The Hidden Real Truth About Benghazi

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3053
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Looking for a city, not built by man!

PostTue Oct 30, 2012 12:52 am » by Truthdefender


By Douglas J. Hagmann

26 October 2012: Most people know that we’ve been lied to about the attacks in Benghazi, but few realize the extent of those lies or the hidden secrets they cover. After all, the lie is different at every level. Thanks to a well placed source with extensive knowledge about the attack, the disturbing truth is slowly beginning to emerge and is lining up with information contained in my previous articles published here weeks ago. The truth reveals the most serious situation in the world today as it involves the interests and destinies of us all.


A mosaic of lies

According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012.

The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.

Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon. Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”

First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.

Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.


The Turkish warning

According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?

It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface to air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups. If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation – one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.

The blow-back by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?


A Nation/State sponsored attack?

While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?

Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “…the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta mean by this statement?

Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If, however, once considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer. Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised. They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.

Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets – perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.

As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner. They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?

As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished. And sadly, it was.


Fallout

From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies, bombings and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than understood by the Western media.

Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.

It is also of critical importance to note that last weekend, Russia completed large-scale exercises of their Strategic Nuclear Forces under the watchful command of President Vladimir Putin. These were the first such nuclear exercises conducted since the fall of the Soviet Union.

To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”

In Pursuit of the Truth...
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archi ... #more-7015


Upload to Disclose.tv



In Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
Image

Conspirator
Posts: 3752
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:57 pm
Location: Scotland

PostTue Oct 30, 2012 1:10 am » by Muchtyman


The more the merrier ..........Ta


post846910.html#p846910

Writer
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:28 am

PostTue Oct 30, 2012 1:13 am » by Sprayer


Truthdefender wrote:By Douglas J. Hagmann

26 October 2012: Most people know that we’ve been lied to about the attacks in Benghazi, but few realize the extent of those lies or the hidden secrets they cover. After all, the lie is different at every level. Thanks to a well placed source with extensive knowledge about the attack, the disturbing truth is slowly beginning to emerge and is lining up with information contained in my previous articles published here weeks ago. The truth reveals the most serious situation in the world today as it involves the interests and destinies of us all.


A mosaic of lies

According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012.

The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.

Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon. Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”

First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.

Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.


The Turkish warning

According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?

It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface to air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups. If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation – one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.

The blow-back by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?


A Nation/State sponsored attack?

While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?

Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “…the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta mean by this statement?

Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If, however, once considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer. Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised. They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.

Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets – perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.

As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner. They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?

As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished. And sadly, it was.


Fallout

From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies, bombings and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than understood by the Western media.

Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.

It is also of critical importance to note that last weekend, Russia completed large-scale exercises of their Strategic Nuclear Forces under the watchful command of President Vladimir Putin. These were the first such nuclear exercises conducted since the fall of the Soviet Union.

To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”

In Pursuit of the Truth...
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archi ... #more-7015



Lets hope Putin can finish of the old reptile warmongers because the young are not going to stand this bs for much longer. If we weren't so dependant on globalism for food and money and petrol, we could end their game of death immediately. Sometimes it's hard to tell if they are telling any truth at all.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3053
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Looking for a city, not built by man!

PostTue Oct 30, 2012 1:57 am » by Truthdefender


Muchtyman wrote:The more the merrier ..........Ta


post846910.html#p846910


:cheers: and a bowing motion...


Upload to Disclose.tv



In Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
Image

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10861
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:36 am

PostTue Oct 30, 2012 2:06 am » by Lowsix


The dude that wrote that OP is just wingin it.

He doesnt have a clue...

For instance..

He was there to find and destroy Libyan arms...that would find its way into rebel hands..

oh BUT WAIT..

He was part of a group of CIA operatives who were distributing arms to the rebels.

Well now, which is it?
Keeping arms from the rebels, or arming the rebels?

See? Broken and illogical, internally inconsistent narrative.

Second..the claim that supposedly American Officials stated his mission..is total crap.
Nowhere anywhere does the government state that he was there to find or destroy weapons.

No...where.

That wasnt his expertise.
His expertise was in setting up logistics for new or replacement governments.
His entire background was in diplomacy. Not arms.
he helped new (yes perhaps puppet) governments,
establish themselves..materially, and politically.

IN a vacuum, the Tom Clancy wanna bes just come pouring out of the woodwork,
without even reading the nonsense they publish apparently..

bc that doesnt make any sense at all.
Image
warløckmitbladderinfection wrote:blasphemous new gehenna inhabitant makes god sad...

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3053
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Looking for a city, not built by man!

PostTue Oct 30, 2012 4:36 am » by Truthdefender


Go to their site low. There is a whole series of articles leading up to this one. The arms smuggling to Syria through Egypt is already mainstream news. Unheard of that the CIA would be funneling weapons to 'rebels?


Upload to Disclose.tv



In Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3053
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Looking for a city, not built by man!

PostTue Oct 30, 2012 4:38 am » by Truthdefender



Upload to Disclose.tv



In Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1997
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:50 am

PostTue Oct 30, 2012 4:52 am » by Eldorado


No youre right there was no consulate there.......

the place that was attacked was for sure running arms to rebel groups around the middle east....

and they got whacked..........for being a bunch of CIA spooks killing off the locals in the name of regime change.....

NO WONDER THE MEDIA AND WHITE HOUSE HAVE DROPPED THE LIBYAN THING ALMOST ALL TOGETHER????

they are knee deep in lies to the public again.....THERE'S NO CONSULATE THERE, ZERO, NADA, we went over that a while ago here, and they are covering their asses from getting popped.......by people who are sick of hearing that they are feeding the violence even after being caught creating it......

they know now they aren't as slick as they thought they were.....

The attack was on September 11th.....hmmmmmmm.......and the blame was placed on some director who incited a riot with a state department fueled release???? yeah right....
Image
“The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin.” Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10861
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:36 am

PostTue Oct 30, 2012 5:03 am » by Lowsix


first off Truth...

I never said that it was unheard of..


Wat i said was..

That the article CONTRADICTS ITSELF>

Hes there to rescue or destroy weapons..so the rebels dont get them...
AND
Hes there to distribute weapons...to the rebels.

And what good does it do to go to the site where these TomClancy wanna bes are spreading their crap.
Ive DONE my research..

His entire career has been in setting up replacement governments and assisting transitions..
His entire education was in diplomacy.
His Entire Resume is Diplomacy.

No arms training at all...
No mention of it anywhere , as that article claims..
NOWHERE.




And Eldorado is a keyboard warrior tool if he thinks he knows anything about anything over there.

For one, we are ARMING and helping (presumably)
the very people that hes insisting whacked those guys.

Yeah makes total sense..


Two , you dont know what facilities we have there..
You can guess all you want based on a total vacuum of verifiable information...

Consulate, embassy....as if you understand the functional difference in the middle of a civil war..
Thats just fucking ridiculous...
Last edited by Lowsix on Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
warløckmitbladderinfection wrote:blasphemous new gehenna inhabitant makes god sad...

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7683
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:14 am

PostTue Oct 30, 2012 5:13 am » by 99socks


My understanding is that the office in Benghazi wasn't yet a full-blown consulate, but a language and cultural exchange center.

At least, that's what the Arabic sites said when I looked it up 6 weeks ago...

Don't ask where, I've had my hard drive wiped and OS re-installed.

Also, I don't understand why the CIA would need Benghazi for arms shipments to Syria. The logistics of that just don't seem logical. I mean... Benghazi to Turkey... when we have military bases on the Turkish border with Iraq... why bother with Libya?
Image


Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook