back to September 11, 2001, at a time when the United States was not exactly on the same page as Israel, so that day served to put the USA in Israel’s corner, and Israel had the utmost freedom to enage in even more crimes such as invading and attacking Jenin in 2002.

    Now we have the United States once more not exactly on the same page as Israel with its overwhelming desire to attack Iran.

    There’s a saying that “all roads lead to Rome,” which means that different paths can take one to the same goal, but when it concerns matters like this, then usually “all roads lead to Israel.” I could be wrong, but I find all of this highly suspect.

  30. wes says:

    here is another attack
    First reports of at least 4 peacekeepers hurt when scores of Salafi Bedouin linked to al Qaeda stormed the Multinational Force’s camp in northern Sinai with grenades, mortars and automatic guns Friday, Sept. 14. The 1,500 mostly US troops are posted in Sinai to monitor the Egyptian-Israeli 1979 peace accords.

  31. ColinWright says:

    Fox News tries to cash in.

    “Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, it’s time to wake up and smell the global jihad”

    link to foxnews.com

    “…If we killed everyone in Al Qaeda tomorrow, we would still have a problem that Obama, Hillary and the Washington foreign policy establishment refuse to recognize. There is a tyrannical political force in the world that is waging war on us wherever it can—both politically and militarily…”

  32. Joe Catron says:

    If anyone’s still reading this, I was right except for the part about Stevens already being dead in the photos linked above. Apparently he was still alive.

    Labeled the work of Fahd al-Bakkosh, the video centers on what appears to be the same tall, narrow window that witnesses have described as Mr. Stevens’s last exit. The witnesses said residents drawn to the scene had forced open the window and found Mr. Stevens behind a locked iron gate, pulled him out and taken him to the hospital. In the video, none say anything that shows ill will.

    “I swear, he’s dead,” one Libyan says, peering in.

    “Bring him out, man! Bring him out,” another says.

    “The man is alive. Move out of the way,” others shout. “Just bring him out, man.”

    “Move, move, he is still alive!”

    “Alive, Alive! God is great,” the crowd erupts, while someone calls to bring Mr. Stevens to a car.

    Mr. Stevens was taken to a hospital, where a doctor tried to revive him, but said he was all but dead on arrival.

    Here’s the video:

  33. Those two photos show the one thing that religious Muslim men are forbidden to do: adorn themselves in gold, especially gold necklaces.

    The man holding Stevens has two gold necklaces around this neck, visible in the second photo. One necklace appears to be a locket or religious icon.
    “The reason why gold is forbidden for men”

    شهد الكلمات موقع إسلامي ثقافي عربي يضم العديد من المواضيع التي تفيد مجتمعنا العربي من أجل نهضة المجتمع ومن أجل ثقافة و وعي أكبر من أجل مستقبل أفضل

    link to chahd-alkalimet.com

    شهد الكلمات, السيرة النبوية, اسلاميات, قصص الأنبياء, الناريخ الإسلامي, عظماء أسلموا,تلاوات خاشعة, قصص الصحابة, أدعية وأذكار, فيديوهات إسلامية, قصص و عبر, فيديوهات, ذكر الله, عجائب و غرائب, صور نساء, ليلة الدخلة, ثقف نفسك, حول العالم, موقع, ثقافة عامة, الصور, اخبار,سياسة’