Massive amounts of highly sensitive US military equipment have been stolen by extremist salafists in Libya, American news channel Fox News has reported.
The recent theft of massive amounts of highly sensitive US military equipment from Libya is far worse than previously thought, Fox News has learned, with raiders swiping hundreds of weapons that are now in the hands of militia groups aligned with terror organizations.
The equipment, as Fox News previously reported, was used for training in Libya by US Special Forces. The training team, which was funded by the Pentagon, has since been pulled, partly in response to the overnight raids last August.
According to State Department and military sources, dozens of highly armored vehicles called GMV’s, provided by the United States, are now missing.
The vehicles feature GPS navigation as well as various sets of weapon mounts and can be outfitted with smoke-grenade launchers.
US Special Forces undergo significant training to operate these vehicles. Fox News is told the vehicles provided to the Libyans are now gone.
Along with the GMV’s, hundreds of weapons are now missing, including roughly 100 Glock pistols and more than 100 M4 rifles. More disturbing, according to the sources, is that it seems almost every set of night-vision goggles has also been taken. This is advanced technology that gives very few war fighters an advantage on the battlefield.
“It’s not just equipment … it’s the capability. You are giving these very dangerous groups the capability that only a few nations are capable of,” one source said. “Already assassinations are picking up in Tripoli and there are major worries that the militias are using this stolen equipment to their advantage. All these militias are tied into terrorist organizations and are tied to (salafists).”
Meanwhile, special operators told Fox News that training camps throughout eastern Libya continue to train terrorists, and border controls right now around the country are non-existent in most areas.
The greatest relevance of this news report of an arms theft is to add one more glaring piece of evidence that the US has brought about and is encouraging 4th generation warfare in lands where it is interfering.
Many of the militants fighting to topple the government of Syria have been reported to be equipped with advanced US arms.
The theft report comes as US has also been training Syria militants, providing them with weapons and giving them financial support according to reports. Continue reading
The murder of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi was an organized hit to cover up direct arm deals
A former CIA gun runner revealed that the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in order to cover up the U.S. State Department’s direct arm shipments to al-Qaeda.
Discussion on Benghazi attack starts around the 37:00 mark.
William Robert “Tosh” Plumlee started his career as a CIA contract pilot in the late 1950s, delivering guns and ammunition on behalf of the agency to Fidel Castro.
Plumlee confirmed that such arm deals are still common today, with the State Dept. shipping arms to al-Qaeda via the CIA.
During an interview with Alex Jones, Plumlee pointed out that Pat Smith, the mother of an information management officer also killed during the Benghazi attack, received little information from the Obama administration about her son’s murder.
“I began to wonder ‘why won’t they tell her anything?’” He asked. “Then a contact of mine in the Middle East, a high-ranking NATO official, mentioned to me that he had reports that the ambassador [J. Christopher Stevens] had been complaining about the dispatches and cables that he had got from the State Department about the weapons being received and [Islamic] radicals armed, including Stinger missiles.”
His doublespeak duplicity reflects the last refuge of a scoundrel. He’s the worst in recent memory. Perhaps the worst ever. Forked tongue rhetoric can’t disguise it.
Throughout his tenure, he governed lawlessly. He’s done so at home and abroad. He spurns rule of law principles and other democratic values.
Nothing suggests change. Business as usual continues. War on humanity is policy. Rogue leaders govern that way. Obama threatens everyone.
On May 23, he spoke at Washington’s National Defense University. He defended what he urged changing four years earlier. More on his Thursday address below.
On May 21, 2009, he spoke at the National Archives. He addressed national security. He said America can’t be safe “unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values.”
“The documents that we hold in this very hall – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights – these are not simply words written into aging parchment.”
“They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.”
“(O)ur government made a series of hasty decisions.”
“(O)ur government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.”
“(W)e set (aside fundamental) principles as luxuries that we could no longer afford.”
“In other words, we went off course. (Americans) called for a new approach – one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.”
We must act, he said, “with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.”
“(D)ecisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach.”
He called doing so “neither effective nor sustainable.”
He pledged change. He said he took steps to prohibit torture. He ordered Guantanamo closed, he claimed.
He made other high-minded promises. He “swore an oath to uphold the Constitution,” he said. He systematically spurned it. He did so across the board. He represents the worst of rogue leadership.
His Thursday address reflected same old, same old. It was beginning-to-end demagogic boilerplate. We’ve heard it throughout his tenure. He repeats it ad nauseam.
Promises made are broken. Defending the indefensible doesn’t wash. CODEPINK Women for Peace co-founder Medea Benjamin challenged him.
She interrupted his speech. She did so several times. She called on him to close Guantanamo, release cleared detainees, and stop killer drone attacks.
“Will you apologize for the thousands of Muslims that you killed,” she asked? “Will you compensate the families of innocent victims?”
Militant to Obama: ‘Will you apologize to Muslims you’ve killed?’
“Can you tell the Muslims that their lives are as precious as our lives?”
This was published in January. The question now is: Why haven’t any of our ‘splendid’ GOPers in Congress invited Admiral Lyons to provide a full, complete testimony to them and to the American people? Surely they know exactly what Admiral Lyons has said – that this was what I’ve been contending since September 12, 2012……………that this was a kidnapping plot that went awry. We must demand that Boehner convene a special hearing for Admiral Lyons as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, put concentric rings of 24/7 security around this good man to protect him from the régime’s Breitbart boomerang effect.
You only have to ask yourself two questions: ONE: Why was an entirely vulnerable Chris Stevens an essential element to Hillary’s kidnapping plan? [Answer: Because she had guaranteed Morsi that his goon squad on the ground wouldn't have any opposition; that their mission would be an easy 5 minute 'smash-and-grab' operation.
TWO: Why did Muhammad Morsi (and also Ayman Al-Zawahiri) suddenly begin loudly and repeatedly demanding the release of the blind sheik only 10 days to 2 weeks before 9-11-12? (Answer: They were setting the stage for Stevens' kidnapping and the anticipated 'magnanimous hostage swap' on the part of THE ONE in our White House - Olympus bestriding the earth, spreading international good will.............]
Read the column, then pass it around as widely as you can. This MUST reach millions of still befuddled Americans! Many thanks to Suze for sharing this with our group.
BY Doc Vega
According to a report from the Washington Times, retired 4 Star Admiral James Lyons reveals the entire plot that led to the deaths of Americans in Libya that could have been prevented, who gave the orders, and why events took place as they tragically did. Admiral James Lyons is probably the highest ranking figure ever to intervene in a federal government criminal case, and testify. Thanks to this man’s dedication to his country and the truth, we will finally know the truth and who was responsible.
In his words Lyons says that the attack on Benghazi was a bungled kidnapping attempt to be perpetrated upon Ambassador Stevens. This was to appear to be a hostage exchange for a terrorist prisoner who was to be released in trade for a supposedly captured US ambassador. The trade would have been for Omar Abdel Rahman an international prisoner, known as the Blind Sheikh.
This apparent abduction by terrorists of our ambassador and then negotiated trade for the Blind Sheikh would have been the “October Surprise” that would have elevated President Obama’s flagging popularity and boosted his approval ratings for a re-election. A dramatic prisoner exchange that saved our ambassador’s life However, something went horribly wrong. A cunning and illegal bit of treachery by the Obama White House turned into something entirely different. Obama’s October surprise turned into a carnage orchestrated by the White House itself as the President, Leon Panetta, and CIA Director, David Petraeus watched via a UAV real-time feed as a 7 hour attack on the Benghazi Embassy raged. Reportedly, stand down orders were given several times to different units within striking distance.
A plot of pure deception
Dans son ouvrage “Crimes sans châtiment”, Jean-Loup Izambert revient sur les collusions qui existent entre les Frères Musulmans et le Pouvoir Français depuis les années 1990, ainsi que sur l’implication des gouvernements Français dans les guerres de Libye et de Syrie.
Radio Courtoisie 2013.05.04 JL Izambert “Crimes sans chatiment”
March 19, 2013 (LD) UPDATED - After a 10 year war/occupation in Iraq, the death of over a million people including thousands of US soldiers, all based on patently false claims of the nation possessing “weapons of mass destruction,” (WMDs), it is outrageous hypocrisy to see the West arming, funding, and politically backing terrorists in Syria who in fact both possess, and are now using such weapons against the Syrian people.
At least 25 are reported dead after a chemical weapons attack targeting Syrian soldiers was carried out by NATO-backed terrorists in the northern city of Aleppo. While NATO-backed terrorists claim they lack the “expertise” to even use chemical weapons, it was reported by CNN in their December 2012 article, “Sources: U.S. helping underwrite Syrian rebel training on securing chemical weapons,” that:
The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.
And while some are attempting to suggest the use of chemical weapons by either side indicates “unsecured stockpiles” and a “security risk,” the weapons could have just as likely come from Libya. Aleppo is located near the Syrian-Turkish border. Had Libya’s looted stockpiles of chemical weapons been shipped to Syria, they would have passed through Turkey along with weapons sent from Libya by the US and thousands of Libyan terrorists who are admittedly operating inside Syria, and would most likely be used to target cities like Aleppo.
Worse yet, any chemical weapons imported into the country would implicate NATO either directly or through gross negligence, as the weapons would have passed through NATO-member Turkey, past US CIA agents admittedly operating along the border and along side Western-backed terrorists inside Syria.
Libya’s WMD’s are in Terrorist Hands Continue reading
Please consider this quote. I posted about it a couple of years ago. Red highlighting is mine.
“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight. You know, it’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right upfront with you, I like brawling.”
That’s General Mattis, the dick head of the US (read Israel’s) Central Command. He was promoted after saying this.
He’s giving the Israeli line on Iran. Guess he is so blood thirsty he now wants to shoot some more Mooooooooselims. After all, “It’s fun to shoot some people.” He is a psycho.
“The Obama administration program of sanctions and diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from gaining nuclear capabilities is not working, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East told a Senate committee Tuesday, adding that Tehran has a history of denial and deceit and is “enriching uranium beyond any plausible peaceful purpose.”
Now get a load of this quote in the same article. Mattis admits that he is paid to be a war monger and to advocate killing Iranians. After all, as he says “It is fun to shoot some people.”
“That should not be in any way construed as we should not try to negotiate. I still support the direction we’re taking,” Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I’m just — I’m paid to take a rather dim view of the Iranians, frankly.”
Paid by whom?
Americans have exactly the leadership they deserve.
2. Hagel meets his master.
All of this shit is happening the day after AIPAC’s annual traitors conference. It’s not a coincidence. The Lobby is so emboldened now that its movers and shakers do not care how ostentatious they are as they stick the nose of the US into a huge pile of Zionist Bullshit. They don’t even try to hide it.
Alors que les roulements de tambour contre la Syrie deviennent de plus en plus forts, les allégations de plus en plus folles, et le double jeu de fomenter, comploter et financer les terroristes (pardon, aider l’opposition légitime) de plus en plus évident, il est intéressant de jeter un coup d’oeil aux justifications présentées par les gouvernants US pour leurs incursions meurtrières de l’histoire récente.
Ce mois de décembre 2012 est le 23e anniversaire de l’invasion de Panama le 20 décembre 1989, au moment où les Panaméens préparaient leurs fêtes de Noël. Un bref rappel nous remet en mémoire Philip Agee évoquant le président George H. W. Bush lorsqu’il disait au peuple américain que la menace de Panama (3.571.185 habitants en 2011) était telle qu’elle « compromettait notre mode de vie ». La référence figure dans la conférence bien nommée d’Agee, “Produire la crise appropriée” (1). Aussi éloquente aujourd’hui qu’hier. Rien n’a changé.
Le but de l’invasion était de s’emparer du leader du pays, le général Manuel Noriega, et bien entendu “d’établir un gouvernement démocratique”. Un changement de régime. Avec la proximité de la remise au Panama du contrôle du canal (prévue à l’origine pour le 1er janvier 1990) après un siècle de gestion coloniale US, l’Amérique voulait s’assurer que ce contrôle reste dans les mains d’alliés malléables.
Noriega, un pion de la CIA depuis 1967 (2), qui était passé par la célèbre Ecole des Amériques à Fort Benning (Georgie), était arrivé au pouvoir avec l’aide des Etats-Unis, mais apparemment son soutien US avait faibli. En un mot, les USA le kidnappèrent et le condamnèrent à 40 ans de prison.
February 13, 2013 (LD) – AFP has reported that a recent NATO airstrike in Afghanistan has killed over 10 civilians in an all-too-familiar headline glossed over by the Western media in an exercise of both depravity and hypocrisy. RT’s article, “NATO airstrike kills 10 Afghan civilians, mostly women and children - officials,” notes in particular that up to 11,864 civilians were killed in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2011, and that civilian deaths before 2007 were not even tracked by the UN.
Such facts reveal alarming hypocrisy as the UN keeps almost daily, inflated tallies of civilian deaths elsewhere, in particular, in nations like Libya and Syria where Western interests have been heavily involved in regime change and in dire need of manipulating public perception worldwide. The United Nations had in fact pieced together a dubious report crafted from “witness accounts” compiled not in Syria, or even beyond its borders in a refugee camp, but instead, in Geneva by “witnesses” supplied by the so-called Syrian “opposition.”
Image: Just some of the corporate members of the US-Qatar Business Council, whose president just so happens to sit on the same board of directors of the Middle East Policy Center as Karen AbuZayd, co-author of one of many conveniently timed UN Human Rights Council reports on Syria.
Worse yet, that UN report was co-authored by Karen Koning AbuZayd, a director of the US Washington-based corporate think-tank, Middle East Policy Council. Its board of directors includes Exxon men, CIA agents, representatives of the Saudi Binladin Group (Osama Bin Laden’s family business), former ambassadors to Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar, US military and government representatives, and even the president of the US-Qatar Business Council, which includes amongst its membership, Al Jazeera, Chevron, Exxon, munitions manufacturer Raytheon (who supplied the opening salvos during NATO’s operations against Libya), and Boeing.
In other words, the very underwriters of the armed militancy that is consuming Syria are sitting along side the head of the UN commission producing reports portraying the Syrian government as guilty of “war crimes and crimes against humanity.