Bee's Note:
I am very careful not to become involved with conspiracy theories and reject many articles for lack of facts to support a story. However, it has almost been one year since the Benghazi attacks, and America still awaits answers. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Americans strongly believe the truth "does make a difference".
I came across this report/interview and want to share it with you. It's anyone's guess as to what was behind the overthrow of Gaddafi, followed by Benghazi.
Yes, NATO's involvement can't be denied days after the U.S. sent the first wave of troops to Libya. Many of us felt Obama got NATO to jump aboard, after questions arose from Congress as to why Obama had announced on a late Friday afternoon that he had sent our military to Libya, as Obama was on his way to Air Force One to leave the country.
First, Obama claimed he "had informed Congress", but few were buying that story, as congressional members were denying they had been informed; and so, getting NATO involved seemed like the "natural" thing to do, according to Obama.
There were questions (soon silenced) as to why the U.S. would be "working" under NATO, in what appeared to be another war front, while our troops were still fighting a war in Afghanistan. What was the darn emergency?! What was so urgent that Obama couldn't wait to send troops to Libya? It wasn't like Gaddafi was planning to go anywhere; heck, he put up one hell of a fight to stay in Libya!
Stories fly, cover-ups continue, gun-running and secret meetings with a Turkish Ambassador the night of the Benghazi attacks on U.S. compounds, would all make for a great James Bond type novel.
However, what happened in Benghazi is a reality that American Patriots are still awaiting answers to; the families of the victims are still awaiting answers; and until the truth is told, there will be suspicions as to the real purpose for Americans in Benghazi on the day of SEPTEMBER 11, 2012. .... Until then, here's another slant as to why we were in Libya - pay careful attention to the mention of Iran at the close of the Interview. Could this be why Obama is referring to the new Iranian president as a "moderate"?:
I am very careful not to become involved with conspiracy theories and reject many articles for lack of facts to support a story. However, it has almost been one year since the Benghazi attacks, and America still awaits answers. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Americans strongly believe the truth "does make a difference".
I came across this report/interview and want to share it with you. It's anyone's guess as to what was behind the overthrow of Gaddafi, followed by Benghazi. Yes, NATO's involvement can't be denied days after the U.S. sent the first wave of troops to Libya. Many of us felt Obama got NATO to jump aboard, after questions arose from Congress as to why Obama had announced on a late Friday afternoon that he had sent our military to Libya, as Obama was on his way to Air Force One to leave the country.
First, Obama claimed he "had informed Congress", but few were buying that story, as congressional members were denying they had been informed; and so, getting NATO involved seemed like the "natural" thing to do, according to Obama.
There were questions (soon silenced) as to why the U.S. would be "working" under NATO, in what appeared to be another war front, while our troops were still fighting a war in Afghanistan. What was the darn emergency?! What was so urgent that Obama couldn't wait to send troops to Libya? It wasn't like Gaddafi was planning to go anywhere; heck, he put up one hell of a fight to stay in Libya!
Stories fly, cover-ups continue, gun-running and secret meetings with a Turkish Ambassador the night of the Benghazi attacks on U.S. compounds, would all make for a great James Bond type novel.
However, what happened in Benghazi is a reality that American Patriots are still awaiting answers to; the families of the victims are still awaiting answers; and until the truth is told, there will be suspicions as to the real purpose for Americans in Benghazi on the day of SEPTEMBER 11, 2012. .... Until then, here's another slant as to why we were in Libya - pay careful attention to the mention of Iran at the close of the Interview. Could this be why Obama is referring to the new Iranian president as a "moderate"?:
Source and Audio: Voice of Russia
Recent statements by the Deputy of the Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency seem to point to a change or shift in U.S. policy towards Syria but things are not so simple and the war hawks in Washington branding Syria, a small country on the other side of the world as a “threat to U.S. security” is dangerous, provocative and points to the continued beating of the war drums and plans for an invasion of Syria. As in Libya, the West is after the resources. A member of the Libyan Defense Ministry spoke to the Voice of Russia on condition of anonymity and sheds light on the real reasons for the invasion of Libya by NATO and their plans for Syria.
Hello! This is John Robles, I’m speaking to an anonymous member of the Libyan Defense Ministry.
Robles: You responded to my article about Syria. You were involved in the situation when they overthrew Gaddafi. Can you tell us a little bit about what was going on with the West there and how they were targeting people?
Source: It was in Nadyut, in the mountain area. We actually repaired there 20 tanks from a seized military base. And we had contacts with the NATO Air Force that we were holding the tanks and repairing the tanks. There were about 20, as I’ve mentioned. And we placed them near the Zayer Area, which is a bastion for supporters of Gaddafi.
We were preparing not for an attack, but just surrounding it. And we had informed the NATO forces about it. And the next day at about dawn, maybe an hour or two after dawn prayers the NATO air force completely destroyed the 20 tanks without any prior reason, without anything and explaining nothing to us.
And that many times our advancements were pushed back by, as they said, mistaken attacks.
We had no trust at that point. So, for a long-long time we were stationed stable in a stalemate position, for about two months. We had no direct contact with Gaddafi troops. We were shooting with heavy artillery and they were answering back with heavy artillery. So that was the main point.
Robles: You were fighting against the Gaddafi forces, but you were also being attacked by NATO?
Source: Exactly! On both sides. They were like keeping us in a stationary position. We couldn’t advance. There was like a red line every advancement we were pushed back by sky. And the same thing for them.
Robles: I’d really like to hear a lot more of what actually really happened there in Libya. And I’d like to hear your opinions on what is going on in Syria. Because now, it seems that the United States, the CIA, has stated that: first they are against Bashar Assad, the y arm the rebels and now they are saying the rebels are going to be a danger. Apparently, the same situation occurred in Libya. Can you give us your opinion on that and tell us more about what happened in Libya?
Source: I will start with Libya. In Libya we have a very strong tribal system which excludes, sometimes tribes within the same country. So, it is difficult for example for someone to come and work in the Tripoli Brigade because by his surname we know from where he comes. And we refused many foreign militants coming from Tunisia because most of our fighters, they were based in Tripoli, coming from Tunisia and coming from Wazen, which is a small village close to the Tunisian borders.
And many Tunisians, Egyptians, Algerians were coming from that side and we were pushing them back because we didn’t want any foreign militant intervention, because we knew most of them were either there for looting or they were members of extremist groups.
So, we decided to set up our brigades according to our cities – Zawiya, Misrata, Benghazi, in this way everyone knew his… It was like neighborhood vigilantes. Each one knew his neighbor. Each one knew his brother. Each one knew his cousin. So, it was difficult for anyone to infiltrate.
Robles: Can you tell us in more detail how was the West involved in all this? How was NATO involved? And if you could, shed some light on what happened in Benghazi? That would be wonderful, if you know anything about that.
Source: You mean during the war, right?
Robles: During the war and when so-called Ambassador Stevens was killed. And during the war, you said many of you comrades were killed by NATO forces.
Source: Exactly! About the American Ambassador, I don’t know really honestly what happened there. But some of my comrades in the army who were at a meeting the day before, they said there was a meeting with some ambassadors from European countries and he was actually warning them about the situation in Libya, that there was actually raising, not extremism, but rather militia control.
And that is something we suffer from right now because the police has absolutely no control. They lost the power they had a long time ago. As for the army because the militias have more power, they have more firepower and they have more numbers and obviously, they have been involved in looting. Most of them are former prisoners, or former regime members who have hidden behind the militias.
About the American Ambassador, honestly, we are very sorry for what happened to him. He was a good man, he was working for the interests. But I don’t know what’s happened there.
Robles: We have heard reports that it was not actually an embassy in Benghazi, but a CIA base and they were actually passing arms to Al Qaeda terrorists that were imported into Libya. Have you heard anything about that?
Source: Honestly, no. But we know that Al Qaeda in Libya does not actually exist. We have extremist groups who have fought in Afghanistan. But Al Qaeda, as an ideology does not exist.
Most of them even opposed the ideology of Bin Laden. And no one here has any support for him. It is just a geopolitical situation you know, as I told you, we have a strong tribal system which refuses any foreign militants and foreign ideology, even within the militias.
Robles: So then, how would NATO explain its foreign intervention? How could NATO be allowed to be involved in the country then? And can you give us some more details on how NATO was bombing your comrades, please?
Source: I believe that… What are the rumors that we were talking about during the war, is that we were very, very much surprised that NATO intervened within months, maybe a month or two. And it was the French President who pushed them because he was promised a share of the oils in Brega Area by the so-called transitional Government at the expense of the Russian and Turkish interests.
That’s why the Russians and the Turks were mostly opposing the intervention of NATO, because NATO is more like a cancer. It is more that a national or international police force, or military intervention force. They were seeking, exactly, what resources we have here.
Robles: So, they were only after the resources.
Source: That’s obvious. We are a country that produces about 2.4 million barrels of oil a day and we have electricity shortages for about 8 hours a day. Where is this all going?
Robles: It is not going to help the Libyan people. Who is in control of Libya right now would you say? Is anybody in control other than these militias? And if the militias are in control, who is controlling the militias?
Source: You see, for example, in Tripoli there are three main militias here controlling the area. But they are working well and they are being opposed by the Government. They are not receiving their wages and withstanding that, they are still working as if nothing is happening. They are under due stress. The militias are controlled by people and trusted by the people themselves. They have been elected you can say sort of in a democratic manner.
But people have been strained by the so called pseudo militias who have been set up in a vacancy because the police officers left their jobs.
Robles: I see.
Source: At the beginning, I remember, after the fall of Tripoli there were 300 policemen for the capital only. So, we had to recruit as many people as we could, and sometimes without control, without knowing their past or whether they were prisoners or addicts, or criminals, or anything.
But now the situation, sorry for interrupting you, is that the people are exhausted by the militias and even the members of militias are exhausted by the unstable situation. For example, there are about 30 militias that have broken up and they have joined the National Army. Very-very slow process.
Robles: Do you think that the National Army is somehow going to be able to bring all these militias under its own wings? Is that a reality? I mean would that be possible?
Source: I believe it could be a reality because they are actually backed by the people. Before, I remember when we used to walk in the streets patrolling, we were saluted by the people, we were given presents, we were hailed as heroes.
Then, two-three months after that it seemed they were looking at us in a different manner. They were exhausted by the successive power, lying on one side without any control. So, we have to make a drastic solution because by removing a dictator and then putting in another dictator…it is a very difficult situation.
Robles: I see. As far as this situation in Syria, if we can talk about that. I’d like to get your opinion on the US’s supposed change of position. What do you think is going on in Syria? I mean, they are supporting, they are importing mercenaries, they are importing terrorists to fight the Government. What do you think the goal is in Syria?
Source: I believe that what is happening in Syria is obviously an international conspiracy. And it is all targeting for two things: targeting to reduce the Russian power on gas and protecting the Israeli border by breaking the supply between Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran. That is an obvious situation. And second and most important of all, the CIA agent, director or co-director said that Syria poses a threat to the United States. So Syria poses a threat to the United States in any case.
Robles: It seems very odd to me because Syria is a small country, it is on the other side of the world, it has never threatened the United States, but all of a sudden it is a threat to the United States.
Okay, they’ve said they want to get rid of Assad as the leader, they want to forcibly remove him. And now they are saying that all these imported mercenaries and freedom fighters are going to be a threat. So, my thinking is that they are preparing for some scenario where they go in and just kill everybody. Do you think that’s possible?
Source: From the military point of view I believe that the Europeans and the Americans realize that the war… supporting the rebellion has been lost in this sort of manner. And they want to take a side in the future. So, they want to start talks first with Iran and through Iran with Syria, not direct talks with Syria.
The Free Syrian Army is composed mainly of the former military who have been court martialled in a way or another either for theft or rape or murder, or something like that. And most of the militants, for example, that left for Syria from Libya, they have been either former drug addicts or prisoners, or extremist groups. Honestly, we got rid of them more than anything else.
Robles: So, a lot of them you think came from Libya, like Libyan criminals and killers.
Source: Yes. Just a couple of weeks ago a colleague of mine was showing me a video of a friend of his who has had a video from Syria. And he told me this friend of his was imprisoned for 11 years for drug dealing and all that and now he is a freedom fighter. So we were joking about it. This just one example. They are not going there to save the country, they are going there either loot steal or to trade weapons, nothing more.
Robles: We had a very maybe dark humor joke about, they had this video… what was it? About a month and a half ago of one of their leaders cutting out and eating what he thought was the heart of a soldier. So, they have cannibals there as well. It is horrible!
Source: And that happens on both sides, unfortunately. I saw a video also of a Syrian military beheading an opposition fighter with a mechanical chainsaw. So, these things happen. They are sort of blood-drunk.
This is John Robles. You were listening to an interview with a member of the Libyan Defense Ministry.
