It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US Intel believes some Benghazi attackers tied to al Qaeda in Iraq

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 11:11 PM
US Intel believes some Benghazi attackers tied to al Qaeda in Iraq

Well now it looks like al Qaeda - Iraq was involved in the Benghazi attack.

And it seems Ambassador Stevens had a warning of "al Qaeda - Iraq" back in 2008.

I guess al Qaeda is alive and well.

This article is from CNN.

Has anyone noticed lately that many M$M sources are pressing the issue and seem to be "outing" Obama & Co. on the Libya thing ?

Maybe the advertisers have ordered new stationary.

Interesting story.....

Washington (CNN) -- U.S. intelligence believes that assailants connected to al Qaeda in Iraq were among the core group that attacked the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, a U.S. government official told CNN.

That would represent the second al Qaeda affiliate associated with the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Previously, intelligence officials said there were signs of connections to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African wing of the terror group.

The revelation that members of al Qaeda in Iraq are suspected of involvement in the Libya attack comes at a time when there is a growing number of fighters from that group also taking part in the Syrian civil war................

US Intel believes some Benghazi attackers tied to al Qaeda in Iraq

Where did the Administration go wrong here ?

Is there a Muslim Brotherhood / White House cover up ?


posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 11:27 PM
I have seen so many different stories pushed on the news over this I am now numb to it. If there aren’t at least 3 different sources saying the same thing I don’t believe anything anymore. This coming from CNN means that there is at least a chance that it’s credible.

posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 09:23 AM
You want to find out something *really* interesting? Google "Gaddafi claims Libyan 'rebels' are al-Qaida". (and just what/who is al-Qaida?)
Starting to get the picture yet?!?
Gaddafi and Assad both came out in the beginning saying this. They were ridiculed and called liars. The US/NATO were/are backing/arming/funding the so-called rebels, who were/are really mostly al-Qaida, which of course was/is not unknown to anyone involved.(including Ambassador Stevens who was directly involved right from the beginning.) They are now asking us to support the same thing in Syria. The US/NATO/UN have been and are still lying about all of it. Ditto the media.
Now some people want to celebrate the media for 'telling the truth'?!? As if it's some revelation- it's only a revelation to the people whom they misinformed in the first place. Of course, they're not actually telling the truth; they're telling a tiny portion of truth wrapped up in lies, to support the lies they've been telling all along.
The Libyan people weren't liberated, they were invaded and had a corrupt puppet government foisted on them, as is our usual method of 'spreading democracy'. They went from having the highest standard of living in all of Africa to a country of complete chaos and destruction, with what amounts to armed militias now roaming from one end to the other killing each other and civilians alike.
I just can't imagine why there would be groups of pissed off people protesting and/or rioting. Must be about that movie...
Remember this the next time they're trying to sell you lies about Syria and the horrible things happening there.

edit on 26-10-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: correction

posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by xuenchen

Why does this surprise anyone?

Obama has just ignored, instead of playing like a deer in the headlights while reading books to kids of a sudden attack they had no warning of.

Instead of playing stupid, the new attitude is just to ignore it.

posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:36 AM
People are arguing over the little lies when the big lie is that all of it is a direct result of what they did, illegally and unjustifiably invading Libya, in the first place. Of course this is not only Obama's mistake or Hillary's. Romney supported it, as did most other officials. The foreign policies are the mistake and I suspect the President doesn't actually make those decisions. If Romney were President, he'd be lying too because the whole thing is a lie. Obama, Hillary, Romney etc, are nothing more than salesmen for the foreign policy, right?
I suspect that there is a reason they let the consulate get attacked, because that sure seems to be the case in that they didn't send in more troops to protect it or have them there in the first place. Whether it was to cover something up, create a distraction, or create public outrage, ergo support, for further actions, who knows? And when I say 'they', I don't think Obama was in on that decision either, if that was the case.
Focus on the fact that it's ALL lies, the whole thing. They are all liars, Obama, Hillary, Romney, the media on the left and the right, all of them.
And no, none of the mainstream media is credible, none of it. A good starting point is to look at what the opposite of what they're saying is, and go from there. You have to look all over the internet, reports from other countries, whom for the most part lie mainly to their own people about their own gov't, but tell something of the truth about what other countries are up to, though of course they have their own agendas as well. (It's mainly people in North America and possibly some in the UK who don't know what's really happening). Independent journalists are the best sources, but who knows what their agenda actually is. Then piece it all together, weigh it out, and somewhere in there is something resembling the truth. One thing you CAN count on, you will not hear the truth from our media, unless they are forced into it, and even then they will spin it. Usually to claim that they were 'mistaken' , 'the source was unreliable' , 'there was bad intel' etc etc etc, to hide that fact that they were lying all along.
edit on 26-10-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: add comments

edit on 26-10-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: correction

edit on 26-10-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: correction

posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:29 AM
There is no Al Qaida, there is no Boko Haram, and Bush bombed New York on 9/11. These names are just US tools. I watch the young Muslims koran clubs in Europe with beards and want to tell them: the government is paying your leader, you are being played, for when they need to have some 'violent' fundamentalist Muslims to make an appearance: they use you.

top topics

log in