Newscast Media BENGHAZI—Two Libyan soldiers and a US teacher were shot dead in separate incidents Thursday in the increasingly lawless eastern city of Benghazi, security officials said. The killings are the latest in a series of attacks in Benghazi on members of the military and the police force, as the North African nation struggles against insecurity.
Medics at the Al-Jala hospital named the murdered soldiers as Ahmed Hamdi, 23, and Salah al-Werfelli, 28, adding that both men had been shot in their heads.
Further east, in the Islamist bastion of Derna, residents on Thursday staged new demonstrations against what they say is anarchy in the city, demanding a police and army presence.
Like Benghazi, Derna has in recent months seen a wave of killings of members of the security forces and the judiciary.
The violence is blamed on jihadist groups that have mushroomed since the toppling and killing in 2011 of long-time dictator Moamer Kadhafi.
Chief among these is Ansar al-Sharia, a jihadist group blamed for a 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in which the ambassador and three other Americans were killed.
The group implicitly denied responsibility for Monday’s attack on protesters in Derna.
“Opening fire with live rounds on protesters … is a dangerous thing,” the group said in a statement received on Thursday by AFP. Prime Minister Ali Zeidan announced on Wednesday that preparations were under way to send troops to Derna, where law and order is almost non-existent.
The country’s new authorities have tried in vain to integrate former rebels who helped topple Kadhafi into the regular armed forces, with many militias carving their own fiefdoms, each with its own ideology and regional allegiances.
The dead US teacher worked at the city’s international school, a Benghazi Medical Centre official said.
Source: Al Manar TV news
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.—As Senator Dianne Feinstein continues her investigation on the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens, liberals are pushing the narrative that Republicans are waging a war on women, because Senator John McCain believes Susan Rice gave misleading and conflicting statements about the death of Chris Stevens.
The victim card was first played by Obama who said last week, “If Senator McCain and Senator Graham want to go after somebody, they should go after me. But to go after the UN Ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi?”
Having set the stage, Black liberal women followed in Obama’s footsteps, with Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis leading the pack who said, “To batter this woman because they don’t feel they have the ability to batter President Obama is something we the women are not going to stand by and watch. Their feckless and reckless speculation is unworthy of their offices as senators.”
“It is a shame that anytime something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities,” Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the next chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told journalists at a news conference on Capitol Hill. On Monday USA Today wrote an article asserting:
“While the two Republican senators might prevail in keeping Rice from becoming secretary of State — either by forestalling her nomination or blocking a Senate confirmation vote — their opposition to her almost certainly will be seen by many others as proof of a GOP war on women. And that will cost Republicans dearly at the polls. A dozen female members of the House of Representatives drove home that point when they held a news conference to accuse McCain and Graham of being sexist and racist in their attack on Rice, who is black.”
To refresh the memory of liberals who are playing the sexist and race card, where were they in 2005 when Condoleeza Rice’s reputation was being impugned by liberals over a war in Iraq she had nothing to do with? Why did Democrats fight so hard to block the first Black female Secretary of State if they themselves weren’t sexist? Does the war on women only pertain to liberal women, but not conservatives?
In a CNN article dated January 5, 2005 Senator Barbara Boxer and Dick Durbin opposed her with Durban saying, “Dr. Condoleezza Rice was in the room, at the table, when decisions were made, and she has to accept responsibility for what she said.”
The war on women is a myth invented by liberals. The underlying theme on this imaginary war always has to with sexual connotations, which is evident from the attacks made on women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Watch below:
Video courtesy SHEPAC
Until liberals start speaking up for the women in places like the Middle East, and Asia who experience antagonism, they will always be viewed as hypocrites who care nothing about women, but are agitators and button-pushers who accuse anyone who opposes them of being anti-Obama, racist or sexist.
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.—The brutal attack on the US mission in Benghazi was a secret CIA operation, the Wall Street Journal has reported in Friday’s paper. Barack Obama and his administration are under pressure to reveal who was behind the order to stand down, but has refused to answer questions. It is for this reason that reports are leaking to media outlets that are willing to report the truth.
Newt Gingrich said the news media knows the truth and has e-mails relating to the involvement of the White House in relation to the “stand down” order that was given to prevent the ambassador and his crew from receiving help that would have saved his life—essentially allowing him to die.
“A U.S. senator told me two days ago that he believes several networks have e-mails about a group [that was] planning a counterterrorism move,” Gingrich said. “They were told to stand down, that this was not a terrorist attack.”
The bizarre “stand down” order, if true, sounds like Chris Steven ended up the human sacrificial lamb, after his cries for help were denied.
“This group (of rescuers) was in real-time trying to mobilize marines and C-130s and the fighter aircraft, and they were told explicitly by the White House stand down and do nothing,” Gingrich asserted in the interview below:
The reason the media is protecting Obama is because they know if they tell the American people the truth about Benghazi, the outrage will result in a landslide win for Mitt Romney.
If what Newt Gingrich is saying is true that the networks are sitting on e-mail, then it is obvious that being invited to White House dinners is more important to media practitioners, than getting the truth to the families that lost loved ones who died for their country in a failed rescue mission. It is the reason people are now turning to the alternative media in droves to get their news.
During the second debate, Barack Obama suggested he wouldn’t “play politics” with something that involved the loss of lives of four Americans, yet that is exactly what is happening as we have learned from the set of e-mail that showed the White House was receiving real-time intel. Watch:
The Wall Street Journal also asserts that officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency’s role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors.
It also explains why the consulate was abandoned to looters for weeks afterward, while U.S. efforts focused on securing the more important CIA quarters according to the Journal.
Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said, as reported by the Wall Street Journal article.
If all this information being revealed checks out, regardless of whether Obama wins or loses, he will have an irremovable stain on him that will haunt whatever legacy he intends to build.
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C—The Benghazi murder of US Ambassador Chris Stevens refuses to go away. The more the administration evades questions on the subject, the more people hypothesize what took place and why it happened. There are several theories floating around as to why Chris Stevens was killed. All theories will be explored in a three-part series, including an analysis by this writer.
The controversy stems from the untimely death of Chris Stevens who was stationed in Libya. How, we should ask, did Chris Stevens end up in Benghazi?
It all started when Stevens attended Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s meeting in Paris on Monday night March 14, 2011 with representatives of the Libyan opposition, as did U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz, who has also had contacts with the opposition. Stevens was thereafter assigned to Benghazi by Hillary Clinton as reported by ABC News.
Christopher Steven had also converted to Islam and was a Sufi Muslim, something the media neglects to report. He therefore felt comfortable accepting the job in a predominantly Muslim country like Libya. Now that we have established how Stevens ended up in Libya, the next question we should ask is, “What went wrong?”
There are several theories that I will tackle on an individual basis. The first theory was floated by the White House upon his death, which was, Chris Stevens died as a result of a YouTube amateur video. This first theory should be rejected, since there is no evidence linking the video to Chris Stevens’ murder, and it has already been proven that his assassination had been planned in advance.
The second theory is that Chris Stevens died because the administration was kept in the dark, therefore they had no time to rescue him. Again, this theory is not only erroneous but also misleading, as we have now found out through emails released by CBS News, that the White House was receiving real-time intel about the Benghazi attack. Accordingly, this theory may not be considered, and must also be rejected.
The third theory is that Christopher Stevens was a closet homosexual and when Muslims found out about his sexual orientation, he was raped then killed. This theory originated from the Chicago gay district, thereafter the story went viral.
Kevin DuJan, a gay radio and TV commentator on politics in Chicago said, “I was told by friends in the City’s protocol office to go over to the Second Story Bar in downtown Chicago, just off Michigan Avenue, because it’s where a lot of gay guys who work for both the city and the consulates go after work…The Serbian consulate employee identified himself to me as “Dino” and wouldn’t give me any more of a name than that, but told me it was no secret that Chris Stevens was gay and that “it was stupid to send him to Libya as the ambassador when he was a known homosexual,”" as he details his findings on his blog.
Newscast Media — The African Union attempted to convince the rebel forces in control of East Libya to accept a truce plan from Gaddafi, but the rebels immediately rejected it because it doesn’t include plans for Gaddafi or his family stepping down from power. Gaddafi lost his credibility when a no-fly zone was declared and he announced a fake cease-fire plan, yet he continued to butcher his own people.
The US, Britain and France aren’t buying it and have demanded that not only must Gaddafi step down from power, he must leave Libya at once. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a press conference said: “We have made it very clear that we want to see a ceasefire, we want to see the Libyan regime forces pull back from the areas they have forcibly entered. We want to see a resumption of water, electricity and other services to cities that have been brutalized by the Gaddafi forces. We want to see humanitarian assistance reach the people of Libya. These terms are non-negotiable. Clinton continued to say:
“We believe, too, that there needs to be a transition that reflects the will of the Libyan people and the departure of Gaddafi from power and from Libya.”
From the language being used by the West, Gaddafi might as well start looking for a host nation to accommodate him, because if he doesn’t while he still has a chance, the same thing that happened to the stubborn and hard-headed Gbagbo who refused to step down and was captured, might happen to Gaddafi and his sons. http://www.newscastmedia.com/benghazi.html
Newscast Media PARIS, France–A few weeks ago, this writer predicted that if oppressive leaders failed to heed the cry of the oppressed by stepping down, we would see more new nations form as they seek to break away from the oppressors. France has now set the stage for a split within Libya by recognizing the anti-Gadhafi rebel group National Transition Council and plans to open an embassy in Benghazi which is West of Tripoli.
The original article I wrote about this prediction can be found here. As a way to send a bold message to Gadhafi that another government within Libya is now being acknowledged, instead of his, France became the first country to formally recognize the rebels’ newly created Interim Governing Council.
The question one must ask oneself is, why would a powerful government like France encourage the formation of a new government before Gadhafi is ousted? It is obvious that this is a contingency plan. If the rebels succeed in driving Gadhafi out of Libya, then they can form a new Libya. If however, they fail to drive him out, they can fall back on their newly-created government and break away from Gadhafi’s rule by forming their own nation. This plan for secession is the subliminal message France is sending Gadhafi, that’s why they are publicly endorsing a new government, within the existing government.
This also benefits the West in two ways: First, Gadhafi is left in a weakened state and becomes a less potent threat to the region. Second, they continue to use him as their useful puppet to pump oil. In essence they create a win-win situation where the rebels win by having a new nation, flag and national anthem, Gadhafi wins by staying in power and the West wins by benefiting from Libya’s natural resources since he will owe his existence in power to the West.
The above-described scenario is a very practical and more cost-efficient way of dealing with a tyrannical or dictatorial regime. It recently happened in Sudan and there is a possibility of it repeating itself in Libya. The cost of war is minimized by splitting the country, and the return on investment (ROI) is that the weakened leader knows he could have been removed from power, but was allowed to rule, hence he feels indebted to his foreign masters, by doing their dirty work for them. This could mean giving foreign entities access to the country’s natural resources and assets, government contracts, it could also mean foreign entities would purchase goods low rates from their useful puppet.
The weakened leader would also refrain from invading the newly-formed nation because he knows that those who weakened him would eventually oust him for good if he attempted any such move. It therefore creates someone with the appearance of being a leader, but is actually enslaved, for he cannot exercise absolute power without the fear of offending his masters who kept him in power. This mental enslavement then leaves such a leader in a perpetual state of arrested development for the rest of his life. Not only is it a setback to him, but also those who are under his rulership.
Libya now has two governments, and make no mistake, the British and the US approved this move and gave French President Nicholas Sarkozy the green light to pronounce and announce publicly that France is in support of the rebel government and recognizes its authority as the legitimate government of Libya. This will now force Gadhafi to come back to the table and negotiate.
The West could then tell Gadhafi: “Listen, we know you are power-hungry. We know you do not want to step down. Here is the deal. You get to keep the western part of Libya with Tripoli as your capital. You also get to keep your wealth and are immune from prosecution for crimes against humanity. In return, you agree to the East breaking away and forming a new nation and government with Benghazi as their capital city. The choice is yours. You can either spend your life in a West Libya with honor, or you can spend it as a refugee in a foreign land once we oust you.”
An offer like that would be too good for even a madman to refuse. For secession to be successful, the oppressed have to have a governing structure in place as proof that should they be allowed to break away from the oppressors, they can govern themselves. What we see with the National Transitional Council in Libya is a hand-picked government that was obviously approved by the US, France and Britain. Once all the backgrounds of the members in the new government checked out, it was legitimized by the announcement from Sarkozy.
Secession can be avoided if leaders realize that they do not own the countries they rule, but they are there to serve the citizens over whom they rule. Because dictatorial regimes have the inability to see the benefit of allowing a newer generation to be ushered in, they orchestrate their own demise, and at the end of their regimes they end up leaving office in disgrace. The very citizens who were once convinced that these rulers were a blessing when they first came to power, are the same ones who end up cursing these leaders as they face their impending doom.