Ironclad: Egypt Involved in Benghazi Attacks
A Libyan intelligence document has been produced that directly implicates Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Mursi in the attacks on American installations in Benghazi on 9/11/12. Those who attempt to discredit this document run into trouble when it is coupled with real-time video we uncovered on 9/13/12. In that video, gunmen at the scene of the attack can be heard declaring that they were sent by Mursi.
After weeks of attempting to push the narrative that a video was responsible, the Obama administration ultimately had to concede that the attacks in Benghazi were terrorist in nature. A few months after 9/11/12, the top lawyer for the Pentagon stated that the war on terror should be waged by “law enforcement and intelligence agencies”.
Based on the Obama administration’s standard, the Benghazi attacks should be treated as a crime instead of as an act of war. Therefore, let us bring forth the evidence, which implicates the leader of a nation state (Egypt) in the attack and warrants a grand jury (House of Representatives) investigation to decide if administration officials should be indicted (impeached).
Since we’re deciding who to indict, we must look at evidence of involvement in the attack. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President – Mohammed Mursi – is a good place to start. Our first two exhibits are both damning but when taken together, may just constitute a ‘smoking gun’. EXHIBIT A is a video shot from a cell phone at the scene of the attacks. In this video, gunmen are seen running toward the camera, toward other gunmen. At one point – in Arabic which we have confirmed – one approaching gunman says, “Don’t Shoot us! We were sent by Mursi!”. Even though the video is in Arabic, you can discern the word “Mursi”.
A Libyan Intelligence document (EXHIBIT B) has now been brought forward by credible Arabic translator Raymond Ibrahim. This document discusses the confessions of six members of an Egyptian Ansar al-Sharia cell who were arrested and found to be involved in the Benghazi attacks. Ibrahim reported the following about this document:
It discusses the preliminary findings of the investigation, specifically concerning an “Egyptian cell” which was involved in the consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene” six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law), were arrested.
According to the report, during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members “confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi…
Libyan Intelligence Document translated by Ibrahim (EXHIBIT B)
For example, in addition to mentioning Egypt, Mursi, and Ansar al-Sharia, the document also mentions Al-Nas TV and Dar Al-Hekma, both of which we raised red flags about in the days and weeks after the Benghazi attacks.
Let’s consider the timeline of events leading up to and including 9/11/12:
Thursday, September 6th: According to the Wall Street Journal, this was the day that the 14-minute Innocence of Muslims video trailer was sent to “journalists around the world”. Some of the video was translated into Arabic.
Friday, September 7th: Egypt’s Wisam Abdul Waris of Dar Al-Hekma (yes, the same Dar Al-Hekma identified in the Libyan Intelligence document) publicly denounces Innocence of Muslims. He does so while calling for the criminalization of any defamation of Islam, even in non-Muslim countries.
Saturday, September 8th: Al-Nas (yes, the same Al-Nas identified in the Libyan Intelligence document) talk show host Khalid Abdallah, who is sympathetic to the more fundamentalist, Salafi Muslims, interviewed a Muslim activist named Mohammad Hamdy and aired translated portions of the Innocence of Muslims video that for weeks, Obama administration officials attempted to blame for the Benghazi attacks. Reuters reported days later that the airing of these clips from the video was “the flashpoint” for the protests in Cairo and attacks in Benghazi. Here is the video of the exchange. Portions of the Innocence of Muslims video are aired beginning at the 5:46 mark:
Sunday, September 9th: An interview with Wisam Abdul Waris is uploaded to YouTube. A translated excerpt of what Waris said is beneath the video:
“We have moved to review with Mr. Rifai all the legal procedures today by which we created The Voice of Wisdom Coalition (I’itilaf Sawt al-Hekma); it will hold accountable everyone who insults Islam locally and internationally, in accordance with every country’s laws. We all know the problems Yasser Al-Habib had in London and after that in Berlin… in Germany, an extremist group was allowed to publicize cartoons that insult the prophet in front of the Salafist Mosque in Berlin, through a legal decision. So what we did was to ask Sharabi Mahmoud to reject this legal decision on behalf of the Egyptian people who are Muslim; for this reason, we created this coalition. We also made an official request from the Church in Egypt to issue a public announcement, to state it has nothing to do with this deed.”At this point, let’s introduce the YouTube channel of Sam Bacile. It is later learned that Bacile is actually Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man behind the Innocence of Muslims video. At one time, two videos appeared on the Feed tab of Bacile’s channel. Sometime between September 9th – 11th, the administrator commented on the Waris video.
About one week earlier, Bacile identified the other video that appeared on his channel as one of his favorites; it is a video of Nader Bakkar, the official spokesman of the Salafist Nour Party. Bakkar and Waris joined forces in the effort expressed by Waris on September 7th. Here is a screenshot:
Also at one time, Bacile had one video “Like”. It’s curious that this video featured an interview with a British female convert to Islam:
Though the video is no longer associated with the Sam Bacile YouTube channel, it is still posted:
The New York Times reported that the Sam Bacile YouTube account was actually opened and maintained by Bakoula’s son, Abanob Nakoula.
Monday, September 10th: One day prior to the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens – the highest ranking State Department official in Libya – arrives in Benghazi from Tripoli and is due to return to Tripoli on the 14th. Despite warnings and previous attacks, the U.S. Special Mission Compound (SMC) in Benghazi was woefully insecure and not equipped to protect Stevens.
As an aside, the State Department didn’t just drop Stevens inside a compound that wasn’t sufficiently secured. It hired the February 17th Martyrs Brigade to provide security. The F17MB has allegiances to both Al-Qaeda and one of the groups identified in that Libyan Intelligence document mentioned earlier.
Via Newsmax:
Several entries on the militia’s Facebook page openly profess sympathy for Ansar al-Sharia, the hardline Islamist extremist group widely blamed for the deadly attack on the mission. The State Department did not respond to a Newsmax request for an explanation as to why the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was hired to protect the mission.An Interim Progress Report released by the House Oversight Committee stated the following about F17MB:
Numerous reports have indicated that the Brigade had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets.It should be noted that Almogaz News reported that Ansar Al-Sharia of Egypt is a “Salafist group” (keep in mind that Al-Nas is also Salafist). The mission of Ansar al-Sharia – according to Almogaz – is to “release Islamist prisoners”.
Tuesday, September 11th: The itinerary for Ambassador Stevens says that he is to meet with F7MB at 11:00am but next to this are the handwritten words, “Another day”.
The itinerary was drafted on September 8th, which is also the same day that F7MB made it known they would be pulling back on support:
…on September 8, 2012, just days before Ambassador Stevens arrived in Benghazi, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade told State Department officials that the group would no longer support U.S. movements in the city, including the Ambassador’s visit.The attack on the SMC is launched later that evening. Sean Smith is killed in the attack but the body of Christopher Stevens could not be located and was later removed by Libyans and taken to a hospital under the control of Ansar al-Sharia, according to the testimony of Gregory Hicks, who became the highest-ranking State Department official in Libya after Stevens passed away.
At the Washington Free Beacon, (EXHIBIT B-1) Bill Gertz reported on the shocking but unconfirmed claim made by an al-Qaeda terrorist named Abdallah Dhu-al-Bajadin:
An al Qaeda terrorist stated in a recent online posting that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed by lethal injection after plans to kidnap him during the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack in Benghazi went bad.While the charge that Stevens was killed by lethal injection is unsubstantiated, evidence that the attack on the Benghazi SMC was about kidnapping, not murder, is corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence. If true, what would be the motive behind the kidnapping of the top State Department official in Libya?
Keep reading.
That the attack was planned and involved foreigners (Egyptians) corroborates what Libyan President Mohamed Yousef el-Magariaf told CBS News’ Bob Scheiffer on Face the Nation on Sunday, September 16th (EXHIBIT C):
BOB SCHIEFFER: And you believe that this was the work of al Qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that– is that what you are telling us?Relative to Mursi’s alleged involvement, El-Magariaf provided only circumstantial evidence by identifying attackers as being “foreigners” but in retrospect, the Libyan president’s claims that day are corroborated by the Libyan Intelligence document and the real-time video.
MOHAMED YOUSEF EL-MAGARIAF: It was planned– definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who– who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their– since their arrival.
Also on September 16, 2012, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows and asserted the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration in response to a video. Here are quotes from Rice’s appearance on ABC This Week, during which she said the following (EXHIBIT D):
“What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region was a result, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting.”At a minimum, Rice was directing attention away from Mursi’s involvement with this demonstrably false statement. A short time later, she went as far as directly defending Mursi:
“President Obama picked up the phone and talked to President Mursi in Egypt and as soon as he did that, the security provided to our personnel and our embassies dramatically increased… President Mursi has been out repeatedly and said that he condemns this violence. He’s called off… and his people have called off any further demonstrations and have made very clear, that this has to stop.”Rice attempted to leave viewers with two impressions, one demonstrably false and the other belied by hard evidence:
- A video was responsible
- Mursi was not involved
In her email, Jones wrote the following:
“I spoke to the Libyan Ambassador… When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks – Ansar al-Sharia – is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”On September 12th, Jones corroborated the claims made in the Libyan Intelligence document (EXHIBIT B) that an Egyptian Ansar al-Sharia cell was involved in the attacks, which corroborates the real-time video (EXHIBIT A). Yet, four days later – after this reality must have been further demonstrated, Rice’s statements only served to cover-up the involvement of Mursi and Ansar al-Sharia by extension.
Moreover, Hicks charged that by contradicting the Libyan president, Rice seriously chilled the willingness of the Libyan government to allow FBI Investigators access to what the Obama administration viewed as a crime scene. As such, the crime scene was contaminated and Rice’s lies may constitute an obstruction of justice charge.
The first indications that the Obama administration would decide to point to the video as being responsible for the Benghazi attacks appeared to come soon after it was learned that Sean Smith had been killed. There is cause to believe that news of Smith’s death may have precipitated the decision to point to the video. A Press Release (EXHIBIT F) bearing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s name was released some time prior to 10:42pm EST that night. This is known because an AP article (EXHIBIT G) published at that time made reference to Clinton’s statement as well as to Smith’s death:
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBITS I and J are two video excerpts from President Obama’s speech at the United Nations on September 25th, the same day that Mursi spoke at the CGI. During the speech, Obama echoes what Rice said about his defense of Mursi. Yet, Obama defended him publicly two weeks later, even after intelligence about Mursi’s role had been readily available:
Obama again identifies the video as being responsible for the attack:
Ever since assuming the office of President on June 30, 2012, Mursi has been extremely clear about his strong desire to have the “Blind Sheikh” released. The Washington Post reported that Mursi “assumed office with a pledge to press the United States for Abdel Rahman’s release” and that al-Qaeda’s number one – Ayman al-Zawahiri – echoed the sentiment (EXHIBIT K).
Remember that Almogaz news report? In it, Ansar al-Sharia’s mission is described as being to “release Islamist prisoners”. This would indeed bolster the claims and suspicions of those who believe the mission in Benghazi on September 11th was to kidnap Stevens and trade him for the “Blind Sheikh”.
Fox News reported on July 3, 2012, that Mursi “proclaimed to hundreds of thousands of supporters in Tahir Square… that he will gain the release of Rahman” (EXHIBIT L).
In an interview between CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Mursi from January 7th of this year, Mursi doubled down on his support for the release of Rahman (the “Blind Sheikh”) while making an appeal for sympathy for the mass murderer (EXHIBIT M):
While admitting his desire for the release of the “Blind Sheikh”, Mursi said that if release is not possible, increased visitation and freedom should be granted to Rahman. A letter attributed to Rahman appeared in an al-Qaeda’s Inspire magazine (EXHIBIT N). In an article published by The Hill, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) pointed to this letter in which the convicted terrorist is credited with ordering a bombing in western Egypt in 1997 that killed dozens of people. This demonstrated that the “Blind Sheikh” still has deadly tentacles.
On November 14, 2012, four-star Admiral James Lyons (Ret.) appeared on Fox Business Network with Lou Dobbs (EXHIBIT O). During that interview, Lyons said he believed the only reason that made any sense relative to Ambassador Stevens being in Benghazi on 9/11 was a kidnapping operation in which Stevens could be traded for the “Blind Sheikh”:
Again, consider the itinerary for Ambassador Stevens, who arrived in Benghazi on 9/10/12 and was scheduled to depart on 9/14/12 (EXHIBIT P). That the State Department’s top official in Libya would be sent to Benghazi one day before the anniversary of 9/11 is indeed vexing but that he would be sent to a location that was woefully unprotected and had been attacked with an I.E.D. that blew a large hole in the perimeter wall is beyond troubling. There had been several terrorist attacks on western installations as well prior to September 11th as chronicled in a letter (EXHIBIT Q) from House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa to President Barack Obama.
The Obama administration knew of Ansar al-Sharia’s involvement in Benghazi as the attack was being carried out but stonewalled until ultimately having to concede to the truth. On September 15th, the day that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points were being scrubbed of any reference to Ansar al-Sharia, even the New York Times reported that the group was likely responsible.
Ansar al-Sharia is not solely a Libyan group, as has been reported by the New York Times. In truth, this terror group has branches from Egypt to Yemen to regions all across North Africa (Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, etc.) as reported by the Washington Institute.
Let’s return to the Innocence of Muslims video that the Obama administration tried desperately to blame for the attacks. Evidence that the video was part of this entire plot should not be dismissed.
Via the Washington Times:
The YouTube video that spawned a wave of violent protests across the Islamic world might be more than a crude exercise in anti-Muslim propaganda.You see, our own Walid Shoebat is the first cousin of Nakoula’s longtime partner in crime:
Walid Shoebat, a Middle East pundit and reformed terrorist, says there is reason to believe that the “Innocence of Muslims” video was a hoax designed to spark the huge outpouring of Muslim rage that it did.
Shoebat grew up in Beit Sahour near Bethlehem in the Palestinian Arab territories. So did Eiad Salameh, a man Shoebat says is his cousin. Shoebat says Salameh was a partner in crime with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of the YouTube video, which has acted as a fuse igniting an explosion of Muslim anger directed toward the West.As we point out in the following report, Eiad is a Muslim fundamentalist who despises Coptic Christians. This begs one very simple question: Why would Eiad collaborate with a supposed Coptic Christian for a decade?
As the Washington Times report pointed out, after Nakoula was arrested in June of 2009 and later convicted on bank fraud charges, he was given a lighter sentence in exchange for his identifying Eiad as his group’s ringleader.
If the feds were truly interested in apprehending my cousin Eiad, why did they not take him when Canada offered him on a silver platter?
Via our September 24th report:
After years with credit card fraud, contraband, manufacturing false passports, embezzlements, Eiad was finally arrested, not in the United States— where he was allowed to operate right under the noses of the Feds while conducting his mischievous dealings—but in Canada of all places.As it turned out, U.S. authorities didn’t want Eiad…
Eiad was finally locked up in January 2011.
At least this is what we thought.
I learned of this from a contact out of the (Canadian Peel Police) who was working with the Feds to extradite him to the United States.
The Canadians wanted to keep Eiad in custody as long as it took and were working with the Feds to extradite him to the United States.
The Los Angeles Police had been working on the case for years and wanted so much to send Eiad to prison.Perhaps the U.S. should do a little swapping of its own.
Yet, even one of the police terrorism and drug specialists (who preferred to keep his name anonymous) stated that they couldn’t do much since every time they informed the FBI, they were ordered to stand down and not arrest Eiad.
Eiad must have been a big fish doing some very fishy projects for some very fishy people.
A contact of mine in Canada told me that the Feds in the U.S. preferred not to bring Eiad to the United States to face justice, but asked the Canadians to fly him to freedom in Palestine.
Nakoula for Eiad, perhaps?
Amazingly, on September 28, 2012, after evidence implicating Mursi in the attacks in Benghazi had become available, the Obama administration announced that it would be providing Mursi’s government with $450 Million, despite protestations from Congress. A New York Times article (EXHIBIT R) outlined the details of the aid package:
The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday that it would provide Egypt’s new government an emergency cash infusion of $450 million, but the aid immediately encountered resistance from a prominent lawmaker wary of foreign aid and Egypt’s new course under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood.An act of war, which probable cause suggests, Mursi was involved in perpetrating against the United States in Benghazi, is not usually met with a multi-million dollar aid package.
However, if there were a deal between Obama administration officials and Mursi administration officials, to stage a kidnapping operation in which Stevens was captured and subsequently exchanged for the “Blind Sheikh”, which side would stand to lose more if the truth were to come out?
While still president-elect, Mursi attempted to satiate his base by pledging to have the “Blind Sheikh” freed; it was practically part of his platform. If there had been a deal that were made public, Mursi’s stock would most assuredly rise among his base. Conversely, if such a truth were to be made known, Obama would be finished.
This would grant Mursi significant leverage. Again, we take the opportunity to underscore that the Obama administration had to have known about the high probability of Mursi’s involvement in the attacks as it was cutting a check for $450 Million on September 28th, barely more than two weeks later.
Fast forward a couple of months later when the Obama administration sent four F-16 fighter jets to Egypt. This was done, in part, to honor a foreign aid package that had been drafted in 2010, when Hosni Mubarak was still president. This deal required the U.S. to send more than a dozen F-16′s and 200 Abrams tanks to Egypt over the course of 2013. As a Fox News article (EXHIBIT S) points out, critics in Congress expressed opposition to honoring the agreement because Mursi was in power, though these objections did not include evidence implicating Mursi in the Benghazi attacks.
In March of 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Egypt would be receiving another $250 Million in aid from the Obama administration. This rankled more members of Congress, particularly Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who had served as the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. She was quoted in another Fox News article (EXHIBIT T) as saying:
“With sequestration forcing our nation to face billions of dollars in cuts across the government, it is unfathomable that the administration would send funds unconditionally to the Muslim Brotherhood-led government.”We must emphasize that Ros-Lehtinen’s objections, though forceful, were not made on the basis of strong evidence implicating Mursi’s involvement in the Benghazi attacks.
Now, as the situation in Egypt has become increasingly more violent and tenuous, the Obama administration is sending 400 troops from the site of the 2009 Jihad attack at Fort Hood, TX that left 14 dead and 32 wounded, to Egypt on a “peacekeeping mission” according to a Fort Hood press release (EXHIBIT U).
The behavior of the Obama administration relative to its assistance to Mursi warrants further investigation into whether the Obama administration may be the victim of blackmail.
This leads to our next witness, former C.I.A. Director David Petraeus (EXHIBIT V). Evidence suggests that Petraeus may have punished by the Obama administration when he did not sign on to the talking points that would ultimately be used by Ambassador Rice on September 16th. As references to Al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were being scrubbed from the talking points, Petraeus sent an email at 2:27 PM one day earlier in which he wrote, “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then…” (EXHIBIT W):
EXHIBIT W
Whereas it is demonstrable that the Obama administration was likely punitive in its treatment of David Petraeus when the C.I.A. Director didn’t sign off on the talking points, it is therefore alleged, based on factual and circumstantial evidence that the Obama administration may also be a victim of blackmail from the nation-state of Egypt and its Muslim Brotherhood President, Mohammed Mursi.
Pursuant to the premise that acts of terror must be treated as criminal acts, it is our view that this evidence is more than sufficient to convene a grand jury to indict Mursi and to draw up articles of impeachment for Obama administration officials.
Since the Clinton administration, a common refrain that has been heard – especially from the political left – is that terrorists must be treated as criminals and terrorist attacks should be treated as prosecutable crimes. A perfect example can be found in the case of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the “Blind Sheikh”) who was successfully prosecuted and given a life sentence for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
If the Benghazi attacks were prosecutable crimes, we suggest that a grand jury is long overdue.
In politics, that’s equivalent to articles of impeachment.
**UPDATE at 5:39pm EST on 7/10/13**
We have translated fully the entire Libyan Intelligence document mentioned above (EXHIBIT B) and would like to publish that translation in its entirety below.
Libyan Intelligence Document
[AS TRANSLATED BY WALID SHOEBAT]**UPDATE at 8:29am EST on 7/13/13**
Ministry of Interior
National Security Directorate of Tripoli
Reference Number: 442.67D
Date: September 15, 2012
Report Regarding Egyptian Accomplice Terror Cell That Raided and Burned The American Embassy in the District of Benghazi
His Excellency and dignified Interior Minister, a blessed greetings.
We are honored to bring to his Excellency’s attention, the arrest of the Egyptian [terror] cell that carried out the crime and our investigation up to this date and this hour. That crime was the invasion and burning of the American general consulate building in the district of Benghazi on Tuesday, September 11, 2012 which resulted in the killing of Mr. Chris Stevens, the American Ambassador in the nation of Libya and Mr. Sean Smith, who finances the Department of Information of the United States Foreign Service, as well as other employees [working] for the embassy. Based on the confessions declared by some who were arrested at the scene of the incident and through our fruitful cooperation with the Department of Security agencies in Benghazi with the information obtained shows that some of the accomplices have escaped the scene of the crime and have concentrated themselves in Tripoli. Based on this provided information, an investigative and research group in the agency gained a precise location as to the whereabouts of this escaped cell; it was hiding in the vicinity of Khilat Al-Farjan. Immediately after, they were engaged by a special strike force unit, which was able to arrest persons from the cell, all of whom are Egyptian. The initial investigation shows that the membership of the group [belongs] to the jihadist group Ansar al-Sharia in Egypt which was established and led by Egyptian cleric Marjan Salem. In addition, there was extremely crucial information as to the financial sources of this group and the planners / executors of the operation which carried out the breaking and entering of the American Consulate in Benghazi and killing all occupants including the desecration of their bodies in revenge for the film which was produced by the Crusaders who produced the film that insults the Messenger, Peace and Prayers be upon Him. The most distinguished names that were obtained from the confessions by members of the cell, is the person, the President of Egypt, Muhammad Mursi, Safwat Hijazy and Saudi businessman Mansour Bin Kadasa, the owner of Al-Nas TV station, Muhammad Hassan, previous candidate Hazim Salah Abu-Ismael, Egyptian attorney named Mamdouh Ismael, Egyptian cleric Atef Abdul Rashid, and other personalities. We also promise your Excellency to exert all our efforts to complete all the investigations and place the final report with your Excellency with 48 hours, Lord willing.
We are honored to announce to your Excellency our continual care to work hard with innovation through out blood and soul for the sake of Libya the land of the brave.
[Please] accept the highest greetings
Colonel Mahmoud al-Sharif,
Security Chief—Tripoli
[SEAL] Department of Security
[SEAL]Department of Security, Tripoli
Office of Chief of Security
Issued
Number: 960-13-B
Date: 12-09-15
Signature
At this point, we’d like to introduce EXHIBIT Y into evidence. It is a video from the July 11, 2013 installment of Fox News Channel’s Special Report. During the All Star panel segment, host Bret Baier read excerpts from a new book entitled, “Under Fire: The Untold Story of the Attack in Benghazi”. Accounts of eyewitnesses and confidential sources were cited by the authors. Those witnesses claimed that it was obvious to everyone at the Special Mission Compound (SMC) that Stevens was the target of the attackers.
Moreover, the FBI presumably interviewed these witnesses on September 14, 2012, three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice said the attacks were in response to an anti-Muhammad video. EXHIBIT Y further bolsters the case on two fronts – that Rice knew she was being untruthful and that Stevens was targeted specifically by the Ansar al-Sharia attackers.
**UPDATE at 7:40pm EST on 7/17/13**
In response to a House Foreign Affairs Joint Subcommittee hearing on July 10, 2013, we compiled a report that constitutes Addendum A.
**UPDATE at 9:47pm EST on 7/24/13**
Thanks to multiple sources, it has been reported that a Libyan Intelligence envoy traveled to Cairo on July 21st to meet with Egyptian officials from the new government. Reports are that documents transferred from Libya to Egypt show the involvement of Mohammed Mursi in the Benghazi attacks on 9/11. Our report on these sources comprises Addendum B.
**UPDATE at 7:32pm EST on 7/30/13**
A wonderful tip was sent to us by Rho and it made perfect sense to turn it into EXHIBIT Z (with Z1, Z2, and Z3). Essentially, CNN’s Nic Robertson did a report from outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on 9/11/12. The reason he was there had to do with protests that were going on there. Those protests were demanding the release of Omar Abdel Rahman (the “Blind Sheikh”). Shockingly, Robertson was present with Mohammed al-Zawahiri, the brother of Al-Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri and the son of the Blind Sheikh. Mohammed is a prominent figure with Ansar al-Sharia Egypt.
**UPDATE at 11:05am EST on 8/1/13**
On July 29th, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, who testified in front of a House Joint Subcommittee hearing on July 10th, attempted to debunk our report but actually helped to bolster it. In response to Gartenstein-Ross’s attempt, we present Addendum C.
**UPDATE at 10:05pm EST on 8/5/13**
In the wake of the Benghazi attack, there have been overt attempts both within the Obama administration and without to paint Al-Qaeda and Ansar Al-Sharia as different groups. Expert Daveed Gartenstein-Ross likes to refer to Ansar Al-Sharia as a ‘jihadist’ organization while reserving the ‘terrorist’ moniker for the likes of Al-Qaeda. In order to debunk this hair-splitting, we introduce Addendum D, a compilation of multiple Arabic sources that back up the claim there is no difference between the two groups. In fact, Osama bin Laden himself called on Al-Qaeda to change its name to Ansar Al-Sharia. The logic was that if the U.S. declared war on Ansar Al-Sharia, it would be declaring war on Sharia law, which would make recruiting terrorists an easier pursuit.
**UPDATE at 11:45am EST on 8/10/13**
A curious chain of events involving the left-leaning CNN notwithstanding, a link in that chain was a news report by Erin Burnett (you can read about here and here). Two excerpts from that report reflect positively – to varying degrees – on two of our prior exhibits – EXHIBIT B-1 and EXHIBIT Y above.
Ex. B-1 is an article written by Bill Gertz which quotes an al-Qaeda leader as saying that Stevens was killed by lethal injection and didn’t die of smoke inhalation. Burnett echoes this sentiment by asserting that Stevens was alive when he was pulled from the building. Ex. Y is a video quoting Benghazi survivors who say it was clear to them that Stevens was the target of the attackers. In this video below, Burnett seems to second this claim.
CNN has a history of giving the Obama administration extremely favorable coverage. It is for this reason that we introduce these two excerpts from Burnett’s report in one video we call EXHIBIT AA:
**UPDATE at 6:00pm EST on 8/10/13**
CNN’s airing of reporter Arwa Damon’s report provides us with EXHIBIT AB. It is a short video excerpt from Damon’s interview with Ansar al-Sharia commander and ‘lead suspect’ Ahmed Abu Khattala. Note in this clip that Khattala – an admitted witness to the attack – says that “people panicked”. If Benghazi was about a kidnapping operation gone wrong, people would have likely “panicked”.
**UPDATE at 7:30am EST on 8/12/13**
The linkages between Benghazi, the “Jamal network”, Ansar Al-Sharia Egypt, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are becoming clearer. Those who dismiss the branches of Ansar Al-Sharia and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt but who concede to the involvement of Muhammad Jamal Abdo Al-Kashif (head of the “Jamal network”) in the Benghazi attacks, encounter several problems. An admission that Al-Kashif’s network was involved implicates Ansar Al-Sharia Egypt and an admission that Ansar Al-Sharia Egypt was involved implicates the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. We believe this to be an extremely powerful addition to our report. Addendum E is an article published at Pajamas Media. Addendum E-1 is the Executive Summary.
**UPDATE at 7:30am EST on 8/13/13**
Thanks to multiple Arabic sources, Saad Al-Shater, son of jailed Muslim Brotherhood leader in Egypt – Khairat Al-Shater – made multiple explosive charges during an interview with the Anatolia News Agency. We introduce our summary translation of these charges, coupled with an analysis of how U.S. officials are behaving in the context of them, as Addendum F. The claims made by the younger Al-Shater could not be confirmed but in light of who he is and who he has access to, we find these claims to be far more relevant than not and have chosen to introduce them into evidence. Again, the bizarre behavior of U.S. officials relative to Muslim Brotherhood officials is extremely difficult to explain. Al-Shater’s claims provide as good an explanation as anything we’ve seen.
**UPDATE at 10:00am EST on 8/14/13**
When reputable Egyptian talk show personality Ahmed Moussa called out U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson over a report that the passport of Christopher Stevens’ “assassin” was found in the home of Khairat Al-Shater, it signified a potentially huge breakthrough. This report is introduced as Addendum G. Such a reality would prove an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood connection to the Benghazi attacks. That this passport was allegedly found in Al-Shater’s home would serve to bolster the claims of Al-Shater’s son to some degree. Those claims are at the heart of Addendum F.
No comments:
Post a Comment