Monday, September 24, 2012


Ambassador Dubs was killed in Afghanistan in 1979.  Pieczenik wrote an article for The Washington Post in which he claims to have heard a senior U.S. official in the State Department Operations Center give permission for the attack that led to the death of U.S. Ambassador Adolph Dubs in Kabul, Afghanistan in 1979.[16] 

Who killed Ambassador Stevens?

1. On 23 September 2012, Lt. Col. Oliver North tells us what his faction thinks about the attack on Ambassador Stevens in Libya, and a recent attack on a base in Afghanistan.

North: Useful idiots

"There was intelligence about a possible terror attack in Libya two days prior to the event, and it was unrelated to the infamous video...

"Why was our ambassador to Tripoli in Benghazi on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary? –

"Who decided to delay placing U.S. Marine embassy security guards at our Libyan diplomatic missions? –

Website for this imageSecretary Clinton prohibited Marines from providing security at any American diplomatic installation in Libya

"Who made the decision to have our ambassador accompanied by such a small personal security detail on the trip to Benghazi, and when was it made?...

"The enemy employed well-aimed indirect fire, automatic weapons and a suicide assault against the 1,600-acre U.S.-British base in Helmand province. The number of aircraft damaged and destroyed is staggering.

"We were told that the Arab Spring was going  to make things better. The Obama Nobel Prize said as much."

So, it looks like an inside-job.

2. Both 9 11 01 and 9 11 12 should have pleased Israel because they have made Moslems look bad.

And because they have apparently weakened the Moslem World.

9 11 01 may have looked like presenting an opportunity for the USA to grab mineral wealth, and set up military bases,  in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But, the US military has failed in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

9 11 12 suggests that the USA will have difficulties setting up Kentucky Fried Chickens in the Arab world.

3. The Arab Spring has pleased some people in Israel, because it has weakened countries like Egypt and Syria, traditional enemies of Israel.

Some people in Israel claim to dislike the Arab Spring.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described the Arab Spring as an 'Islamic, anti-Western, anti-liberal, anti-Israeli and anti-democratic wave.'

Netanyahu: Arab Spring pushing Mideast backward, not forward ...

Mossad assets at work in Sydney protest? Photo Reuters.

Henry Kissinger writes:

"The Arab Spring is widely presented as a regional, youth-led revolution on behalf of liberal democratic principles. 

"Yet Libya is not ruled by such forces; it hardly continues as a state. 

"Neither is Egypt, whose electoral majority (possibly permanent) is overwhelmingly Islamist. 

"Nor do democrats seem to predominate in the Syrian opposition." 

"Israeli agents were deployed in several large cities with a mission to channel the rage of the crowd against American or Coptic targets (though not Israeli ones)...The Innocence of Muslims: Blasphemy as a Political Tactic - by Thierry Meyssan 

4. Were certain Americans involved in the supporting the attack on Ambassador Stevens?

Libya's deputy prime minister, Mustafa Abushagour, was quoted in The Wall Street Journal last week saying that "he learned about some of the delicate American operations in Benghazi only after the attack on the mission, in large part because a surprisingly large number of Americans showed up at the Benghazi airport to be evacuated...

"Many of the Americans who were evacuated from Benghazi after the attack are now scattered across Europe and the United States."

Deadly Attack in Libya Was Major Blow to CIA Efforts -New York Times

"More than two dozen Americans were rushed out of Libya after the attack that killed ambassador Chris Stevens."

Attack on US mission in Libya big intelligence loss: report

Stevens was a 'Moslem Arabist' and reportedly stood in the way of the Israeli policy of preventing any Libyan recovery.

5. The attack "cost the Obama campaign the claim of Libya as a big “win” and it cost the Libyan government the pretense of security."

Benghazi Attack a 'Major Blow' to CIA -

"Fox News’ Special Report informed us that Barack Obama knew of the attack on the Libyan consulate within 90 minutes of it beginning.

"There is no doubt that Obama knew that the attacks involved AK-47s, along with Rocket propelled grenades.

"He knew that his ambassador was in grave danger and yet knowing all of this, and not knowing the statusof Ambassador Stevens, Obama allegedly went quietly to bed."

Obama Went to Bed While Consulate was Under Siege -FrontPage Magazine - ‎Sep 22, 2012‎

CIA Fingerprints All Over Benghazi “Innocence” Psyop. Posted on September 24, 2012 by willyloman

The Benghazi attack gives Obama an excuse to put more troops into Africa.

'Benghazi attack was 'convenient' for the US' – security expert

Retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons has suggested the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi  was the result of a bungled kidnapping attempt.
Admiral James Lyons suggests the Obama administration deliberately lessened the levels of security at the consulate.

In October 2012, the Western Center for Journalism suggested the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens was the result of a failed kidnapping attempt by terrorists working for the US government.

What went wrong with the Obama plan was that, according to information obtained by Fox News, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, both former U.S. Navy Seals, ignored orders to "stand down" and fought vigorously for hours in their attempt to defend the compound.


On October 20, Kris Zane published the center's initial article Muslim Brotherhood Behind Benghazi Attack with Link to Obama.

Within 24 hours of the event, ground intelligence linked the Benghazi attack to Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, who was put into power by the CIA. 

Zane cites an anonymous source inside the White House who says that Obama planned to win the release of a kidnapped Stevens, just in time for Election Day.

The work of Ansar al-Sharia. who-are-ansar-al-sharia. On September 11, 2012, the United States Department of State Operations Center advised the White House Situation Room and other U.S. security units that Ansar al-Sharia was claiming responsibility for the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi that had just occurred.[11] 

On October 25, Kris Zane published his second article on the incident “Obama Linked to Benghazi Attack.”

On 24 September 2012, the Wall Street Journal had published an article from Judge Michael Mukasey entitled “Will Obama Free the Blind Sheik and send him back to Egypt?

Omar Abdel Rahman was jailed for his part in the CIA's 1993 World Trade Center Bombing and for conspiring to assassinate Hosni Mubarak, who had become an enemy of the CIA.


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Shouting Man, how much time do you want to spend running into the rabbit holes the theatric "factions" are digging for you ?

j said...

"Obama cannot be allowed to stay in office any longer — he is a threat to the security of the United States"

"The lack of security provided to the Ambassador and other American personnel in Benghazi is deeply troubling and inexplicable given the dangerous threat environment in that city. Earlier attempts in June to reportedly attack the British ambassador and to plant a bomb outside of our consulate clearly demonstrated how dangerous and unsettled Benghazi is. Surely, the State Department should not have relied on Libyan nationals to guard the consulate. Rather, armed U.S. Marines should have been assigned to provide security."

j said...

There were even travel warnings - especially für Benghazi :

Canadion Travel Warning
"….A British Embassy convoy was hit by a grenade on June 11, 2012, injuring one person. An IED exploded at the gate of the U.S. Consulate on June 6, 2012. On May 22, 2012 a grenade attack targeted the International Red Cross offices and an explosion hit a column of UN vehicles on 10 April, 2012."

j said...

Also the videos are strange and manipulated!
You hardly can see (the alleged) Stevens. Stevens has mostly being cut out!

From the same(!) camera - to my observation - we find the video: "Libyans trying to help US Ambassador Chris Stevens" - .
Here appears what has been cut out in the first video at 1:17: We can see something of Stevens. But as soon as light gets in his face somebody - purposely!! - blocks us from taking a better look at the lit face of "Stevens".
But also this video has cuts! WHY? If it's a historical document no one would make a cut - even if a boring minute or two where left in the video.

Also: At 1:02 "Stevens'" shirt is still down. Why was it later pulled up so brutally?! I think this is all arranged - like the guy who blocks us as soon as we want to take a closer look.

Also this: The photo "victim-pic" ( or ) shows "Stevens" being put into a sitting position and somebody takes his cell phone into his mouth. But this scene is obviously staged, because this scene should also appear in those videos. But it doesn't! Nowhere do we see that the upper part of Stevens' body is lifted to a sitting position!
Also this: If this was Stevens -why does he not communicate. Yes, if he had fainted (being poisoned from smoke) this would be explainable. But in my snapshots you will see that his eyes are open. And he neither speaks not makes gestures. THAT IS ABSURD! ( I would have ask for an ambulance car or I would have asked "does someone speak English" or something.

Now to my snapshots from a video of a German newspaper, as it seems a bit clearer to me: .

My conclusions ahead:
1. The person we see in these snapshots doesn't really resemble Chris Stevens. Yes the person shown could be a Caucasian - but also a Libyan.
2.) The red spot over the victim-Stevens' left eye cannot be seen. Though the quality of my snapshots is not good, I think we should have been able to see it.
3.) The biggest mistake of those fakers was this. I think stay staged the victim-pic, with the sitting Stevens with some young man, then they photo shopped over and changed the face to Stevens face. But here they made the mistake to copy a face of Stevens he had 10-15 years earlier. Stevens was 52 years old. And they copied the Stevens you find on second in the second row (with flag in background). But Stevens was then certainly only about 40 years old. In the year 2012 Stevens had a lot of grey(!) hair like in the picture at top-right. Or like on the left side of this picture: .

Here the snapshots

The Libyan doctor is also interesting:

Anonymous said...

Aangirfan wrote: "So, it looks like an inside-job, possibly by people who want Moslems to look bad."

Certainly, the pro-Romney political forces would like to make Obama look bad and make the Muslims look bad -- they want Muslims to look like unreasoning fanatics -- isn't that the goal of the Zionists?

On the other hand, a successfully planned and executed tactical and strategic attack on a prime U. S. and NATO agent, Ambassador Stevens, demonstrates a sophisticated opposition to the NATO imposed regime in Libya.

Does anybody (Aangirfan, other readers) think the NATO powers, particularly the U. S., want the U. S. voting public to know of the truth in Libya that there is an organized resistence able to take out the top U. S. agent in Libya?

Neocons are in a tough position: One, they support the NATO Libyan operation, but, two, they also want to defeat Obama at the polls.

Neocons want the Libyan operation to be successful. What would it look like if, not only Iraq and Afghanistan were failures, but also Libya, as well?

Neocons and their policies would be completely discredited.

The report from Global Research, Benghazi Attack. Libya’s Green Resistance Did It… And NATO Powers Are Covering Up, was posted by Aangirfan:

There is a follow-up article by Global Research, Benghazi Attack and Ambassador Stevens: Why “The Sound of Silence”?

A key quote from "sound of silence?":

Paying tribute to Ambassador Stevens the day after his death (ii) Hillary Clinton, it has to be said, probably explained the reason for his murder to the world: “In the early days of the Libyan revolution, I asked Chris to be our envoy to the rebel opposition. He arrived on a cargo ship in the port of Benghazi and began building our relationship with Libya’s revolutionaries.”

The article goes on to vaguely imply, there are unanswered questions...

Frankly, it's a rather unsatisfactory article.

The Global Research article claiming Ambassador Stevens was killed by the Green Movement seems to be the only article or report claiming such. But does that discredit it?

It is a well-documented and foot-noted article with all foot-notes available by hyper-link at the end of the article.

I also note that even the Green Resistence might not want to have their handy-work exposed simply for the reason "Gaddafi Loyalists" doesn't draw much sympathy in the U. S. public (even Green Movement supporters seem to have disavowed the killing of Stevens, as it has been identified as a "terrorist act" and not a strategic blow against the NATO imposed regime).

But could this comment be the reason for the disavowel?

"Throughout time, killing an ambassador has been regarded as a grave insult to the state he represented and has served as a pretext for many wars."

You would think the Green Movement would claim credit for the killing if they were responsible, but, perhaps, the above quote's implications, "[a] pretext for many wars", has made the Green Movement want to lie low for a while until their next big move.

The thinking goes, thus: Let the Americans believe what they want, perhaps, they will let their guard down again.

Strategic and tactical considerations often involve deception and surprise.

Could the Green Movement be using this sophisticated approach?

Time will tell.

This was likely not the "big blow" or Tet Offensive, but a prelude for something bigger or more broad-based across Libya.

In that I'm not certain.

Anonymous said...

To get a flavor of the man, Ambassador Chris Stevens, here is a Youtube video, produced by the U. S. State Department, where Chris Stevens is featured speaking to the Libyan People:

It does put a human face of Chris Stevens and, whatever his role in NATO's imposed regime, this video shows his humanity.

Perhaps, he believed in his mission.

Caption of Stevens with children on a water-side photo: "Stevens was a 'Moslem Arabist' and reportedly stood in the way of the Israeli policy of preventing any Libyan recovery."

Ambassador Stevens may very well have believed the "ends justify the means" and inspite of the obvious brutality of the NATO aerial bombardment, in the end a better Libya would emerge.

In death, I give Ambassador Stevens the benefit of the doubt in terms of his own personal motive. But for others, in charge of the policy, Stevens was a useful tool, who was able to facilitate the achievement of purposes & objectives that had nothing to do with humanitarian interests.

In that sense Ambassador Stevens death was tragic.

Would the "Israeli" interest in retarding Libya's recovery be strong enough to risk having the American government discover Israeli interests murdered Ambassador Stevens?

What would be the result of such a discovery by America's intelligence agencies, let alone the American Public?

Given the already poor diplomatic relations between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu administration the results of discovery of such an "assassination plot" could be very detrimental.

(Even effecting the ability of Netanyahu to drag the U. S. into an Iran military attack.)

I' sceptical the Israelis or their supporters would take such a chance.

But I'm reasonable about this, so I will keep an open mind for further additional evidence.

At present the charge, "the Israelis did it," is only speculation with little supporting evidence.

elwind45 said...

It is indeed a tragic end to a bio of an official who started caring too much. The American part of NATO was put on " back foot" when France rushed the initial operation. USA needs to get boots in fast. Same Can be said about tragic end to ambassador in 1979. I am alarmed about gay Labelling. NPR ran at least a week about trans-genders in India. Also ran Muslim look bad articles on Moslems hate against Gays. Within first hours label was used on Ambassador from his employer. No shame in DC. NONE!!!

Genie said...

As far as I can tell, Stevens was not like the rats he was surrounded by and that's what makes the smell of rats stand out in his case.

j said...

We should separate facts from theory.

is what was read in the article and comments of "US Ambassador killed by Green Resistance?" ( ) about the faked photos.
And what we read in this article + comments about the faked videos.

is what we read on both pages w h y this fake optical material was produced.
1. There is one voice among the commentators, who thinks that Stevens is still alive.
Yes, at this point we cannot exclude that. My personal opinion though is, that that is not the case (same I think about Muammar Gaddafi = not alive anymore)

2. Some suggest that the Green Revolution killed Stevens. Yes, that is possible. Also with that theory the cover up would makes sense. It was made than in order to prevent a boost of prestige in favour of the Green fighters. So the story was faked to have Al Qeda kill Stevens. And as Al Qeda works for the US government Al Qeda was made not to look too bad. So the story was made, that Al Qeda in over-excitement (because of the Mohammad film), yes, unfortunately killed Stevens. But not directly: He (allegedly) died from being poisoned by smoke. Also then Al Qeda was very, very nice to Stevens, They even tried to save his life by rushing him (in an own car?) to the hospital. But sadly every help came to late.

3. Then we have Webster Tarpley theory: CIA-Mormons-Romney folks.

BACK TO FACTS - More Questions
a. With the videos it is strange that they stop so early. Why? Stevens was (allegedly) put into car to the hospital. Why don't we see this? Why is Stevens hardly ever to be seen in those videos.
b. Above I asked why Stevens, who is awake and has his eyes open, doesn't say a word.
But we must also ask, why those Al Qeda people never ask him "How are You - Do You feel pain somewhere?", "Do You want some water to drink?", "Shall we call someone of Your embassy?"
c. Also they put Stevens to the ground. Why is he not put on a chair or a table or on a soft mattress or some blankets or on something soft?
d. Why is no news corporation eager to show us that house and that room where those videos play. It would be news for e. g. CNN to show us the house 'here it was that the nice Al Qeda rescued Stevens to'?
e. Why is no news corporation eager to interview those Al Qeda people we see in that video?

Those who think that Stevens was such a very fine and noble character should try to find out why from the very early beginning Stevens was blames to be "gay". I was not really interested in that information. As little as I want to know of a heterosexual Jack Kennedy or Muammar Gaddafi if they liked oral or anal intercourse. I simply don't want to know!
So, please, you admires of Chris Stevens: Check this out!

Anonymous said...

Wow, that advertising is really
'out there'.
It's quite simply outrageous that it was even allowed to run.
Apparently we've been plunged back a few centuries into those discussions about whether those 'savages' were even human or had a soul.
Only now, apparently it's not even a discussion.
Can't wait til they run
'support israel. defeat the goy'

j said...

I forgot this:
You Stevens admirers, please do me a favour! Please b o m b(!) the White House or your embassy in Washington with these questions:
Where will Stevens be buried? When will he be buried? Will a lot of troupers appear and fire their guns for salute?
Will Obama appear to the burial?
Will Hitlery Clinton appear to the burial?
Why does the White House keep these information back from the news people, who d e s p e r a t e l y want to know - but are only too shy to ask?

Anonymous said...

j, please consult with experts about your photo analysis, it is not convincing.

j said...

@Anonymous 1:53 PM
please consult with professional critics about your cutup, it is not convincing.

Anonymous said...

Mormon Mafia, Howard Hughes & Summa Corp.

Dead Christopher Stevens: Just a Pawn in the Game

AAng, is it true, that
CP has also this article:
Zionist Bankers Funded Both Hitler & Churchill

AAng, is it true, that Zionist Bankers Funded Both Hitler & Churchill
or is it a part of disinfo?

Some people pretend, that stories about US (Standard OIL, DuPOnt, M.Chase) financing of NSDAP are
( part of disinfo campaign...)

But as far as I had researched, US really financed and "pushed Hitler for the war"... ?

Thanks for your blog, indispensable
in these terrible times...

j said...

@Anonymous 1:53 PM
An expert of photo analysis was of course Jack White. Sadly he died half a year ago (86 years old).
See for example his studies on 911-Pentagon: or those to "Apollo": .

Also excellent is Simon Shack. See .

Anonymous said...

US Pentagon Exposed! (Child Molesting Drug Addicts). Libya's Allah is Stronger than America.

"I congratulate the people of Libya because the killing of that ambassador is one less white child molester from the US that I have to look at.

Keep up the good work!

Nicolas Duplessis"

blogger writes...

Anonymous said...

Mormon Terrorism in America since 1830

Mormons, the CIA, and the "Mormon Oath of Vengeance" against America

Anonymous said...

In the interest of fairness, here is an analysis in opposition to the Global Research article, Benghazi Attack. Libya’s Green Resistance Did It… And NATO Powers Are Covering Up, which I presented and argued in favor of the analysis:

CIA Fingerprints All Over Benghazi “Innocence” Psyop, by Scott Creighton

Creighton's basic argument against the Green Movement being responsible for the killing of Ambassador Stevens is alleged "warnings" of an impending attack, inability to have knowledge of Stevens' location and movements and his determined thesis that the "CIA did it".

Creighton wrote: "What Mark Robertson and Finian Cunningham fail to acknowledge and admit is the fact that these self same “sheikists” have been running various false flag attacks for their bosses (Saudi royal family, U.S. state department, CIA, NATO) for decades, always terrorizing some innocent civilians or US official targets in order to justify the inevitable US retaliation against some other group or people. In this case, it’s obvious, it will be the Green Resistance, and Robertson and Cunningham are simply helping to sell that narrative to the “alternative” faction here in the States."

Yes, there is a factual basis for this assertion, but what Creighton fails to acknowledge, himself, is that the killing of the prime U. S. agent, Stevens, in Libya was a huge strike against the NATO imposed regime.

In a sense Creighton does admit this as he acknowledges CIA operations were broken up because of this raid. Creighton wrote: "Of the 20 or so Americans who were evacuated from the location prior to Stevens’ death, “over a dozen” of them were CIA."

The New York Times reported the attack on the 'series of villas' was a blow to the CIA.

Why would the CIA damage their own operations in Libya?

Interestingly enough, Creighton acknowledges and supports the Green Movement.

Creighton wrote: "The Green Resistance in Libya is growing in numbers. The people of Libya are opposed to NATO’s rule and the chaos that has erupted in their once peaceful and prosperous nation since the CIA and Stevens planned their destabilization campaign."

Creighton wrote: "The Green Resistance could not have produced the stupid “Innocence of the Muslims” clip and they certainly couldn’t have gotten it from the FBI who created it in the first place as an effort to entrap “extremist” Muslims in California."

Creighton assumes the Cairo (in my opinion the video was part of the Cairo event being used as a trigger) and Libya events are tied together, in a coordinated plan, but I suggest the assumption is unwarranted by the facts & evidence currently available.

Creighton wrote: "The Green Resistance could not have sent Ambassador Stevens back to Benghazi on short notice and under such odd circumstances especially considering how dangerous the area has become as of late."

Creighton ignores the possibility the Green Movement has spies within various Libyan government agencies, who would know of Stevens' movements or that the object of the attack was the 'series of villas', itself, because of the CIA operations based there and Stevens' death was an unintended bonus.

Creighton wrote: "The Green Resistance could not have made the State Department fail to warn US staff in the country after receiving warnings of pending trouble 3 days prior to the attacks."

A valid point.

Anonymous said...

A valid point.

Except Creighton fails to acknowledge that the claim there was a "prior warning" three days before, may, itself, have been a false clue put out for people like him to latch onto.

Question: To what extent would the U. S. go in order to cover-up that the Green Movement was responsible for Stevens' death and there is, in fact, an organized & popular opposition capable of killing the top U. S. agent in Libya and able to disrupt CIA operations?

(With shades of Afghanistan's Taliban resistence and the problems it has caused the U. S. occupation and NATO imposed regime -- that's a mental association in the U. S. public's consciousness the U. S. government would go a long way to avoid.)

To what extent would the U. S. go in order to hide the failure of the policy in Libya?

Convoluted? Yes, but not beyond the realm of possibility.

Creighton wrote: "and the Green Resistance certainly could not have convinced the 30 or so local militia members who made up the security detail at the CIA compound leave their posts as the attacks began."

Gee, a witness reported: "In an interview with McClatchy news service last Thursday (13 September 2012) the eyewitness said there were no protesters at all.

“The Americans would have left if there had been protesters, but there wasn’t a single ant. The area was totally quiet until about 9:35 pm, when as many as 125 men attacked with machine guns, grenades, RPGs, and anti-aircraft weapons. They threw grenades into the villas, wounding me and knocking me down. Then they stormed through the facility’s main gate, moving from villa to villa.”

I suggest 125 men armed with "machine guns, grenades, RPGs, and anti-aircraft weapons" could chase away 30 men armed only with light weapons.

Creighton wrote: "Who benefits? [Creighton answers, the CIA] Who fled the scene of the crime? Who fed the press the misleading info? Who’s compound was it? Who’s contractors attacked the compound? Who could have arraigned for the Egyptian’s to run the video in the first place? And who had done this exact same kind of operation in the past?"

"Who fed the press the misleading info?" EXACTLY! It is the CIA who wouldn't want the U. S. public to know the Green Movement was responsible for Stevens' death.

But getting back to Creighton's assertion, yes, it's possible, but Creighton goes on: "The Green Resistance [benefited]? Get real."

Yes, the Green Movement would benefit from the killing of the U. S. top agent in Libya.

Creighton has his thesis, "the CIA did it" and he's sticking to it, and, who knows, he could be right, his conclusion can't be dismissed, but neither can the thesis that the Green Movement was responsible.

In conclusion, Creighton opens his analysis of the Global Research article with this statement: "In a rather disingenuous article published at Global Research"

The article could be wrong, but wrong is different from "disingenuous".

Creighton is more concerned with protecting his thesis, "the CIA did it" than a proper analysis of a contradictory possibility -- the Green Movement was responsible.

j said...

@Anonymous 7:22 PM
See Southpark and the Mormons:

Anonymous said...

S Ambassador Was Not Killed by Gaddafi Supporters

These terrorist militias were the groups that Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Bolton and many other Neocons were begging the Obama Administration to support in February, 2011 in this same city of Benghazi.

These are the same Libyan and foreign Arab terrorist forces that NATO saved from Libyan justice as Gaddafi commanded the military to put an end to their anarchy which started in Benghazi. Remember, John McCain and others, especially those of the Republican Party, criticized Barack Obama because, initially, he would not quickly join the French and British in Libya to stop Libya from putting an end to the criminal anarchy taking place in Libya.


Green Libya is Back

In Benghazi, the people of Libya, who were forced by NATO and the Arab League to accept the Salafist terrorist government, are now fighting back against this Western Zionist imposed government.

We now see the green flag of Libya featured prominently in the crowds, a flag that was outlawed by the Salafist terrorists.

Hillary Clinton and the defeated Nicolas Sarkozy, as well as Bernard Henri Levy cannot be happy with these developments.


A great thank you to T. West, AfriSynergy

Reloaded & supported by Network

Anonymous said...

J, I've examined the photographs, you rely on for your thesis that Ambassador Stevens was not killed in the manner generally reported.

I find your arguments, inferences, and circumstantial evidence based on photographs wholly unsatisfactory and lacking in persuasive force.

It's a distraction. What I don't know is whether it is because you are misguided or something else -- most likely you are misguided, since you approvingly cite September Clues ("no planes" inspite of literally hundreds of eyewitness accounts of planes hitting the buildings).

Anon. 9:56 PM,

Yes, the Green Movement is back -- it never left, it just wasn't getting corporate media amplification. Why? Because it didn't fit the corporate narrative that the NATO/islamist military takeover was a popular uprising.

That narrative was a complete lie.

There are Green Movement supporters, your link included and Creighton, above, who don't want the Green Movement identified as the organization which carried out the military operation which killed Ambassador Stevens.

Why? Because of their belief this knowledge widely known by the American public will justify the U. S. bringing more military force to bear on the Green Movement.

But consider this: If the Green Movement was responsible, then the U. S. already knows it and will bring to bear military force, regardless, just without publicity or fanfare -- under the radar -- in relative secrecy.

So, the real question is this: Does the U. S. do it in secret or under the glare of publicity?

Which way benefits the Green Movement more? Especially if it is going to happen, in any event.

I suggest it benefits the Green Movement if it is under the glare of publicity.

Because as I stated above in this thread: "(With shades of Afghanistan's Taliban resistence and the problems it has caused the U. S. occupation and NATO imposed regime -- that's a mental association in the U. S. public's consciousness the U. S. government would go a long way to avoid.)"

If you want to defeat the Neoconservative foreign policy of subverting foreign governments by covert/military/proxy means, then, Neocon foreign policy must be exposed as a failure, it does not matter whether it emanates from the Democratic Party (Obama) or the Republican Party (Bush), or both.

And I assert its exposure as a failure is necessary in order to preserve America as a constitutional, representative republic.

So, beyond Truth for its Own Sake, in my opinion, it is necessary to expose its immorality and disservice to the best interests of the United States.

That is why I write at length to expose the likely real perpetrators of the killing of Ambassador Stevens.

In short, it helps the Green Movement, not hurts the Green Movement, if Americans (and the world) know they were responsible for the successful military operation which killed Abmassador Stevens because he was -- due to his activities -- a legitimate military target in a legitimate rebellion against a foreign imposed government.

Anonymous said...

American Everyman needs your help. In six days it’ll be over
It’s not hype, hyperbole or exaggeration; without your help, in six short days American Everyman will be over… at least my part in it will be.

fan of willyloman

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote above in the comment thread:

"I also note that even the Green Resistence might not want to have their handy-work exposed simply for the reason "Gaddafi Loyalists" doesn't draw much sympathy in the U. S. public (even Green Movement supporters seem to have disavowed the killing of Stevens, as it has been identified as a "terrorist act" and not a strategic blow against the NATO imposed regime).

But could this comment be the reason for the disavowel?

'Throughout time, killing an ambassador has been regarded as a grave insult to the state he represented and has served as a pretext for many wars.'"

But the traditional role of a diplomat is that of an 'observer' of conditions in the country and 'communicator' for his home country to the leaders of the country he is posted in and 'conveyor' of communications from the country he is posted in.

But Ambassador Stevens was also an 'actor' coordinating various activities of the rebels, during the NATO overthow operation, and also, most important, he coordinated activities after he was an Ambassador to the country.

This is a violation of recognized international diplomatic protocol: As stated above diplomats observe and pass on communication both from their home country and to their home country from the leaders of the country where they are posted.

Diplomatic immunity does not cover individuals acting outside their diplomatic role prescribed by the rules of international diplomatic protocol.

Thus, Christopher Stevens was a legitimate military target for rebels fighting against the NATO imposed regime.

I suspect this analysis is another reason why the U. S. government does not want close scrutiny of Christopher Stevens activities, after he assumed his position as Ambassador to Libya and why the U. S. does not want it known the Green Movement carried out the attack.

Christopher Stevens was a legitimate target of a military operation, not the victim of a "terrorist attack".

Anonymous said...

So, now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is suggesting al Quaeda did it.

Question, which would be more damaging to the Obama admin. position in terms of U. S. politics in an election season (given that Libya was supposed to be a "slam-dunk" success): al Quaeda did it or the Green Movement did it?

Considering Gaddafi is dead, the fact that an indigenous resistence movement is brewing and able to kill the U. S. Ambassador and disrupt CIA activities, I suggest it is easier to blame al Quaeda than the Green Movement.

Think of it this way: The U. S. claimed the original rebellion was legitimate, thus, the bombing campaign in support of it was just and humanitarian (or so they claimed).

Then how can Obama turn around and claim an indigenous rebellion against a foreign imposed regime not be legitimate?

See the problem there?

Better to blame al Quaeda (with its vaguely foreign connotations) and take your political lumps than admit a truly native & indigenous inpired rebellion based on Gaddafi's system (not Gaddafi, himself) is taking place.

(Gee, maybe Gaddafi's system of government was more popular than your lying corporate media told the American People. So popular, in fact, that even after Gaddafi is dead they still are willing & possibly able to challenge the NATO regime.)

Those are questions the Obama administration and its neocon supporters don't want to have to answer, especially in an election season.

Anonymous said...

Of note:

Gordon Duff, previously identified as clever disinformation agent based on his cheerleading for NATO's Libyan operation and denouncement of anybody and everybody who disagreed with the NATO Libyan operation as "bought and paid for" by Zionist agents and gives cover for the NATO Syrian operation has weighed in on the Global Research report stating the Green Resistence was responsible.

Duff claims the Global Research article is a disinformation piece.

Gordon Duff acts to sow confusion in the 'alternative media'. Duff has no role beyond being a 'voice' in the alternative media. The major tenents of the alternative media he claims to support, 911 truth, anti-Zionist, and no war on Iran.

Yet, the two biggest operations of the Trilateralist, Council on Foreign Relations faction, Libya and Syria, he supports.

Gordon Duff wrote: "Another false flag operation meant to aid Israel comes out of Canada. A website there is crediting the imaginary “Green Resistance” with the planning and execution of the killing of the US ambassador to Libya in Benghazi."

The key phrase: "the imaginary 'Green Resistance'"

Of course, nobody denies there is a "Green Resistence" (I've called it the 'Green Movement', but it is mostly refered to as 'Green Resistence').

Duff spends a number of paragraphs attacking the veracity of this article, but never comes to grips with the actual numerous news reports hyper-linked in the Global Research article of Green Resistence guerrilla warfare against the NATO imposed regime.

Gordon Duff wrote: "This report came out two days after I named the Mossad as responsible and for having coordinated the attack with efforts inside the US from former CIA asset, Terry Jones, now working with the CATO Institute (Koch Brothers), PJ Media and Google."

If Gordon Duff claims there is no 'Green Resistence' which is demonstratably false and claims Mossad is responsible for Ambassador Steven's death, then it's reasonable to think the Global Research article nailed the truth.

Gordon Duff wrote (edited for clarity, see full sentence below): "These are vital intelligence assets of Israel and blaming the CIA [...] is meant to provide cover."

Here either Duff writes a poorly worded and phrased sentence (see full three paragraphs below) or he slips out the truth: Blaiming Mossad is meant to be a distraction from the truth of the matter:

An active resistence exists in Libya and it's organized enough to execute military operations sufficient to kill Ambassador Stevens, a top military target of an indigenous resistence movement to a foreign imposed regime.

Of course, the Global Research article NEVER blaimed the CIA for Stevens' death, so the sentence doesn't make much sense.

Let's look at the full three paragraphs for context written by Duff:

"This report came out two days after I named the Mossad as responsible and for having coordinated the attack with efforts inside the US from former CIA asset, Terry Jones, now working with the CATO Institute (Koch Brothers), PJ Media and Google.

These are vital intelligence assets of Israel and blaming the CIA, who has almost no presence in Libya (the CIA was caught unaware and unable to set up a station in Libya…not too bright) is meant to provide cover.

The website we found carrying this Israeli psyop is which is a supposedly “anti-Zionist” publication that shares funding and staff with some surprising “mainstream” and very pro-Israel partners."

Duff never states what "mainstream" and "pro-Israel partners" are attached Global Reaseach. This is a consistent tactic of Duff; make an allegation, but never offer substantiation for his claim.

But also crucial, Duff claims the CIA didn't have a presence in Libya.

Gordon Duff wrote: "the CIA was caught unaware and unable to set up a station in Libya"


Anonymous said...


The NATO regime change operation was a CIA heavy operation from the start, especially in Benghazi and specifically numerous reports state the CIA was based in the "series of villas" acting as the consulate in Benghzi with about a dozen CIA operatives being flushed out and a huge blow to the CIA, reported by no less than the New York Times.

That's the funny thing, Gordon Duff has contempt for his readers.

But when you are a Trilateralist, CIA, disinfo/psyop operative working the alternative media arena, I suppose you have contempt for your readers that occasionally shows through by stating things that are easily disproved.

For the full Gordon Duff psyop article:

Anonymous said...

A couple of items:

I suggest that the Gordon Duff article, while starting with the "No Report was Written – Independent Journalists Fed Story by “Hasbara” Infiltrators" is actually designed primarily to discredit the Global Research article.

The first part may be, even likely, true -- you simply aren't likely to have an 82 page report produced by the combined U. S. intelligence community saying in effect, "Throw Israel under the bus."

This claim of a damning report was likely designed to discredit people who would run with the story in whatever forum they operate in.

Who knows, time will tell, but don't hold your breath for that 82 page report damning Israel -- if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't true.

By Gordon Duff's own highlighting, here is his intended "money quote" on the Global Research article stating the Green Resistence killed Ambassador Stevens:

"We have caught them many times before, at times producing outstanding work and, when called upon, stories are released there and on other such sites that are pure Mossad psyops. This is one of the worst."

I suggest this is a psychological 'projection' of Gordon Duff's own work.

As in, "When the CIA needs me (Duff) to sow confusion about an issue in the alternative media, I'm there to help."

A lot of what Gordon Duff states has merit, but the TWO MONEY OPERATIONS of the Trilateralist, CIA faction were Libya and Syria (these were and are actual 'regime change' operations, not just "talk", which is mostly what Duff writes about).

And guess what, as stated above, Gordon Duff supported both Libya and Syria regime change operations.

Briefly at the end of Duff's piece he goes back to the 82 page report.

I suggest this is Duff's idea of a crap sandwich, talk about the 82 page report (where he indeed may be correct) on both sides of the real purpose of the article:

Discredit the Global Research article, Benghazi Attack. Libya’s Green Resistance Did It… And NATO Powers Are Covering Up


US Ambassador’s Killing Had Nothing to Do With Al Qaeda, Islamist Blowback or Anti-Islamic Video

Remember, the above Global Research article is footnoted with hyperlinks to supporting, and interesting enough, Duff does not give you the article, itself, only a link to Global Research.

In the end, when it comes to Libya (and Syria) if Gordon Duff tells you one thing, likely, it's just the opposite.

So, when Duff tells you there is no Green Resistence, you know there is and it's causing problems.

Likely, Duff's contacts (if they really exist at all) are with the CIA Trilateralist faction.

Anonymous said...

Well, right on time (well I'm a little behind the curve), DEBKA file is reporting on Ambassador Stevens killing:

(September 25, 2012) US ambassador’s killers ready for more al Qaeda missions

DEBKA file wrote: "[...] his [Stevens] murderers, the Libyan Ansar al-Sharia, headed off to meet their al Qaeda controllers and ask for more missions [...]

It is alleged that DEBKA file is a (at times [all disinformation sites offer real information to gain credibility]) disinformation site.

The corporate media has settled on the Libyan Ansar al-Sharia as being responsible for the killing Ambassador Stevens, in other words, "al-Qaeda did it" meme.

Forget al-Qaeda is really el-CIAda, for the moment, more important is that the corporate media is bracing the American public for more guerrilla warfare against the NATO imposed regime in Libya without explaining it is the Green Resistence.

So, they are blaming the BAD BOYS (Americans, those who accept the official 911 "al-Qaeda did it" story, hate al-Qaeda), so that Americans will not realize an indigenous resistence movement to the foreign imposed and supported NATO regime (like the Taliban) is active.

Also, so Americans will accept bombings and guerrilla warfare in Libya and then the neccesary military operations against el-CIAda.

It's so Americans will not realize the Libya policy is a failing.

Remember, the Obama administration policy in Libya is a Trilateralist inspired policy (a 'stealth' policy, which neocons belatedly latched onto -- that's the difference, Trilateralists use 'stealth, operations, whereas Neocon use brute, overt military Israel-centric operations, but the ojective is primarily the same: Western hegemony.

An additional tidbit from DEBKA file: "Ambassador Chris Stevens Knew his Killers. He Ran Them as Double Agents" (the rest of the article is behind a pay-wall)

Likely, this last tidbit is misdirection.

The reality, Ambassador Stevens knew he was working with el-CIAda forces, that was part of the NATO plan long before the uprising started.

Why the story, then?

To lay the predicate for why Ambassador Stevens was helping "al-Qaeda" in Libya because the fact that "al-Qaeda" was part of the rebel forces, if not the leading force, is well known in American circles -- remember that "al-Qaeda" flag that was raised over the Benghazi courthouse, that got large play in U.S. corporate media (CNN).

So, leak a story explaining Stevens was working with "al-Qaeda", but only because he was working "double agents".

Stevens isn't looking like such a good guy, after all.

The Libyan policy is slowly unravelling.

Site Meter