Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb Leader May Have Been Behind Benghazi Attack


Benghazi-attack

Technically that would be former Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb leader, since Mokhtar Belmokhtar split with Al Qaeda. But the idea that he could have come up with the Benghazi attack is certainly plausible. The only question is why wouldn’t he have taken credit for it?

Shortly after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, a phone call was placed from the area.
Whoever made the call was excited. “Mabruk, Mabruk!” he repeated, meaning “Congratulations” in Arabic.

Two sources with high-level access to Western intelligence services have told CNN the call was made to a senior figure in al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM. There is no proof that the call was specifically about the attack, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed, but the sources say that is the assumption among those with knowledge of the call.

One of the sources says the phone call was discovered when a Western intelligence service trawled through intercepts of communications made in the wake of the attack. That source told CNN that the call was made specifically to Moktar Belmoktar, leader of an al Qaeda faction based in northern Mali.

CIA officials told CNN they had no comment on whether any call had been intercepted.

The phone call certainly sounds like the kind that would be made to the planner of an attack and Mokhtar Belmokhtar is certainly known for that kind of thing. And he’s reportedly still alive, which would mean the guy behind the attack could be taken down to wipe away any lingering questions about what really happened at Benghazi in a victory celebration.

But the question is why would Mokhtar Belmokhtar pull off one of the biggest terrorist coups in a while and then fail to brag about it? He certainly wasn’t shy about taking credit for other attacks.

  • truebearing

    I’ll bet Obama has already donned his bullet proof vest, grabbed his H&K assault rifle, and jumped on the fastest jet to Mali to apprehend this Belmokhtar character. It would be like when he personally took out Bin Laden….but wait a second….Al Queda was devastated by Obama’s Bin Laden heroics, so how come they are all over North Africa? Well, they won’t be for long now that our Commander-In-Chief has read all of our e-mails, searched our bank records, and given every American the equivalent of a full rectal exam. That’ll get those man-caused-disasterists right were it hurts!

  • disqus_aO4KJtxZtF

    SHERLOCK HOLMES AT BENGHAZI: THE CASE OF THE MISSING STINGERS

    Forget about Susan Rice and all the talking point lies. Talking points, balking points. Forget about the IRS. Why don’t we treat the Incident at Benghazi as a murder mystery? Let’s forget the Congressional investigation into who changed the talking points. Just make the case simple. Who killed ambassador Chris Stevens?

    We could call in the famous fictional detective Sherlock Holmes to help solve the murder. Holmes, who was really the creation of the author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, when not playing the violin or investigating a crime, once remarked, “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    Odd as it may seem, Holmes may have been on the case longer than we know. The blogger Bookworm wrote in 2012 about the incident at Benghazi, “Sherlock Holmes certainly understood that, when wrongdoing is at issue, silence is as significant as noise:”

    He continued, “The Benghazi cover-up is so huge that the drive-by media isn’t doing it’s usual lying, puffing, and obfuscation. Instead, it’s fallen completely silent. It is pretending that Benghazi never happened.”
    http://www.bookwormroom.com/2012/10/29/is-benghazi-the-most-complete-cover-up-ever/

    According to Holmes, what are the impossibilities that must be eliminated to solve the murder of ambassador Stevens? What is the improbably explanation that remains that helps us find the murderers? So far, there have been at least three explanations for the murder of Chris Stevens.

    The first explanation is the explanation put forward by the White House. Ambassador Stevens was murdered by a rioting mob that was protesting an anti-Muslim video. This explanation is impossible and has been discredited by most who have looked into the murder. Holmes would soon learn that the attack at Benghazi was well planned and had noting to do with a video.

    It would become clear to Holmes that the US Congress is wasting its time looking into the morphing of talking points the administration put forward as a smoke screen. All the while Congress is issuing subpoenas, the real murderer is covering his tracks. Holmes had seen this type of misdirection before.

    Next, we have the explanation of a gun running scheme that went bad. Stevens was supposedly involved with members of al-Qaeda in Libya and was illegally moving shipments of guns and weapons, especially ground-to-air missiles, via Turkey to Syria.

    A deal was going down at Benghazi the night of September 11, 2012, but something went wrong. The Libyan rebels, who wanted the arms to support the rebels in Syria, then killed Stevens.

    Glenn Beck thinks there is something to this explanation. “This is why the White House covered,” Beck claims, “because our ambassador was killed by a guy we were running guns to and we are still running guns today,” If these claims are true, then Congress must make the evidence about the gun running public. Beck should testify and tell us all he knows about the Incident at Benghazi.
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/glenn-beck-obama-destined-for-prison/

    Yet, this explanation is also an impossible cause for the murder of Stevens. Even though we are beginning to learn that indeed there was illegal gun running being done at Benghazi and Stevens, as a supporter of the Arab Spring and the Libyan Revolution was involved in it, where is the motive to kill him?

    Why would the Libyan rebels bite the hand that feeds them? Even if the rebels disapproved of Steven’s lifestyle, they had no motive for murder. They were getting what they wanted, either dollars or weapons.

    Furthermore, the attack at Benghazi was well planed, financed and executed. It was not spontaneous. Stevens’ would have known a deal was going badly long before the night of 12 September. Gunning running has to be eliminated as an impossible cause for Stevens’ murder.

    The most improbable explanation for Stevens’ murder, the explanation that remains, is that Stevens was killed as part of a foiled kidnapping plot. Stevens was part of a plan to kidnap an American ambassador, negotiate his release in exchange for the blind Sheik held in a US prison, and then have the US president emerge as a hero and win reelection.

    Holmes was lead to this kidnapping theory by his knowledge of Arabic and his reading of an “al Qaeda-linked website, Dhu-al-Bajadin. The website claimed that Stevens was given a lethal injection that was overlooked during his autopsy.”
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/4/al-qaeda-weapons-expert-us-ambassador-libya-killed/?page=all – pagebreak

    Furthermore, on October 11, 2012 the author of the blog The Last Refuge claimed, “Benghazi was not an assassination attempt, it was a botched kidnapping…The kidnapping was botched when the two ex-Navy Seals, not aware of the plot, decided to offer resistance…The al-Qaeda goal was to kidnap Ambassador Chris Stevens and ransom him back to the U.S. in exchange for Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman.”
    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/10/11/the-occams-razor-behind-the-coordinated-benghazi-attack-answers-to-the-confusion/

    A complex plan, indeed, but it was a plan that could have been executed in far off Benghazi. A good plan, too, except something went wrong. What went wrong was the fact that some Americans at Benghazi who were not part of the kidnapping plot put up a fight.

    This fight killed many Libyans. The other Libyans felt betrayed and turned on Stevens to torture and kill the ambassador. No one likes to be double-crossed.

    The motive was revenge and they had six hours between attacks to commit murder. The means were the weapons already in their possession. We can imagine Holmes, smoking his pipe and coming reluctantly to this conclusion: Stevens was murdered because the kidnapping plan failed.

    All Holmes has to do now is tie up a few lose ends. We will understand now why the US president was not to be found the night the Benghazi incident was going down. He knew about the plan to further his reelection, so he need not be involved.

    Once word reached Washington that things were going badly at Benghazi, the last thing the administration wanted to do was to send help. That would make a bad situation even worse. So, a stand down order was issued, with the hope that every thing would work out in the end, or be covered up by death.

    As to the video, well that was already set up to offer an explanation for the kidnapping. So why not use it to cover the failure, too? If the kidnapping had been successful and Stevens’ release secured, the media would have focused on the release and would have ignored the video.

    After the blanks are filled in and the role of the US State Department in all this is laid out, can you imagine Dr. Watson saying, “Why Holmes, this is brilliant. The improbable has become the actual.”

    “Elementary, my Dear Watson, elementary.”

    Now, if we can just get Sherlock Holmes to testify before Congress. Then, we may be able to put this mystery to rest. We will have solved the murder of ambassador Stevens and the case of the missing Stingers.

    • Feisty Hayseed

      I do not concur with your interpretation that Holmes would deduce that scenario 2 was impossible. Quite the contrary. The salient facts are those on the ground at the time, to wit: NATO (USA, France, Britain) had so thoroughly weaponized and flushly funded the various and sundry Islamic Jihadist Rebel Gangs in Libya that after Quadaffi was murdered they had nothing to do but drive around in their Toyota pick-up trucks, shoot their AK-47s into the air and try to figure out who to terrorize and brutalize next. I am convinced that Ambassador Stevens was the middle man for running guns from Libya through Turkey to Syria, but that he and the CIA especially also had another mission – locate and secure the most destabilizing weaponry like Stinger SAMs. In that volatile environment, attempting to juggle partially conflicting missions, Ambassador Stevens could have easily PO’d any number of the unstable personalities leading the various Militia Gangs involved sufficiently for them to decide to “whack him”.. whacking Ambassador Stevens would also give them considerable street cred amongst the various Islamic Jihadist Gangs in town.

  • MrsMuir1

    Every now and then, when I say one of “these” names like “Moktar Belmoktar” I start to feel like I am talking gibberish or that it is a cartoon characters’s name. Ah, the stress is getting to me. It’s the Obama federal rectal exams that have me worried.