The US Government Murdered Their Own Ambassador

Just to be certain...if the attack was spontaneous, as Susan Rice has repeatedly insisted...the people that launched it have got to be the luckiest terror group on in History. A US Ambassador gets killed by a stray rocket.

Why would the Ambassador be in Benghazi and not Tripoli? Who would have predicted it?

I'm glad the election is soon...

reply to post by michaelbrux


Amazing that is!!!

200 dudes just walking around, armed and ready to go, just happen to stubble over some non-descript compound the Ambassador just happens to be in. So, they decide 'what the h***, let's do it'. -+9+

reply to post by freemarketsocialist

Not the first time, wont be the last time.

Whats one ambassador? They murdered 3,000 of their own citizens on 9/11. Then sent 5,000 to their graves over another lie called WMDs in Iraq.

Dont think 9/11 was an inside job? They sent 60,000 of their own citizens to their graves in Vietnam over an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin which never happened.

This has been going on for a loooooooooong time:

General George S. Patton was assassinated to silence his criticism of allied war leaders claims new book

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist
... ASIO are losers ... those ASIO losers ... those ASIO idiots

edit on 17-9-2012 by freemarketsocialist because: (no reason given)

AGREED!.

I mean... umm... it was the other Cartenz

It is clear to me at least that the media is doing their part to willingly deceive the masses as in this Libya affair and while I will agree that the Ambassador was a hand picked klutz who was only there because he was placed there to be the victim he eventually became, there is one small area of note that has not gotten any discussion that I feel needs a mention and discussion.

Since day one, the media and govt officials have not commented on whether or not classified documents were breached and or taken by those that attacked the compound. Even if they say nothing was taken, how do we really know?

Is this why in Beirut they are burning classified documents? I don't know, but it got me to thinking about classified documents again.

All video footage from the Libya incident shows a compound that was set on fire, damaged with rocket fire and ransacked of all papers, with many papers burned by the fires.

It has bothered much since day one to ponder if any secret or highly classified documents were taken and it has bothered me as to why no one has bothered to ask, unless it is a subject matter that is off the table as directed by the Obama staff in which media then willingly follows along and never asks, "Were classified documents breached or taken by the attacking forces?"

This is what concerns me more than if the film supposedly inciting all this violence which we all know is just an excuse in some bigger scheme of deception to distract us from who benefits from such an attack and what it holds for the future if such escalation of tensions continue.

The burning of classified documents in Beirut is to me a sign, not of preparing for shutdown of the Embassy or consulate, but of destroying documents that have been breached by those that killed Ambassador Stevens.

While there is indeed much intrigue and many questions that the film, the film maker and all those associated with the making of the film will keep many investigating away, someone should step up and ask or determine from insider channels if classified documents were taken and if so, what such documents might be linked to.

While I already know there will be no admission by the govt that anything was taken, their recent lack of credibility is justification enough in my mind to pursue media and politicians for what might have been taken and what it refers to when the compound was ransacked.

Any list of compromised individuals, agents, operatives and those who have willingly supported US operations in Libya, have a right to know if their lives are in danger while the State Dept and the Obama staff do or say nothing about it.

Lives of Americans and or allies could be in danger from any comprised documents as well and many other possibilities that could be generated from stolen classified documents.

Just a thought. I hope it adds to the discussion. Thanks for the thread.

Originally posted by Socrato
I have thought about it and I came to the same conclusions you did. My wife didn't even bother to look into the matter. She heard the story once briefly in passing and knew it was a false flag.

Typical of ATS that some housewife who refuses to think critically and just makes assumptions is to be held up as a gold standard

reply to post by freemarketsocialist


They interviewed him before the attack? Link pleae. I googled it and found articles only after the attack.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Because a passing mention of someone else having the same opinion as you = you are right 100% no possibility of it being wrong and that you are telling everyone that because it happened, that proves it is right.

Oh....wait, that is how your trolling mind took it and how you replied to it as, so it might actually be someone saying their wife thought the same thing as them...

hmm... that was hard to figure out there for a sec.

On topic tho, it is very telling that Wall Street Journal would interview this random obscure guy (considering...you know...it isn't part of their normal repetoir of coverate) only for this interview to be the thing that sparked the fire. With the climate the way it is, they need something to rally people behind the war on terror/coming WW3.

one more thing for the trolls that posted on the first page:

Guys, this is a conspiracy forum... We post theories and discuss. When it is obvious (that notion seems to escape most trolls) that the person is posting an idea or theory based on recent events, debate constructively instead of sarcastically like "ZOMG WHER IZ UR SOURCEZ FOR ALL DEEZ FACTS U R LISTNG. POZT IT OR U R INSTA WRONGZORZ". Try "How did you come to that and where are you getting your information?" or "I disagree because A, B, and then C" Especially when some things are so commonly known on this forum that not everything someone says needs a bibliography.

Besides, alternative theories usually start by someone saying "Hey! Wait a tic? This isn't right" and not having an instant report to list as a referrence .

Sorry, its just a waste of space and time for all when you are coming onto a conspiracy forum and treating a thread like a Scientific Fact Sheet (which most things can't even fully pass anyways).

Edit to add:
I'm not saying things shouldn't be called out on or that threads shouldn't be held to standards but some people expect every single thread to have a bibliography for every other word. I'm just saying that some people are just ridiculous in their attacks on threads nowadays.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Socrato
I have thought about it and I came to the same conclusions you did. My wife didn't even bother to look into the matter. She heard the story once briefly in passing and knew it was a false flag.

Typical of ATS that some housewife who refuses to think critically and just makes assumptions is to be held up as a gold standard

Yep.....

Something as serious as a false flag is evidently only deserving of an assumption, not careful, in depth research and consideration.

Anyway,

Here's an idea, maybe the attacks on the Embassy were simply pre-planned terrorist attacks for the anniversary of 9/11 and the mob of protestors was simply used as cover for the terrorists so they could blend in and not be as easily identified.

Nahhh.... that couldn't be it. I forgot I wasn't supposed to use logic or critical thinking when coming up with theories on ATS. It's not like there are a number of people in that country that wish to do the USA, and the west in general, any harm. Nah, couldn't be.

reply to post by Lynexon


Well, I think people here realize it's a conspiracy forum. But usually a conspiracy theory is based on facts, but a different conclusion is reached.

If you are basing your conspiracy theory on facts that are wrong, or basing it on nothing at all, then you'll get called out.

In order to properly structure a conspiracy theory it's a good idea to verify the facts that you're using as a foundation. I think when people ask for sources they are simply trying to make sure the theory sits on firm ground.

If I proposed a conspiracy theory and part of my evidence said "yesterday an American drone bombed 1,000 houses in Texas" and used that information as a basis for whatever theory I was proposing, people would probably want some proof that actually happened.

The biggest piece of evidence the OP gives us is that the man who made the movie was interviewed BEFORE the attacks happened. Basically, a news agency gave some face time to someone that they probably wouldn't normally.

If the interview was AFTER the attacks, it makes perfect sense. It's already a huge story, so of course they are going to try and interview the movie maker.

But the OP claims they interviewed him BEFORE the embassy attacks. People want this information verified. They want proof the interview took place BEFORE the attacks, because otherwise there is nothing substantial about the man being interviewed.

"How stupid does the US Government think people are? "


have you turned on a tv or opened a news paper recently, id say they think/know we are pretty dumb ^^

Originally posted by MaxBlack
Since day one, the media and govt officials have not commented on whether or not classified documents were breached and or taken by those that attacked the compound. Even if they say nothing was taken, how do we really know?

Is this why in Beirut they are burning classified documents? I don't know, but it got me to thinking about classified documents again.

Actually, I do vaguely remember hearing mention that oil contracts were among some of the documents that were missing after the attack. Thing is I can't remember where I heard that and it's frustrating because now I can't find anything that talks about what specifically was taken, if anything.

reply to post by evilod


Hey evilod,

You are absolutely right about sensitive documents missing from the consulate or whatever it was. I too found this extremely interesting. I believe the Independent reported it first, but it has been coobarated by other news agencies. I'm not sure what to think of this, but I believe it is pretty important. Apparently the documents missing had to do with oil contracts and proof of relationships between Westerners and Arabs, in my opinion meaning terrorists on the US payroll.

www.independent.co.uk...

nation.foxnews.com...

macedoniaonline.eu...

The info you seek you should find in those links.

reply to post by MaxBlack


Yes, thanks Patriot, that Independent article must have been where I saw that...

This is the Independent article that mentions some of the missing documents:

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

Some other relevant info from the article:

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert ...

Senior officials are increasingly convinced, however, that the ferocious nature of the Benghazi attack, in which rocket-propelled grenades were used, indicated it was not the result of spontaneous anger due to the video, called Innocence of Muslims.

Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya's Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the Mohamed video which made the guards abandon their post. "There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film ...

And finally, during the rescue mission, what was supposed to be a secret safe house came under heavy fire:

"I don't know how they found the place to carry out the attack. It was planned, the accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any ordinary revolutionaries," said Captain Obeidi. "It began to rain down on us, about six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa."

At the very least this definitely appears to have been a preplanned attack by militants, not protestors. Clearly the video has had the intended effect though in my opinion it's still unclear who exactly is behind it.

reply to post by freemarketsocialist
Odd that you have a portrait of Obama as Pinocchio and then involve Rupert Murdoch in a plot to instigate a riot. I believe the movie was made with funds from Rove, Murdoch, the Koch bros. et al as a plot to try and get people angry enough to not vote for Obama, since he is the one who got us involved in Libya. But apparently you think all these people are in bed together and there is not a polarization going on in this country? When Romney says 47 percent of All Americans feel they are entitled to be paid by the government not to work...that is polarization. The Repubes are out to get Obama. And I think this was definitely what they wanted to do, set the Middle East on fire with rage and riots against America, make Romney look good by giving him airtime to express his outrage at how Obama handled a situation that no one at the time knew had taken place! In other words, they gave Romney the news before anyone else! That is manipulation and only someone like Murdoch could do something that underhanded.

reply to post by whisperindave


I believe it is the whole '2 steps forward, 1 step back' mentality. This is complete speculation obviously but I think Obama was elected to calm the people down after 8 years of Bush. People were angry and Obama supplied the Hope and Change they were looking for for a very short time. However, we all know he could never really change anything. He was then used as a necessary target to take all the heat and criticism that otherwise would have been directed at the men pulling the strings. It is my belief he is serving his purpose well.

Now that they have the American people polarized and angry at the Left and the danger of socialism and all that, they can get their guy back in the White House who will truly implement the next stage of their plan. The violence in the Middle East and the media going after Obama's perceived failures are adding oxygen to the fire. Obama was the best straw man they ever concocted. I now wonder how he can truly be useful before the November election and I have nothing to base this on except my own personal opinion but let me just put it this way, I worry about Barack Obama's safety.

I agree with you also that the neo-con group were probably the ones to orchestrate and put out the video. Romney, with his quick criticism, most likely had knowledge something was going to happen, maybe not specifics. The games they are playing are sick and twisted and I'm racking my brain trying to understand what is going on. I know it is futile, even on a normal day with nothing going on in the world I really couldn't even begin to imagine the motivations and responsibilities the men at the highest levels of decision-making deal with. But that's what ATS is for and that's why I'm here, bouncing my ideas off of other people.

reply to post by freemarketsocialist


the opening post in interesting. there are further stragenesses here. for instance, there were two security teams at the consulate. one was the local libyan security guards. probably manning the gate, checking passports of those that enter the compound, etc. it is no suprise these guys ran away at the first trouble.

the second security detail is composed of private contractors and dedicated federal security specialists. these private conractors make CEO-level salaries, and are tasked with securing the consulate and the ambassador. they are mercinaries, ex-special forces, spooks, etc. why did these hardcore guys run out on the ambassador, not once, but twice? why did they allow the ambassador to become seperated from evacuating personnel? thats not what they are paid fortunes to do. or is it? one has to wonder, were these men cowards? if not, then what? the small body count is proof enough that the attackers did not have overwhelming firepower.

the other oddity is that the theme of the attack more rationally would have been associated with 911. but there is a dogged determination to link all protests with this film...as if the muslim world would have no other reason to dislike america or american war policy. smells very, very suspicious. i look forward to more details coming out.

reply to post by evilod


My pleasure.

I have no idea who could have been behind this attack but what we have to work with seems to point towards 2 possible instigators - Saudi Arabia and Israel. I could be totally wrong but both of them would have the resources to fund the right mercenaries with the right fire power and also supply these mercenaries with the information in order to complete their mission ie. assassinate the Libyan ambassador.

Then with the video as cover for his murder they could blame it on rioting Muslims who were angry over the perceived slight directed at Mohammed.

I don't know enough about the protection at the embassy offices, but sirbadazz makes some great points. Why wasn't he adequately protected? We know now that there were warnings that did not reach him and his team, that seems deliberate. Did they get to his protection, too? Were they paid to give him up?

Chris Stevens was set up. He'd only been in Libya for 2 months.
Also, what do you suppose the real reason is for showing his dead body on the front page of the LA Times?
Can you think of another time when the body of an American official was displayed on the front page of a newspaper?
As a matter of fact, Sadam Hussein, his two sons, and Osama bin Laden are the only other dead bodies I think Ive seen on a front page or televised on the news.
Insult a religion and this is what happens... A blonde Californian dies.
This whole thing smells like it's rigged to whittle away the first amendment, if nothing else. Too early to tell just yet though.

The report on this whole situation is so convoluted. I just read Chris Stevens' Wiki page and the account of the attack is so confusing, it honestly seems deliberate in order to make it harder to decipher. Weren't the original reports stating that he had been blown up? Then I heard a report about someone seeing a small bullet hole in his forehead and he didn't look blown up at all. I also heard reports he had been anally and orally raped.

New reports in the media are saying there has been a video found that shows Libyans inside the consulate finding his body and that he was still alive and breathing when they found him. Apparently these Libyans carried him out over their shoulder in an attempt to save his life. The official cause of death is now smoke inhalation.

There are so many different reports of what happened, this is incredible.

Ambassador Chris Stevens was still breathing as video emerges showing Libyans trying to rescue him