Skip to comments.How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria
Posted on 10/19/2012 6:37:14 AM PDT by KeyLargo
How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria
Michael Kelley | 46 minutes ago
US Weapons Are Going To Hard-Line Jihadists Fighting To Topple The Syrian Regime
The details of the September 11 attack that killed four Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi are still murky and there's certainly more to be known.
Former CIA officer Clare Lopez argues that the key issue is "the relationship of the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya with Al Qaeda."
That relationship, Lopez argues, could be connected to the rise of Islamic brigades in Syria, who recently created a "Front to Liberate Syria" to wage jihad against the Syrian regime and turn the country into an Islamic state.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
This whole Bengazi thing is beginning to sound like it's a Lybia-(Syria)Contra exercise (like Iran-Contra except for the lack of an attractive assistant).
The administraion’s going to keep pushing stories until they find one people will buy - that can’t be countered. This is closer than the film...
UNLESS... Bam was hoping to trade the Blind Shake for Stevens, without repercussions from the unwashed masses.
Plus come off as a hero for rescuing the “Ambassador.”
Morsi’s first request from our admin was for the Shake.
Obama represents an entity (NOT us, but using us, our power). The Islamic Jihadists are an entity.
What is the profit motive of the Obama entity for this action involving their encouragement of the Islamic Jihadist entity?
The obvious end is insane, therefore what is their real goal?
What the HELL is going on?
This was a set up for Hillary to run against Romney in 2016.
They intended to blame it on the republicans.
The left has been helping the terrorist in their quest for a Caliphate, and the terrorist have been helping the left in their quest for absolute power.
The left is not about to let some jug eared twerp get in their way. They will throw him under the bus in a heartbeat.
Thank you for the link.
So now members of the Intelligence community are the bad guys? Handing out weapons like in Nicaragua? Same group pushing the same old same old story? They're going to throw a dead raped ambassador under the bus? And the CIA with him? The plot thickens...
So now members of the Intelligence community are the bad guys? Handing out weapons like in Nicaragua? Same group pushing the same old same old story? Maybe.... They're going to throw a dead raped ambassador under the bus? And the CIA with him? The plot thickens...
No transcript on the Blaze website, but they are saying this will be the topic of the Beck’s Monday show on The Blaze TV at 5:00 p.m.
When a political event doesn’t make sense it should be examined from a different direction.
Benghazzi might be a question of pay back.
Syria is no slouch in the information gathering business and likely have their own assets capable of pulling off an attack like Benghazzi.
Say Syria heard about US arming the people trying to oust Assad and know Stevens is a principle figure in the scheme.
How sweet for Syria that 9/11 exists. They can dress up their force in civilian clothes expecting them to be eventually identified as AlQuada.
All the sweeeter for Syria, launching Operation Payback on 9/11 reinforced the connection to America’s nightmare.
According to accounts, the attack was well done. On the scale of a military operation. Maybe even more military than officially recognized.
Just giving the caffeine free rein.
“In the aftermath of the Embassy attack there has been a move to turn Stevens into some sort of Sainted Martyr.
In reality, he was an Arabist and an Milddle East Nativist who internalized much of the mind set of the Radical Arab world. He was a supporter of the PLO and maintained close connections dn ties to Middle East radical groups.”
CHRIS STEVENS MURDER A SMOKESCREEN FOR JOINT NATO-CIA EXERCISES IN BENGHAZI?
Generally, aren’t the MB and AQ kind of nomatic.
They take over areas throughout the entire ME...?
Since he died in the service of his nation, do you have any evidence to back up your claims? Stevens, after all, was homosexual and would know Islam does not looks kindly upon his people.
My antennae tell me that a U.S. strike in Libya is imminent. Let’s see if I’m a seer. ;>).
Such a scheme is WAY out of the state dept’s purview or even capability. What most of that bunch knows about weapons would fit in Hillary’s pill box. And would be a good way to get a double dealing ambassador killed. Ya think?
Further, check Steven’s bio-—in the past two decades he’s done duty in nearly every Casbah in the Middle East. His story reads like a single guy who got way too chummy with the natives-——what could go wrong?
He had a long track record of positive writings about Islam ever since college, supported Islamic causes and organizations such as the PLO, and was in fact a Muslim convert (to Sufism). While Sufism is considered a mystical/syncretist form of Islam and is frowned upon by mainstream Muslims and probably wouldn’t have earned him many friends, it is very strict about homosexuality (this was even affirmed to me by a gay friend who had been a Sufi but left because of that). So if he had been a practicing homosexual before that, he certainly wasn’t one after he became a Sufi.
This wasn’t a personal attack on him, or at any rate not for anything about him personally. It was an attack against the United States, and probably was also focused on some activity he was involved in.
I think the latter, in fact, is quite likely; the question is simply which one of the players needed to take him out.
I might even be able to improve on that "dream scenario" a bit:
Depending on what she knew and did, Hillary might get perp walked too.
I truly believe you are very close to the mark!
Has the Imposter given us an October Surprise?
Your theory is the only one that makes sense. Other than snuffing him out to keep it quiet, why would terrorists bite the hand that feeds them? In that case, Obama and Hillary probably wet themselves.
The Obama administration was running guns to Al-Queda in Syria. Hence the cover-up because Obama didn’t want anyone to know that he was in bed with Al-Queda so he blamed it all on a spontaneous protest. Now it all makes sense.
I think it may be Fawn Hall (IIRC) of Iran-Contra documents-in-her-underwear fame.
Now that is clarity to the issue and it makes sense.
Yes and the mother of Sean Smith, also killed along with Amb Stevens, said, she believed the 4 men died because they knew too much.
and btw, where has Ms. smith been? She was doing great in contributing info to break this story.
Scotty, is that you?
The Syrian Information Minister just called the bombing in Beirut a “Terrorist Act”. AMERICA’S PRESIDENT WILL NOT CALL AN ATTACK BY JIHADISTS A “TERRORIST ATTACK”! If this doesn’t speak volumes about 0bama, nothing does.
Scotty had more integrity in his rodent whiskers, than this whole sorry bunch of national-security amateurs in the Obamanation.
a strongly worded letter is in order ....
It certainly is a challenging time for President Barack Obama. He is in a desperate fight to hold his ill-gotten office against a capable opponent, and there is nothing whatsoever in his record to which he can point as redeeming. Some of his criminal activities are coming to light outside the sphere of his direct influence in the form of a recent exposé on the Fast and Furious scandal aired by the Spanish-language television network Univision.
On the heels of this, another border agent was killed on Tuesday (while the administration will probably spin this as workplace violence, thats not likely to stick). Two days ago, more condemning video surfaced, underscoring Obamas radicalism and race-baiting tendencies.
Finally, Obamas political opponents are loudly calling for a clear explanation with regard to events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
Even the liberal press has reported that the administration knew within 24 hours of its occurrence that the attack had been carried out by a terrorist cell. More recently, it became known that U.S. diplomats in Libya were repeatedly denied enhanced security precautions by the Obama administration prior to the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate.
All of which reveals the swill we have heard from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and their spokesmouths regarding the attack as utter lies. Yet the administration and certain news sources continue to carp about the Mideast uprisings having been the byproduct of an inane anti-Muslim film that no one has seen.
Widespread anti-US uprisings in the Muslim world (which Obama helped to foment) and Benghazigate are certainly embarrassments from a foreign policy standpoint, but there are other nuances attendant to the affair which might be examined, particularly in light of this Presidents inclination toward political sleight-of-hand.
For example, the murder of Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, and two former Navy SEALs were tragedies that never should have occurred. It is also clear that the abysmal security provided by the State Department contributed in no small measure to these deaths. Obviously, this makes for further embarrassment, and could impact Obamas re-electability.
But why would Stevens and his staff have been consigned to such a dangerous detail with horribly substandard protection, and repeatedly denied augmented security? In my view, this is the pertinent question, because it speaks far more to Obamas duplicity and ruthlessness.
I contend that Obamas laxity vis-à-vis intelligence briefings leading up to the 9/11 anniversary was intended to establish plausible deniability with regard to events that he knew were coming down the pipe. In short, I believe he was aware that mass uprisings were planned for the anniversary of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on America, and may have had a hand in orchestrating them.
Outrageous? It gets better
More than a few news outlets have reported on the likelihood that Ambassador Stevens was homosexual. Most of the coverage questions the prudence of Obama having sent such an individual into a cultural setting that holds a marked antipathy toward homosexuals. Commentators and reporters (myself included) have discussed the possibility that Barack Obama is a closeted homosexual. This is, in fact, supposedly common knowledge in Chicagos gay community.
On Tuesday, columnist and author Jerome Corsi reported on the claims of congregants from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (Obamas former Church), who assert that embattled former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright provided matchmaking and counseling services for career-conscious gay black men at Trinity including Barack Obama.
Theres also been widespread suspicion around the murders of homosexual men with whom Obama was acquainted and may have had relationships. In a column on Sept. 14, Chicago journalist Kevin Dujan (whom Corsi interviewed for an earlier piece on this subject) cited two Chicago area sources from diplomatic circles who claimed that Ambassador Stevens was homosexual as well.
So theres a Chicago connection there. We also know that Obama lived more or less the bachelors life in Washington D.C. where Stevens was also working from 2005 to 2008, commuting between Chicago and D.C. while Michelle and the girls remained home. Would it be outside the realm of possibility to postulate that either there had been a relationship between the closeted gay Senator and the gay diplomat (who later wound up working for the former), or that said diplomat was simply more well-apprised of the Senators sexual proclivities than the rest of us?
Why, this line of reasoning would almost suggest that Obama, knowing of the imminent unrest in the Middle East, capitalized on this in order to carry out a hit on the intentionally ill-protected diplomat. Did Stevens know something that someone preferred he carry to his grave without disclosing? Did it involve embarrassing personal matters, or other chicanery performed in his official capacity?
For the sake of this exercise, I suppose it could have been both
To the average network news viewer, unaware of the odious worldview and extreme treachery of which this party is capable, all of this will appear preposterous as preposterous as Obama being a dedicated Marxist and Islamist sympathizer who wishes to punish America for its centuries of living off the backs of the workers and the little brown people of the world.
Ill let the reader decide however, since its unlikely that these questions will ever see the light of the U.S. House or Senate chambers. Am I barking up the wrong tree or might I have just accurately surmised under which cup the magician has really hidden the ball?
FRiends, Keep bumping this up! It’s important as many people as possible know about this. TIA
The USA and NATO just overthrew one Gov’t in favor of another. We were aiding the rebels and coordinating bombing with them. OF COURSE someone had to be be overseeing the distribution of cash, communications equipment, and guns to them.
As is the case with all such Gov’t plans, the law of unintended consequences kicks in, as well as the fallacy of control. Quite of few of the thugs being pulled into Uncle Sam’s embrace probably hate the USA as much as they hated Qadaffi. They knew Stevens, and they knew where to find him.
Play with fire, and you will get burned.
Hell, she and Bill burned a lot more that 4 people to death in Waco and nothing happened.
Perp walking anybody in this administration is nothing more than a wet dream.
Morris says today on Hannity that Obama’s October surprise will be a deal with Iran for them to cease nuclear production. And he will be the savior of the U.S. Barf alert.
What if the other three Americans in the attack, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods were all beheaded...wouldn’t that cause some in Congress to finally act on impeachment? Haven’t been able to verify that this happened as fact, but have read it on several blogs since the attack and the Stevens death photos, and still researching to confirm.
I remember reading about these connections when it came out; however, recently I looked and could not find any references. If you have or come across any links to articles on this I would appreciate you pinging them or sending them to me.
Impeachment! I agree!
and here’s the thing I can’t understand. How is it that I knew that this was about supplying arms to terrorists right away and I dont know much about the Middle East, and yet Congress, who knows way more than the rest of us of how dirty politics is and only a few Of them on the committee seemed to barely scratch the surface of what was going on?
Seriously, I’m sure they figured it out too and maybe even some of them knew about it beforehand, but all we got was one guy calling for a follow up committee meeting which presumably is going to be held behind closed doors.
Point is, even if we are able to pop the blackhead that is Obama, we will still have a whole S load of Senators and Congressmen lying to us and hiding things from us. We might dodge one bullet but the war is not gonna be over til we get rid of every last traitor in our government.
His people? I would say homosexual sex defines a disorder -not a people. Anyway, I think with this observation you have pointed out the obvious delusion inherent in all leftists -they are utopians who think order is about controlling others rather than simply being responsible for themselves -they are delusional.
Looks like Stevens was the Man Who Knew Too Much and had to be eliminated by the Obama/Hillary cabal.
His being in Benghazi instead of Tripoli that day was not coincidence.
Stevens himself was not “optimal” to the Obama Re-election Campaign.
I know I read it at The Telegraph. When I tried to find a link about six months later, it was gone. At that time The Telegraph was receiving and writing about a lot of State Department cable document dumps by wikileaks and the US government was threatening government workers who clicked on the wikileak stories. I’m not surprised it has disappeared from the internet.
I read it. I remember it. That is enough for me in this strange day and age. :)
Thanks. I will see what I can find -I have for sometime felt that Google was in the pocket of leftists so maybe another search method is warranted.
Neither does protocol demand a Marine detachment nor is the Ambassador (in any country) to always be a neutral party. Where do you come up with this nonsense?