US Ambassador Killed in Libya [video]
Russia Today
September 12, 2012
There’s been an attack on the US embassy in Beirut. This comes after President Obama confirmed that his ambassador to Libya – and three other officials – were killed in the city of Benghazi. Christopher Stevens was at the US consulate there when an armed mob stormed the compound, in protest at an American film which has been described as an insult to Islam.
A team of US anti-terror marines is reportedly heading to Libya to beef up security for diplomats. RT talks to independent news editor James Corbett.
Judge Strikes down NDAA, but wait…
P.A.N.D.A. People Against The NDAA
September 13, 2012
US-Backed Terrorists Murder US’ Own Ambassador in Libya
Murdered US Ambassador exposes US “pro-democracy” foreign policy – same terrorists US backs in Syria are behind the murder of US Ambassador in Libya.
by Tony Cartalucci
Update: The picture below of John McCain in Benghazi, during the violent military subversion of Libya in 2011, includes the now deceased US Ambassador John Christopher Stevens on the right, wearing a blue tie. Stevens has now become a victim of the very terrorists he played a role in creating. The caption below has been edited to reflect this information.
Editor’s Note: With Russia openly accusing the West of using Al Qaeda as their direct, militant proxies in Syria and beyond, this latest attempt to purposefully provoke and incite Muslims across the Arab World is an attempt by the West to reestablish the perception that the US and Israel are at war with sectarian extremists, not partnered with them. The film allegedly at the center of the violence, most likely came from the Neo-Con “Clarion Fund” or a project of similar origin.
September 12, 2012 – “I have met with these brave fighters, and they are not Al-Qaeda. To the contrary: They are Libyan patriots who want to liberate their nation. We should help them do it.” – Senator John McCain in Benghazi, Libya April 22, 2011.
Image: Senator John McCain (with the now deceased US Ambassador John Christopher Stevens on the right with blue tie) in the terrorist rat nest of Benghazi after marshaling cash, weapons, and political support for militants tied directly to Al Qaeda. McCain’s insistence that the terrorists he helped arm and install into power were “not Al Qaeda” runs contra to the US Army’s own reports which state that Benghazi’s terror brigades officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007. McCain’s “Libyan patriots” have now killed US Ambassador Stevens with weapons most likely procured with cash and logistic networks set up by NATO last year, part of a supranational terror campaign that includes violently subverting Syria – a campaign McCain also supports.
McCain’s “Libyan patriots” have now murdered US Ambassador John Christopher Stevens in the very city McCain spoke these words. An assault on the American consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, the epicenter of not only last year’s violent subversion and destruction of sovereign Libya, but a decade’s old epicenter of global terrorism, left Ambassador Stevens dead along with reportedly three others.
The violence, Western media claims, stems from an anti-Islamic film produced in the US. In reality, the coordinated nature of the attacks on both the US Embassy in Libya, as well as its embassy in Cairo, Egypt, on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, are most likely using the Neo-Conservative Clarion Fund-esque propaganda film as a false pretense for violence long-planned. The Clarion Fund regularly produces anti-Muslim propaganda, like “Iranium,” specifically to maintain a strategy of tension using fear and anger to drive a wedge between Western civilization and Islam to promote perpetual global wars of profit.
NATO Knowingly Handed Libya to Al Qaeda
Indeed, the US Army’s West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) noted that Benghazi and the neighboring city of Darnah served a disproportionately high role in supplying foreign fighters to wage terror against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan – foot soldiers brought in to fuel a destructive and divisive sectarian war that undermined a united Sunni-Shi’ia resistance to Western troops who had invaded.
Image: In Benghazi, in front of the very courthouse McCain and other representatives of the West’s corporate-financier driven foreign policy voiced support for Libya’s terror brigades, sectarian extremists took the streets waving the flag of Al Qaeda, even hoisting it atop the Benghazi courthouse itself. Despite a concerted effort by Western media houses to portray Libya as in the hands of progressive democratic secularists, the country was intentionally handed over to extremists to serve as a base of militancy to destabilize and destroy targets of Western interest around the word.
The men McCain was defending were Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) militants, terrorists linked directly with Al Qaeda according to West Point reports (.pdf), and listed to this day by the US State Department, the UK Home Office (.pdf), and the UN as a “foreign terrorist organization.” McCain was not only rhetorically supporting listed terrorists, but calling for material support including weapons, funds, training, and air support in direct violation of USC § 2339A & 2339B, “providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.”
These same terrorists are now not only the defacto rulers of much of Libya, but are leading death squads in Syria and arming militants in Mali, an exponential expansion made possible by a non-partisan effort including Republicans and Democrats, as well as Bush-era Neo-Conservatives who concurrently lead both anti-Islam propaganda while leading calls to arm the most radical sectarian extremist groups, including groups directly affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Syria is Next
Not only has US policy been exposed as not “promoting democracy” but purposefully spreading destabilization, violence, and terrorism, but the exact same militants behind the death of the US’ own ambassador are literally leading US efforts to visit the same violence, destabilization, and chaos upon Syria.
Reuters, in their article, “Libyan fighters join Syrian revolt,” reported, that Mahdi al-Harati, “a powerful militia chief from Libya’s western mountains,” who is actually a militant of the US, British, and UN listed terrorist organization Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), “now leads a unit in Syria, made up mainly of Syrians but also including some foreign fighters, including 20 senior members of his own Libyan rebel unit.” Reuters would go on to explain, “the Libyans aiding the Syrian rebels include specialists in communications, logistics, humanitarian issues and heavy weapons,” and that they “operate training bases, teaching fitness and battlefield tactics.”
Image: Libyan Mahdi al-Harati of the US State Department, United Nations, and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf)-listed terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), addressing fellow terrorists in Syria. Harati is now commanding a Libyan brigade operating inside of Syria attempting to destroy the Syrian government and subjugate the Syrian population. Traditionally, this is known as “foreign invasion.”
Reuters concedes that the ongoing battle has nothing to do with democracy, but instead is purely a sectarian campaign aimed at “pushing out” Syria’s minorities, perceived to be “oppressing” “Sunni Muslims.”
Reuters’ propaganda piece is rounded off with a Libyan terrorist allegedly threatening that “the militancy would spread across the region as long as the West does not do more to hasten the downfall of Assad,” a talking point plucked straight from the halls of America’s corporate-financier funded think-tanks. In fact, just such a think-tank, the Foreign Policy Initiative, recently published a statement signed by Bush-era Neo-Conservatives stating:
“America’s national security interests are intertwined with the fate of the Syrian people and the wider region. Indeed, Syria’s escalating conflict now threatens to directly affect the country’s neighbors, including Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel, and could provide an opening for terrorist groups like al Qaeda to exploit.”
Along with “War on Terror” proponent John McCain, Al Qaeda’s LIFG and America’s Neo-Con establishment are now operating in tandem, as well as in direct contradiction to a decade of “War on Terror” propaganda. It should be remembered that those who signed this statement, including Elliott Abrams, Max Boot, Ellen Bork, William Kristol, Paul Bremer, Paula Dobriansk, Douglas Feith, Robert Kagan, Clifford D. May, Stephen Rademaker, Michael Weiss, Radwan Ziadeh, were among the very engineers of the fraudulent “War on Terror” that McCain himself is such a fervent supporter of. Radwan Ziadeh, last on the list, is in fact a “Syrian National Council” member – one of several proxies the US State Department is hoping to slip into power in Syria.
Russia, China, Iran, and Others Oppose Terrorism in Syria for a Reason
With Libya’s “democratic progress” exposed as only tenuously covering up NATO’s creation of a nation-wide safe haven for Al Qaeda terrorists to subsequently be deployed against the West’s political enemies across he Arab World and beyond, it will be even more difficult, if not impossible to continue promoting this same “change” in Syria. Libya, through direct action of NATO, has been overrun by terrorists. Syria’s government is desperately trying to prevent its people from being likewise overrun.
And even as the US buries its own ambassador, killed by terror brigades it itself armed and thrust into power through covert and direct military intervention, in a nation now wrecked by sectarian and tribal infighting, it insists on replicating its “success” in Syria.
Russia, China, Iran, and a growing number of nations have been opposing this campaign of supranational terrorism – with the death of Ambassador Stevens laying bare the true nature of America’s proxy “freedom fighters,” the list of global opposition will only grow, leaving only the most shameless and deeply invested to defend America’s invasive and bloody foreign policy.
[hat tip: The Intel Hub]
Feds Seizes Gold Coins Worth $80 Mln From Pennsylvania Family
Alexander Higgins Blog
September 7, 2012
A federal judge has stripped a Pennsylvania family of their grandfather’s $80 millions worth of gold coins and ordered ownership transferred to the US government.
RT – A federal judge has upheld a verdict that strips a Pennsylvania family of their grandfather’s gold coins — worth an estimated $80 million — and has ordered ownership transferred to the US government.
Judge Legrome Davis of the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a 2011 jury decision that a box of 1933 Saint-Gaudens double eagle coins discovered by the family of Israel Switt, a deceased dealer and collector, is the property of the United States.
In the midst of the Great Depression, then-President Franklin Roosevelt ordered that America’s supply of double eagles manufactured at the Philadelphia Mint be destroyed and melted into gold bars. Of the 445,500 or so coins created, though, some managed to escape the kiln and ended up into the hands of collectors. In 2003, Switt’s family opened a safe deposit back that their grandfather kept, revealing 10 coins among that turned out to be among the world’s most valuable collectables in the currency realm today.
Switt’s descendants, the Langbords, thought the coins had been gifted to their grandfather years earlier by Mint cashier George McCann and took the coins to the Mint to have their authenticity verified, but the government quickly took hold of the items and refused to relinquish the find to the family. The Langbords responded with a lawsuit that ended last year in a victory for the feds.
Because the government ordered the destruction of their entire supply of coins decades earlier, the court found that Switt’s family was illegally in possession of the stash. Even though they may had been presented to the dealer by a Philadelphia Mint staffer, Judge Davis agrees with last year’s ruling that Mr. McCann broke the law.
“The coins in question were not lawfully removed from the United States Mint,” the judge rules.
Despite this decision, though, the attorney representing Switt’s family says the government has no right to remove their own items and transfer property back to the state.
“This is a case that raises many novel legal questions, including the limits on the government’s power to confiscate property. The Langbord family will be filing an appeal and looks forward to addressing these important issues before the 3rd Circuit,” Barry Berke, an attorney for the Langbords, tells ABCNews.com
Stay up to date with the latest news:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/kr3at
Facebook: http://facebook.com/AlexanderHigginsBlog
Live TV And Videos: Higgins TV
Website: The Alexander Higgins Blog
Headlines: Real-time News Headlines
Schett: Libya’s Destabilization Serves Western Political Agenda [video]
Global Research TV
September 12, 2012
Washington continues to support militant Islamist groups as long as it’s politically expedient to do so, says global affairs researcher Benjamin Schett.
US military adventurism, and the war crimes committed by the country’s forces, impoverish the entire region and ultimately lead to a rise in the number of Islamic militant groups, he told RT. Such groups, he says, can end up posing a threat to US citizens.
Schett spoke to RT about the killing of American Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other embassy staff in Libya.
Originally aired on RT, September 12, 2012
http://rt.com/news/us-ambassador-libya-killed-995/
Netanyahu exploded over US hesitancy towards Iran – Republican congressman
End the Lie – Independent News
September 7, 2012
The rift between the US and Israel over Iran now seems more like a chasm, as a senior US politician confirmed that he witnessed an “unprecedented” row between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and America’s ambassador to Israel.
Although previously denied by both sides, the heated argument was recounted in a radio interview by Republican congressman Mike Rogers, who is the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee- and was present at a bilateral meeting in Israel on August 24.
The discussion centred on ways to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, whom both countries believe is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Amidst the talks Netanyahu is said to have suddenly lost his temper with US ambassador, Dan Shapiro.
“We’ve had sharp exchanges with other heads of state and in intelligence services,” Rogers said, “but nothing at that level that I’ve seen in all my time, where people were clearly that agitated, clearly that worked up about a particular issue where there was a very sharp exchange.”
Rogers says Netanyahu chastised Obama’s administration for failing to draw “a red line”, a clear indication of what Tehran would have to do before the US took action to stop Iran’s atomic development, and that this ambiguity is making it difficult for Israel to decide on its own strategy.
Shapiro paraphrased the Prime Minister’s argument: “This Administration’s been saying, you’ve gotta wait, you’ve gotta wait, you’ve gotta wait… but then you’ve gotta tell us when is the red line, so we can make our own decisions about should we or shouldn’t we stop this particular program.”
In turn, Shapiro, who is considered Obama’s close policy adviser and not just a symbolic figure, broke diplomatic protocol, forcefully telling Netanyahu that the administration is determined to combat Iran, even if it takes an air strike on its nuclear facilities, a step that has been discussed by both sides for months.
But Rogers recalls that Netanyahu was not convinced, and believes that Iran could manufacture a working nuclear weapon in 4 to 8 weeks.
“Right now the Israelis don’t believe that the Administration is serious when they say that all options are on the table, and more importantly neither do the Iranians. That’s why the program is progressing,” summed up Rogers.
“At this point they’re very frustrated because they don’t’ know what happens after the election and their window for impacting the program they believe is starting to close.”
Reports of the tumultuous meeting first surfaced last week in the Israeli press, only to be refuted by both parties.
“The report is incorrect and we have nothing more to add,” Netanyahu’s spokesman Liran Dan reiterated after the latest revelations. Shapiro also insists that no such argument took place.
Domestic discord
An outspoken critic of Barack Obama’s foreign policy throughout the current term, the congressman used the exchange to score points with the domestic audience. While taking the unusual step of revealing the details of a private meeting with a close ally, he emphasized repeatedly that “Israel had lost their patience with the Obama Administration.”
Ahead of November’s presidential face- off between the incumbent Obama and Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, the two parties have diverged on their stance on Iran. Romney has promised “unilateral support” for an airstrike, while Obama has followed a more cautious policy of sanctions and incentives and is unlikely to risk the massive diplomatic fallout over an air strike and potential regional war in the dying months of his term.
Meanwhile, Tehran continues to deny it plans to build a nuclear bomb.
Earlier this week, the International Atomic Energy Agency, released a series a satellite pictures showing that Iran had “sanitized” Pashtun, one of its military bases, by demolishing buildings and removing the earth from potential nuclear test explosion sites. The Vienna-based watchdog also claimed that since May Iran has doubled the amount of uranium-enriching centrifuges at Fordo, the underground facility that is the likely target of any air strike.
Source: http://rt.com/news/netanyahu-rogers-shapiro-iran-618/
Iran Accused of Being Behind the 9/11 Attacks
by Julie Lévesque
Global Research
May 11, 2012
Global Research Editor’s Note
We bring to the attention of our readers a carefully documented study by Global Research’s Julie Levesque published in May 2012 pertaining to a high profile Manhattan lawsuit launched in 2004 against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The Havlish v. Iran lawsuit accuses Iran of having supported the 9/11 hijackers.
At this historical juncture, with Iran being the object of numerous threats both byTel Aviv and Washington, The Havlish v. Iran judgment could be used as a justification for a waging a preemptive attack on Iran.
In the context of the commemoration of 9/11, the issue of Iran’s alleged role as a “state sponsor” of terrorism is likely to surface in media coverage as well as in the commemoration speeches off both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
The investigation into Tehran’s alleged role in the 9/11 attacks was launched by the Havlish lawyers in 2004, pursuant to a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission “regarding an apparent link between Iran, Hezbollah, and the 9/11 hijackers”. The 91/11 Commission’s recommendation was that the this “apparent link” required “further investigation by the U.S. government.” (9/11 Commission Report , p. 241). (See Iran 911 Case ).
The Havlish lawyers built their case against Iran using the testimonies of “expert witnesses” as well as “evidence”, which was in large part fabricated. In the December 2011 court judgment (Havlish v. Iran) “U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case”.
According to the plaintiffs attorneys “Iran, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda formed a terror alliance in the early 1990s. Citing their national security and intelligence experts, the attorneys explained “how the pragmatic terror leaders overcame the Sunni-Shi’a divide in order to confront the U.S. (the “Great Satan”) and Israel (the “Lesser Satan”)”. Iran and Hezbollah allegedly provided “training to members of al Qaeda in, among other things, the use of explosives to destroy large buildings.” (See Iran 911 Case ).
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 10, 2012



