Ironclad: Egypt Involved in Benghazi Attacks
By Walid Shoebat, Ben Barrack and Keith Davies
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)
Upon doing even further analysis of this document, we found that it
aligned with even more evidence we uncovered back in September.
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?
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.
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.
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
At this point, we’d like to introduce an exchange between House
Oversight Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy and Gregory Hicks, a
whistleblower and the top-ranking State Department official in Libya
once Ambassador Stevens was murdered (
EXHIBIT E). This
entire exchange is being introduced as evidence but we ask you, the
Grand Jury, to pay particularly close attention at the 1:45 mark, when
Gowdy introduces the name Beth Jones and reads from an email she sent to
several State Department officials on September 12th, one day after the
attack.
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
In the days after September 11th, President Mursi seemed to adopt the
narrative of the Obama administration relative to the video being
responsible for causing them. He did so, ironically enough, at the
Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in New York City on September 25th (
EXHIBIT H).
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.
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.
You see, our own Walid Shoebat is the first cousin of Nakoula’s longtime partner in crime:
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.
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.
As it turned out, U.S. authorities
didn’t want Eiad…
The Los Angeles Police had been working on the case for years and wanted so much to send Eiad to prison.
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.
Perhaps the U.S. should do a little swapping of its own.
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
On November 7, 2012, one day after Barack Obama’s re-election,
Petraeus’ boss – James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence –
advises the White House that Petraeus
may resign over an extra-marital affair being made public. It is
subsequently learned that the FBI had known about the affair for months and that Attorney General Eric Holder had known about it for weeks. During
an appearance
on the Fox News Channel on November 13th, Washington Post writer
Charles Krauthammer seemed convinced that Petraeus had been punished for
not endorsing the talking points about Benghazi (
EXHIBIT X):
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]
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
**UPDATE at 8:29am EST on 7/13/13**
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.
U.S. Army General Carter Ham
One
of the exemplary “relieved” officers is Maj. Kale Mosley (photo to
right), an Air Force Academy graduate and a pilot who has flown more
than 250 combat missions. He deployed to Libya in the summer of 2011
with 30 hours notice. When he returned, the military immediately sent
him to Iraq. Just as he was boarding the plane for Iraq, the Air Force
gave him his walking papers, effective Nov. 30. Maj. Mosley, the father
of a toddler and a newborn, will not receive a pension or long-term
health-care benefits for his family.There was briefly a law that allowed
people who left the military short of twenty years to get prorated
pension and health care benefits, but it expired in 2001.
