Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Who Attacked Benghazi

The Benghazi attack was blowback for the empire. That is what we are told. If Libya is the nadir of American imperial foreign policy, then Benghazi is a point where our time spent in the sewers caught up to us. Torturing terrorists or humiliating Iraqi prisoners are examples of excess or overzealous people in control (I don't care, its war), but when the blowback arrives, it stings. Did we ever find out who perpetrated the attack? Ansar Al-Sharia is the official culprit. No one seems interested in figuring out who performed the deed.

Does it make any sense? No. Have you read even just the Wikipedia timeline? It is pretty gripping for a wiki entry. The television show Homeland could turn that into a season long plotline. Have we ever learned who ordered the stand down? Who told our commanders in Centcom and Africom not to send rescue teams? Weird. It is as if the top of our foreign policy institutions did not want to protect the ambassador for fear of what was going on in Benghazi leaking out. The other fear would be easily killing who was perpetrating the attack and uncovering their identity. The fake excuses, blaming it on a little seen movie, were spread for months if not years despite being lies. Some things don't add up, so let's go over what we know.

Things That Happened With Certainty

1. The US supported Libyan rebels, including jihadist groups like Al-qaeda, and the American compound was in rebel held territory in east Libya.
2. This was a planned attack. It was not a spontaneous protest that became violent.
3. America was shipping Libyan weapons and equipment to Syrian rebel groups via Benghazi. Libyan rebels were assets for CIA-State, and key to the gun-running.
4. Libyan rebels were earning foreign currency with these weapons sales as well as money for providing protection for the American compound. Very important in a collapsing country where armed men are paid to be on your side.
5. Ansar Al-Sharia initially claimed responsibility for the attack online but later said they did not do it.

Why would Ansar Al-Sharia or Al-Qaeda groups attack the Benghazi station?

Ummmm, anyone know? Anyone? This is a good question. They had no motivation. The US had just been the air force for their toppling of Gadafy. The US was paying them for weapons. The US was sending weapons from their groups (or any they "found" and wanted to turn in) to other jihadist groups, including Al-qaeda. Al-qaeda would not want to stop the shipment of arms to other Al-qaeda groups. This makes no logical sense. Even jihadis know to keep the money and guns flowing to fellow Sunni jihadis.

Even worse for those thinking there is a cover up, look at the NY Times reporting. The NY Times reported that a local 20 year old said he heard this group doing it and that they said it was over the Youtube video. Whatever may have happened, the NY Times is in on the "official story cover up". I can see the Times fabricating the witness out of whole cloth. The video excuse is a lie from the top of the US hierarchy down. The Clinton emails reveal how this was known by higher ups to be a lie, and they told her not to use it as an excuse.The NY Times just so happens to have a source that says the same video excuse. Still believe that source is real? Compared to a domestic story, it is far easier to make up some Libyan and give him the quotes for authenticity. Do you trust the Times to tell you the truth?

Who would have benefited from stopping the gun running? Who would have the resources to scope out, recruit, arm, and then fake membership of to pull off this attack?

Syria. Some major problems here. Syria in 2012 was already in the grips of heavy fighting. Syria was not going to send a few hundred men to Libya to pull this off. Why on earth would Syria want to attack a US compound when the US was looking for an excuse to jump into Syria with air cover for jihadis they were already arming? It makes no sense. An interesting thing about Ansar Al-Sharia is that in reality it was a loose conglomeration a few different rebel factions in that area of Libya. Some analysts state that it was a hodge podge of groups with a common goal but little else in common. Seems like an easy to join operation. Seems easy to pledge allegiance to Allah, shout the right stuff, bring guns and voila, you get to use the colors and flag. Seems ripe for entryism or copycatting.

So if Syria could not pull it off, who could?

Iran. Syria is a partner of Iran. Iran needs Assad to stay in power and Syria to stay under his thumb. Why? If the US can break Syria, it can remake the entire Middle East. The remolding ends with Iran carved up as well since it has Kurds, Persians and Arabs all within their borders. These little ethnostates all pop up rather than remain as part of bigger nations, and that clean break Israel wanted in the '90s or the Oded Yinon plan it dreamed in the '80s comes true. Israel gets breathing room. Iran gets parts and population ripped away, and the oil properties on its southern flank might not be under mullah control.

The "Iran did Benghazi" theory has some supporters. It makes sense as they have the same motive as Syria. They also have the motive of sending the US a message as the media has been pushing war with Iran for over a decade now. There is even a book that pushes the "Iran did Benghazi" hypothesis. That same author has been given space elsewhere to push his idea. That Iranian general is like their version of a CIA spymaster and special ops general, with a heavy dose of ultranationalist patriot that loves his people (someone our Armed Forces can't promote anymore). This is completely believable. There is one cause for skepticism. That writer, Kenneth Timmerman, was a founder of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran. That foundation openly advocates for regime change in Iran. That foundation has open ties to the Mossad.

The main problem with the Iran hypothesis though is why would Iran do such a stunt when it was in the middle of negotiating a nuclear deal with America. Recall that shortly after the election in 2012, Obama said he had talked to Iran's leader on the phone. Why would Iran jeopardize this? Of course, Iran could have attacked that location to send a message, which would be months after the Stuxnet revelation from the Obama administration. Iran performing the stunt after all of the Obama administration's attempts at sparking talks would force both Iran and America's elite to stay mum on this. Creating a cover story of the video and blaming Sunni jihadis made a lot of sense for American elitess just as pretending to be Sunni jihadis made sense for Iranians. Neither side could tell people at home about that incident because it would have been the October Surprise to crush Obama and would have placed the Iranians at risk for a bombing.

On what planet would Iran want to incur a bombing by the world's greatest air force? Who else would have had the expertise, know how, resources and motivation to pull of this attack? Who might want to frame Iran?

Israel. Say what you will about them, but Mossad and the IDF are extremely capable and competent. They have spies all over the Middle East. They are the best in that area. They have provided false intelligence on potential opponents and pulled off attacks that killed Americans for their goals. in 2012, Foreign Policy ran an article about how Mossad posed as CIA agents to recruit jihadists for a false flag operation. Think of Israel's spot in 2012. Justin Raimondo wrote another gem about Israel, Iran and America in 2012. Israel had been itching to bomb Iran's facilities, but Obama asked them to delay until after the election. Israel did not trust Obama, but they and AIPAC did not tighten every knot.

It's not hard to imagine. It's summer 2012. The US isn't granting Israel the "green light" for a bombing run on Iran. Israeli intelligence is picking up good vibes between the Obama administration and Iran. Mitt Romney, who worked with Bibi Netanyahu when they were younger at BCG, was the GOP nominee for president. The GOP will bomb any nation its donor class says to bomb. What to do, what to do? Israel knows what is going on in Syria. They've supported rebels. They know guns are getting there through Benghazi. Why not set up a little shake 'n bake in Benghazi? False flag.

Israel's problem was you can never make a deal with the USG system because they will betray you for domestic control. In that second debate, Romney did not press on the attack, and Candy Crowley lied to cover for Obama. The presidency mattered too much to the Left. AIPAC should have secured a War Party friendly moderator and forced the "Obama is a negligent C-in-C" issue. Yes, Debbie Downers, Romney was gonna lose, ha-ha-arf-arf, but look closer at the polling.

After the first debate, Romney closed the gap and took a slight lead. Just being smart and sounding competent changed the race. His bounce with women was over 10 points. The aftershocks were so bad that the government faked the jobs report in early October to blunt Romney's bounce. Imagine Romney pressing the issue and the moderator pushing Obama like Steve Kroft just did on 60 Minutes, and how many elastic voters in Ohio/FL/VA swing to Romney? How many Democrats stay home? The entire summer of poll massaging by the Left was Axelrod and company working the refs to set up a narrative of inevitability.

Israel gets what it wants with President Romney. They win with no nuke deal for Iran. They win if they could spin the "Iran did Benghazi" into an attack on Iran. Iran is the perfect patsy for them. Benghazi was going to be an issue just for the GOP to throw crap at Clinton as she planned a 2016 run. Americans wouldn't want a ground war, but a little bombing here and there is always palatable if you can tie it back to American deaths.

We do not know who pulled off the Benghazi attack. It is pretty weird that no one in power seeks to find out who did it, which implies interests incredibly powerful do not want this explored in any way, shape or form. There are a few interests that fit that bill. Israel, AIPAC and our necon punditry would want to protect Israel. The Obama administration and the academic Left want to protect Iran after securing a nuclear deal that is weak... and the Iranians are already defying and looks like an excuse for Iran's acceptance back into global society.

It is an ugly mess. What bothers me most is that the dog isn't barking.


professorastro said...

So, Israel pulls a false flag operation against a government doing Israel's bidding?

You are really down the rabbit hole with this one Ryan.

Anonymous said...

History repeats. It starts with USS Liberty, perhaps. If middle America every learns the truth about Israel, there will be mass hatred and backlash and likely another shoah. I don't think this is a good thing, it just is.

I always had a negative reaction to 9/11 truthers, but there were always tons of unanswered questions. I've recently come around to believing it was a Mossad operation. So many things click in to place. Some of the "truthers" are straight wackos and weirdos, but there are a ton of excellent points and evidence. I'm not claiming remote control planes or even controlled demolition (though its very possible), just that I believe with very little doubt that Mossad spearheaded the operation, not a guy in a cave who never claimed responsibility.

Let's see those 28 pages, for instance. Media outlets tried claiming it was about Saudi Arabia... I don't buy it. Saudis are implicated all over the damn 9/11 report. Why redact a little more about them? It implicates Israel, guaranteed.

This stuff is going to keep happening. The mass of Americans are dupes and dopes. It actually brings me sadness.

Son of Brock Landers said...

The MENA is an area best described the as a rabbit hole

Toddy Cat said...

To quote Steve Sailer "God, I hate the Middle East"...

Portlander said...

I'm convinced.

Concerning WTC, no doubt in my mind there's more to it than the official story. As for the total nut-job truthers, that's the hivemind's typical M.O. Track down (or sock-puppet your own) nut-job to use as the poster-boy to discredit the whole question w/o answering it. Or address the nut-job's while ignoring other legitimate criticism. (Latest example, albeit different topic: David Duke likes Trump.)

LoTB has written explicitly and SoBL has posts illustrating the same thing: most people decide what they believe based on whom they identify with say they believe. They treat voting not much differently than they do the NFL.

Anonymous said...

You're saying it's unlikely that it could have been Iran, because attacking the US would have jeopardized their nuclear negotiations. But they were negotiating with obama. They sized him up and determined that they could stop the flow of weapons to Syria and get their nuclear treaty. obama's just that weak. No further explanation required.

Son of Brock Landers said...

Anon - The Iran explanation is the easiest one and the one I lean towards. I like thinking all angles. The Mossad one is triple bank shot while Iran is direct and as you typed put pussy Obama in the spotlight for response. He didnt.

Alexandros HoMegas said...

Really good article SOBL, maybe off-topic but you read Zman bog? This post he made about the GOP being the "Weekly Standard Party", which means being the Party of Bill Kristol:


Son of Brock Landers said...

Alex - I will check this out. I do not read Zman.

Portlander said...

I don't consider it triple-bank shot. If there's one thing we know from the Cold War, spooks play both sides as a matter of course. It's almost like they can't help themselves. No doubt a personality trait for those that are drawn to spy-craft in the first place.

Sheesh, if that's what Anglo-Russian SOP was, I posit anything in the ME that, by comparison, is less convoluted can be summarily dismissed.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Can we trust the US government to be this clever?

Like the 9/11 truthers, this assumes that the government is more clever and capable than they are. You could argue that the reason why nobody really pursues what happened in Benghazi is because it'd reveal layers of hapless incompetency and willful ignorance based on Obama and academia's vision for a post-realpolitik MENA.

I have little doubt that the US helped to facilitate the Arab Spring. The fact that it played out to be a cluster is proof of that.

Anonymous said...


This theory doesn't assign the US government any cleverness, it saves that honor for Mossad and IDF. The US Govs incompetence in this has obviously been on display.

Anonymous said...

This is all good deduction, Landers. But I am pretty familiar with Libya (was involved with the war against Qaddafi, know a lot of Libyans) and I can tell you your analysis is unnecessarily complex because you're misunderstanding how Libya works and how Libyans operate.

In Libya, working with someone and then attacking them the next day and then going back to working with them the day after that are not mutually exclusive. It's standard procedure for the country's factions. They negotiate and cooperate in the smuggling of immigrants, oil, weapons and other things into, across and out of the country, all while fighting with each other. Working with foreign parties, betraying them and working with them again is very common. For example, the UAE was an aggressive backer of jihadi factions in the country during the 2011 war and then switched sides and now supports General Hifter and his attempt to become mini-Sisi in Libya.

You say that he jihadi factions in Benghazi wouldn't attack Americans who were in effect working with them and supporting their buddies in Syria. That's not how Libya works. The jihadi factions there fight each other all the time and then the next day they'll cooperate. For example, ISIS in Derna recently executed a leader of the Mujahideen Shura Council of Derna by dragging him behind a truck. Not long before that incident the two groups (both black flag jihadis) had been cooperating closet against the forces of General Hifter.

Basically there's no reason that some loose, temporary cooperation between USG elements and some of Libya's jihadi kaleidoscope would have done anything to deter jihadi attacks on USG personnel and facilities in Libya. Because Libya is really just that crazy and violent.

Portlander said...

Slight apologies for running with this tangent, but...

most people decide what they believe based on whom they identify with say they believe. They treat voting not much differently than they do the NFL.

And as if right on cue: Starbuck v. Dunkin

Add shopping to that as well; right before voting.

Ain't it grand... while whites are conveniently split into two camps and completely distracted with posturing and signaling to each other to which group they belong, both sides' treasonous representatives in government are busy flooding them out with foreign interlopers from every dysfunctional hell-hole from every corner in the world.

Toddy Cat said...

"Because Libya is really just that crazy and violent."

This is why we should stay the f*ck out of the Middle East. These dumb bastards lack even that minimal strength of character and intelligent self-interest necessary for successful corruption - they don't stay bought. The only people in the whole damned ME who are even remotely rational in our sense of the word are the Israelis, and they are so damned duplicitous they can't even ask for water when they're thirsty. Of course, that particular trait is probably an advantage when you're trying to survive in a madhouse like the Levant. But it isn't, or shouldn't be, anything to us.

jouety said...

Sobl...read Ann barnhardt. Her take on bengazi is where your analysis is leading, but you haven't gone all the way there yet.

Y said...

Iran? Israel? This is crazy stuff. It was AQ. Just check the Long War Journal's excellent reporting of Benghazi: the people involved were all long term AQ people (overt or covert).

Now there are big Qs about AQs links to certain governments - how did the new head of AQ in Mesopotamia get released from an Iranian jail? why did AQ never attack Russia? - but I think it's overthinking it to start dreaming up big conspiracies where there are discernible facts on the ground.

AQ did it, State fluffed it, CIA was up to dodgy stuff there and the media largely covered up for the across-the-board incompetence because they support the administration.