Share →
Buffer

Despite the Western World’s best efforts to forget who it is at war with (or at least who is at war with it), the Islamic World which shares no such confusion, sent a courtesy 9/11 anniversary reminder in Benghazi.  (A theme often repeated at the Lighthouse, here and here among many).

The embassies in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and of course Libya have been attacked by Islamic mobs. In EACH of these cases, the US and Europe heavily supported the mobs’ takeover of the country. Ironically, in nations where the US has not yet been successful in collapsing the regime, the US embassies remained safe. The mob now has repaid in kind.  If you wonder why no such attack happened in Syria, well of course the US withdrew its ambassador back in February, but such an attack and murder would not be possible until Assad’s regime is removed (by US and Qatari backed Islamists) and replaced with an Islamic one. At that point, perhaps by next Sept 11, then the new ambassador can be in place for attack and murder.

A very telling scenario actually happened in the death rows of one of these West leaning regimes the US helped to destroy…. just a year ago, September 2011, the Israeli embassy was attacked by a radical Islamist mob who would have slaughtered every staffer inside. The compound itself was breached, which itself would have been nearly impossible during the reign of Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak had resigned as Egypt succumbed to the Western backed Muslim Brotherhood (who now controls Egypt) and the roving bands of pillaging thugs. However, the defeat had not yet been total (that we reported here), as in an attempt to save Egypt from the clutches of the aforementioned, Mubarak passed power onto the Military and the recently usurped SCAF.

The country was then led by the Generals, first among them General Tantawi. Though Egypt was nearing collapse, the army still held a precarious control, and rather than a bloody slaughter at the besieged Israeli embassy, what occurred was (as we reported here) that in close coordination, Tantawi and Israel’s PM Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (not to mention the brave Embassy personnel)  orchestrated a brilliant rescue of the entire staff. If this episode was to repeat itself today with Tantawi sacked and the Brotherhood at the helm the outcome would be quite different and of little doubt.

So Christopher Stevens, by all accounts a capable diplomat, and good man wholly supportive of the Arab and Muslim peoples across the Middle East and North Africa lays dead along with three of his men, butchered by those same people, the ones he spent much of his career trying to help.  The same people he had just recently and courageously (and very unfortunately) supported in their uprising against Qaddafi’s regime.

Yet unclear Libyan forces drag a murdered US Ambassador Stevens through the streets.

Firstly, it must be noted that nothing could have been more pathetic than Barak Obama’s response to this incident. Despite the media onslaught against him, Mitt Romney was dead on in pointing out the lowly nature of Obama’s response.

Browsing the responses from around the world, from Israel’s PM Netanyahu’s articulate and heartfelt statement to Australia’s, no one in the Western World even remotely got close to mentioning an excuse for the terrorist. No one, except America that is.

The US embassy in Cairo said that the United States

condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims

The President himself did little better and stated:

While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants,

Indeed, “word on the street” is that these strings of attacks and protests were inspired by a film (that appears not to really even exist [yet] in full length). About 14 minutes of the film titled The Innocent Muslims have surfaced. Though original reports quoted the producer as an Israeli, it appears that the people behind the film are mostly Arab Coptic Christians, and at least some with shady legal pasts. Of course Coptic Christians in Egypt and elsewhere have suffered at the hands of Islamic terror. We will not focus on the film, as it is apparently at best a shady attempt at profit by unscrupulous individuals, and at worse part of the intricate Islamist attack and conspiracy. Especially, since the media and the Obama administration have chosen to focus on it, we instead will set aside the purported terrorists’ excuse and focus on the terror itself.

More educated sources noted that hours before the attack, Al-Qeada and Islamic Jihad’s Ayman Zawahiri released a statement ordering Muslims to avenge the death of Abu Yaha al-Libi. al-Libi (the Libyan) was a an Al-Qaeda leader and  long time member of the LIFG (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group). This extremist group played a key role (now more “moderately” known as the Lybian Islamic Movement) in the 2011 uprising heavily supported by Europe and the US. Of course at the Lighthouse we reported on the Islamic nature of the so called “Arab Spring” long before any in the Western Media noted it, and specifically warned about the LIFG in leading positions of the new Libyan government here and here. Hakim Belhadj himself was named military governor of Tripoli and now leads one of the largest political parties in Libya.

The complexity of the attack, the call for revenge for al-Libi’s death, and the 9/11 anniversary date of the attack are all evidence of a more sophisticated pre-planned attack by Islamist groups in coordination with or simply sympathetic to the Islamic mob’s concurrent attack.  There is in fact quite a lot of evidence of “insider” collusion. But before that, even assuming that the SOLE cause of the attacks was this alleged film (which it is not) that no one has seen, the administration’s response is absurd on the face of it.

There are two levels of absurdity at play, only one of which does Obama even hint at. The first is obvious, and though Obama hints at it, the Cairo embassy’s statement does not and even mentioning it gives it a legitimacy it does not deserve. Namely, that expressing ones views, even if offensive to the religions, does not justify murder. So

“while we ‘feel your pain’ and deplore the self-expression certain people in the world exercise that offend you, you still shouldn’t kill because of it”.

The “while we” is pathetic, insulting and absurd. All murders have a reason, things do not and cannot happen without reasons. To note understanding of the terrorists’ anger as a reaction to their murderous terrorism is so extremely leftist that I fear even attempting to delve into its “logic”. Makes you yearn for a Bush “Bullhorn Speech“… despite G W’s offensive omission of understanding the terrorists’ rage. More on that shortly.

The second layer of absurdity which is so often ignored in this game between the West and Islam is the complete delusion of even playing the same game; it is the absence of personal accountability, a cornerstone of the Western World’s concept of rule of law and justice.  While everyone is busy arguing if it is “OK” to kill someone who insults a religion, it is always lost that Mr. Stevens (and his staff) did not produce this alleged movie culprit.

It is not only that the Islamic enemy thinks it is OK (actually his duty) to kill those who offend his religion, but rather that it is ok to kill whoever he can get to because someone ELSE offended his religion.

Israel suffers from this dis-proportionality daily. While the IDF tirelessly hunts down murdering terrorists, the terrorists try to kill as many random Jews as they can in order to TERRORIZE (the entire point of terrorism) the nation. The IDF’s job would be much easier if in retaliation it simply went around and killed X number of Arabs (palestinians as many confused call them) randomly in towns and villages that the IDF fully controls. However, by watching Western coverage of the conflict, one would think that is EXACTLY what is happening.  In any event the terrorist wishes to terrorize a population into compliance, surrender and submission. The word “Muslim” itself is Arabic for one who “submits”. The task of Jihad is to give people a choice between submission (becoming Muslims) and death.

Of course in the Western World it is not ok to believe a religion can be bad or wrong (unless it is Christianity apparently). Therefore the West continues to call terrorists “bad Muslims” (though in this case they are not so bad since the White House seems to sympathize with their anger), and to point  out that many millions of good  Muslims do not want to kill “infidels”. The truth could not be more diametrically opposed. Though I will not venture to guess on the numbers, it is of little doubt that there are Muslims who do not wish to kill anyone, or even to convert everyone by force or otherwise. Though these individuals may be good people, they are in fact, terrible Muslims.

Our inability to face politically incorrect truth leads us to ever more absurd conceptual and verbal acrobatics. In this case, the average Western citizen, led on by his leaders, who knows next to nothing about Islam and has never in his life read one word of the Koran, declares that the peaceful secular “Muslim” is following the TRUE Islam while the deeply religious bearded Muslim who has devoted his life to its study obviously is not.

Aside from this horrendous double absurdity, Obama’s statement has another wonderful quality. It is a lie. The US does not (or at least should not I suppose) “reject efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others”. Does it reject the efforts of the likes of Bill Maher and the like to continuously mock, denigrate and insult Christianity? When the President claims Americans are clinging to their “guns or religion [Christianity]”? Where was the US rejection then? When the famous show Southpark (which is a vulgar but brilliant show who earns respect by not backing down or drawing “the line”) mocks Christianity or Judaism, where is the US’s rejection? Once the show famously dared to include Mohammed in its cartoon and almost brought upon WWIII it seemed. To their credit, the writers did not back down despite death threats, but their Comedy Central contract gave the cable channel power to scrub the episode.

When Bill Maher tweets:

Wow, Jesus just f****d #TimTebowbad! And on Xmas Eve!…

or insults the GOP’s presidential candidate:

By any standard, Mormonism is more ridiculous than any other religion

among endless tirades against Christianity (which he often dresses up as against “religion”), where is the US rejection? Under this administration it more often seems that they lead the attack on Christianity rather than “reject” efforts to denigrate it.

As the always intelligent Newt Gingrich pointed out, no Network in the US would dare run a show called “Good Muslim Bitches” though ABC had no problem running one called “Good Christian Bitches”. Pardon the language (which is ABC’s and not mine)  to any ladies among the readership, but a situation such as this requires no more euphemisms. In fact, in the US liberal media world, opposing the airing of that show would make you a bigot!

But why digress? Why look so far as cartoons and ABC for anti-Christian mockery, when quoting the US President does just fine…

 

In any event, the Administration’s confusion on the matter is plain to see. Though Hillary Clinton remains leagues above Barak Obama in professionalism and beliefs in common American values and whose comments did not (at least not yet)  include apologia for the terrorists, as a leading architect of the insurgence of Islamism across the Middle-East she was noticeably confused:

I ask myself, how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?… This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be.

Well, she seemed much happier and less confused some months ago when she was informed that another man was viciously murdered by a violent Islamic mob:

And therein lies the arrogance and folly that made this event possible. Benghazi was the West’s pet. The long Libyan civil war..excuse me, the “peaceful freedom protest” backed by NATO warplanes (and Qatari money and Special forces) that Qadhafi kept trying to quell by armed force pitted much of Eastern Libya against the Western half. While Tripoli remains a hotbed of pro-Gaddafi loyalists, it was Benghazi that was the center of the opposition (ie the Islamist heart of the uprising). And so while the embassy in Tripoli is guarded by a contingent of Marines, the consulate in Benghazi is thought to be “among friends” and has none. Common sense would find it hard to name an embassy or consulate in more dangerous territory than this, but apparently that thought did not come up in Clinton’s State Department.

The administration is trying to evade responsibility for that with weak statements. A defense department official said that the consulate did not have a Marine detail because:

That’s usually reserved for embassies,

The “usually” is the key term. The truth is that many embassies and consulates around the world have no Marine security detail. That is reserved for dangerous locations, based on the assessment of the State Department (Clinton), the Defense Department and of course ultimately the President.  For example, 50 Marines were deployed after the attack (a bit too late) to the Benghazi consulate even though it remains a consulate.

When Secretary Clinton herself was asked about the irony of the attack she (just as ironically) remarked that the attackers had been a:

“Small and Savage Group…”

When the same people were violently seizing the country’s infrastructure and institutions, when they were murdering fellow Libyans who remained loyal to Qaddafi or who were too dark or who otherwise differed in opinion, when they freed fellow terrorists from prisons, when they were storming the Presidential Palace in Tripoli, when they in cold blood executed Mutassim Qaddafi (Muammar’s son), and when they violently beat and butchered a wounded and unarmed elderly Gaddafi, they remained a broad symbol of democracy and regardless of how few they always represented the “Libyan people” and without doubt were  “civilian peaceful freedom protesters” that require NATO planes for close air support (an unusual requirement for civilians), and only now when they have butchered the US ambassador along with 3 other US personnel; now they are a “Small and Savage Group”.

Mrs. Clinton, I won’t take issue about their size, but they were always a SAVAGE Group.

A full review of the attack will have to await another article, as too little information is clear at this point. At 10:00 pm the US consulate in Benghazi began taking fire from Islamic attackers outside the compound. Fifteen minutes later, the attackers were quoted as having gotten past “robust security” and setting the building on fire.

 

10pm Libyan time on Tuesday – The consulate begins taking fire from unidentified assailants. Around 30 people – both Libyans and Americans – were in the consulate at the time.
At

It seems that there was only 3 people inside the building including Ambassador Stevens, Information Management Officer (in the Foreign Service) Sean Smith, and a regional security officer. There was an additional 27 staff members either outside or an adjacent building. As the building caught fire, he was somehow (and this is a crucial question!) separated from his security detail and the security officer who made it out of the building and rushed back by approximately 10:15 with some reinforcements to retake the building and rescue the ambassador.

10.15pm – The security officer makes it outside and rushes back into the building with reinforcements to try to rescue the two others. They find Smith’s body but are unable to locate the ambassador and are forced to retreat. His whereabouts remain unknown for the next several hours.

11.20pm – US and Libyan security forces make another attempt to regain the main building and this time succeed. As the shooting continues, they move all remaining staff into the annex building.

Midnight – The annex comes under heavy fire which continues for two hours. Two more Americans are killed in the fighting. They remain unidentified but are State Department officials.

0.45pm – US security personnel launch a counter-attack from the consulate’s smaller annex and try to regain the main building, which is still aflame. They come under heavy gunfire and have to retreat.

2am Wednesday – Libyan forces regain control of the compound. It’s not clear whether the attackers are killed, retreat, or flee.

Early morning  Stevens’s body is returned to US officials at Benghazi airport.

US officials did not discover what happened to Stevens until his body was returned to them at Benghazi airport at about dawn.

The original details of what happened were given by Libyan Interior Ministry officials. They originally said that Ambassador Stevens was taken by their forces to a secret safe house that itself was under attack. They also said that their forces took him to the Hospital where he was declared dead.

Would the US Ambassador abandon and be abandoned by his security staff in order to escape with armed Libyan forces?

How did the Libyans know he would be in Benghazi and not in Tripoli?

Why would Marines not be accompanying him, especially on a Sept 11 anniversary hours after an Al-Qaeda threat?

It seems that the man who may know the answer to some of these questions, Sean Smith was also found dead. The fact that the rest of the staff survived (besides another two security officers who attempted to fight the assailants during the second attack) and Libyans ended up with Stevens’ body seems very suspect. Foul play from the Interior Ministry here is very possible. Stevens may have been fooled in going with Libyan forces who led him (and Sean Smith?) to their death. Apparently, if he had remained with the rest of his staff, he would have survived. It is also possible that an ambush “separated him” from his security detail. The Libyan claim that he died of asphyxiation is also suspect.

At this point there is much speculation but there are a lot of unanswered questions. The man who informed us of what occurred is non other than Deputy Interior Ministry Eastern Libya), Wanis al-Sharif. He seemed reluctant to go into details while at the same time seemed to know too many details.

His superior, Fawzi Abdelali is the powerful Interior Minister. Back in February he had resigned his post after allegations that he could not maintain security and/or that he was part of a Salafist campaign against Sufi Islam. Several shrines and mausoleums of Sufi figures were attacked and destroyed throughout Libya. Sufism is widespread through North Africa (is more mystical and arguably much less “hard line”) and is opposed vehemently by Salafist types of Sunni Islam prevalent in Qatar and Saudi Arabia (more prominently Wahhabism). Qatar, which seems to be dominating everything that goes on in the Middle East lately, has supported Salafist movements against any other they consider heresies.

Present during the press conference was Benghazi security chief Abdel-Basit Haroun and Benghazi city council and security official Ahmed Bousinia.

After the clamor died down, Abdelali withdrew his resignation and stayed on as Interior Minster. Some graphic pictures surfaced on the internet of Ambassador Christopher Stevens being dragged through the streets in Libya. It is difficult to tell if these are select images of him being “paraded” as is common in the Arab world, or simply being carried to the Hospital. I leave that to the viewer for now. Certainly, in one of the pictures, Stevens’ left arm seems to be vividly bent upwards, apparently a sure sign that he was still alive at this point. This well may be so, though it is also possible that the arm simply swung by the motion of man carrying him. The lack of uniforms among those surrounding him and the clearly seen beard (a sign of a deeply religious Muslim) is also of note, and may indicate he was not among friends.

 

Being helped or lynched?

Mr. Stevens arm is obviously bent upwards… is it being held? Swung by the movements of the man carrying him, or is he still alive?

The latest reports, which we truly hope are false, even indicate he may have been raped before being killed. We will await for more details to emerge before trying to make a call on the details of his attack, but it is certain they are due, along with many other tragedies still to come, due to a failed Mid-East policy.

 

The Lighthouse will update when more is available, but the media should not get away with its whitewash. The focus will undoubtedly continue on the film, actors will be hunted down ans asked if they feel guilty about the film they participated in (as if they killed the Ambassador), and some likely bogus arrests will be made in Libya. Meanwhile, the Islamic campaign goes on successfully as the West cringes back further and further in fear.

 

Comments

One Response to Obama’s “Freedom Protesters” turn into a “Small and Savage Group”

  1. […] Within a day of the kidnappings of the three youths, being announced, I posted in the following article. Of course along with all Israel, I prayed and hoped for the safe return of our young boys. At the dawn of their lives, innocent, full of life, students. It was not to be, since they were murdered in cold blood by Hamas thugs. Within the article was correct analysis about Hamas being behind the attack, the likelihood that the boys entered a stolen Israeli vehicle willingly having been tricked, and the importance of the victim’s cell phones in the investigation among other details all before any of this information had been released. This for no other reason than the fact that I know our people, and I know our enemies. Their nature one that the West refuses to understand or come to grips with.  More on that. […]

Leave a Reply

Online Marketing at OnToplist.com
%d bloggers like this: