Saturday, November 03, 2012


So the Benghazi consulate was a CIA operation, and there was an even larger CIA operation nearby--
Overall, the CIA’s depiction of the events that led to the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens offers new insight into US operations in the eastern Libyan city. It suggests that the small and lightly secured diplomatic mission served as a kind of cover for a larger but covert US intelligence presence, centered in an “annex” located about a mile from the consulate. This intelligence-gathering was focused on an area where Islamist extremists and Al Qaeda-affiliated militants were known to operate.
Well, this brings the attack on the compound that killed 4 new Americans, including the Libyan ambassador, into a whole new light, and explains some of the reasons for the shifting storyline.

I can think of several possible explanations for the attack now:

1) classic revenge-type anger blowback by the militants on to the CIA, if the CIA was trying to control the militants

2) an attack by the militants on the CIA faction as part of a cover-up by the CIA. Possibly the Ambassador was being tipped off on al-CIA-duh activities by the CIA contractors who were killed.

3) a deliberately instigated attack by militants at the behest of the CIA, to create some sort of October-surprise incident to influence the presidential election

4) some combination of 1 and 3 or 2 and 3

Abu Zabaydah

This is just so fucking outrageous, and just goes to show how flimsy the official 9/11 story is--
Now that the US government has admitted that it has no case against Abu Zubaydah and that he was never associated with al Qaeda, will they release him?  As attorney Mickum requested, will his client be allowed to tell his own story?  More importantly, will the official accounts of 9/11 be reviewed to extricate claims allegedly made by and about Zubayda so that those false claims do not to provide additional false direction in War on Terror?
No, almost certainly not.
As with the court order to classify “any statements made by the accused” in the trials of KSM and other suspects,[51] if this man is allowed to speak we may find that his mind has not been completely obliterated through the torture we inflicted upon him.  And we may find that the official myth of 9/11 and al Qaeda will not hold up against the open and un-tortured testimony of the people alleged to have committed the crimes of 9/11.  In the end, it seems that the Zubaydah case is a threat to al Qaeda itself as well as a public admission that some lies must be kept under wraps in order to maintain the overall deception that supports the War on Terror.
Considering how extensively Abu Zabaydah was tortured, and how innocent he was, it is just sickening how much of a lie the govts case was.

This almost completely obscure episode-- which I only learned recently-- totally blows away the official story of al Qaeda, and reveals the massive evil charade run by the CIA.