Who is at Fault for the Manchester Tragedy?


Who is at Fault for the Manchester Tragedy?

When I started this blog I promised that I will always write the truth. Looking the Internet newspapers although they try to write the truth some covered some saying the plain truth but only the half of it not the whole truth.

Adam Garrie he writes at the Duran electronic newspaper an analysis about how the British deep state turned Manchester into al Qaeda Town UK. He explains that the savage terrorist atrocity in Manchester was a classic case of terrorist blowback, phenomenon describing how Western governments fund, arm and aid terrorists, they often come back to commit (sic) horrific crimes against the citizens of the countries which funded and aided them.

In my opinion these terrorists where under the payroll of the deep state. These terrorists have one thing in common which all shadowy governments want; when suited to destroy another sovereign country to steal resources or to commit a false flag they are hired. It’s not an easy task to sacrifice their own people in the name of freedom but if you want a NWO that is what you have to do. Bringing such terror to its population makes it easier for the shadowy government to take away their freedom. I know it is hard to accept this reality, it took me years to accept it. Once you see the big picture then you can understand how the system works.

Let’s get back to the Manchester tragedy which I condemn full heartedly. Worst tragedies from the same shadowy governments suffer the consequences of their actions (Syria, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan,, Pakistan, Sudan these are only a few that I have in mind). Britain has been funding the Libyan Islamic fighting group(LIFG) since the mid 80s they helped them by organising the group, funding them, arming them and training so that they could topple Qaddafi. The Libyan Islamic fighting Group was affiliated to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and till today they still have ties to this terrorist group and other groups like them. Here is a link that you can read for yourself to understand all the connections of LIFG with other terrorist organisations.

Here is another link that proves my point.

Rebels ‘Went to Libya With MI5 Blessing’ Amid Abedi Probe

So Salman Obeidi’s father was a police officer in Tripoli till 1991 when for his own reasons he joined the radical group called L.I.F.G <= Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Qaddafi had banned it for its Islamic radicalism aka the reason for escaping the same year and asking for asylum in Britain. The father Ramadan Abdulgassem Obeidi never stopped his affiliation with the group and continued to work with the leaders of LIFG who are Belhaz who has a British passport & one of the worst terrorist known, the other is Abdul Basset Gweli from Zliten and has Caribbean passport. I’m sure the above information is already known to you. What isn’t mention is Faousi Camoucha who is more dangerous than Belhaz & Gweli put together is a diplomat in the LIBYAN embassy in Britain and was in an everyday contact with Salman Obeidi which is believed that CAMOUCHA gave the order. Please do not forget that all the above people were working with MI5/6 and the deep state of Britain.

Now Belhadj was made commander of the Tripoli Military Council since the illegal war finished. For the sake of diplomacy towards Britain, someone gave the order in Tripoli to have the father Ramadan Abdulgassem Obeidi and one of his sons arrested. You realize that Belhaj who belongs to LIFG has the upper hand in Tripoli, you think they will stay arrested for long?

This just came in:

A Notorious terrorist Abdel Raouf Kara takes the family of the terrorist Salman al-Obeidi into Hiding although Kara was put under pressure from some of the leaders for their release Kara enabled them to escape and disappear in an unknown place. So as you can see no arrests are done.

Further more I read that the British Prime Minister raised the country’s terror threat level to critical, the first time it has been raised to that level since 2007. But she still sells arms to Saudi Arabia and still wants a Regime change in Syria…. Instead of backing out of these things and doing the bidding of the United States she continues to ruin lives in Yemen by the Saudis and in Syria telling a sovereign country it needs to change as they did in Libya and you see the outcome.

It’s about time the English people wake up before it’s too late.

Advertisements

Gen. Mike Flynn: Why Hillary’s record on Libya is even worse than you think


Gen. Mike Flynn: Why Hillary’s record on Libya is even worse than you think

By Michael Flynn

A failed state, a terrorist haven, four dead Americans – this is the Hillary Clinton record in Libya we know about.

But new evidence — and a review of the public record — reveals that Hillary Clinton’s actions in Libya were not just disastrous policy, but a violation of U.S. anti-terrorism law.

A recent report to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British House of Commons concluded that Western intervention in Libya was based on “inaccurate intelligence” and “erroneous assumptions.” Advocates failed to recognize that “the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element,” and the failure to plan for a post-Qaddafi Libya led to the “growth of ISIL” in North Africa.

However, “inaccurate intelligence” doesn’t fully describe the whole story. A closer examination of the run-up to the Libya debacle on September 11, 2012 leads to the irrefutable conclusion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly armed radical Islamist terrorists in Libya.

False pretenses

The American public was told that the intervention in Libya was necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis. But just as Hillary Clinton would describe the attack on our Benghazi diplomats as a spontaneous protest over a video, the military intervention that led inexorably to the debacle in Benghazi was sold on false pretenses: to prevent an imminent massacre of civilians engaged in a pro-democracy uprising.

Hillary Clinton described the 2011 Arab Spring rebellion in eastern Libya as a spontaneous pro-democracy uprising, but the Libyan connection to radical Islamic extremist groups was well known long before 2011.

The region where the rebellion began was a fervid recruiting ground for jihadis who killed American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The leaders of the “civilian uprising” that Hillary Clinton supported were members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who had pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. They refused to take orders from non-Islamist commanders and assassinated the then leader of the rebel army, Abdel Fattah Younes.

The LIFG had been jailed under Qaddafi until hundreds of their members were released through a de-radicalization program. That program was spearheaded by an exiled Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Libyan cleric based in Qatar named Ali al-Sallabi. The jihadis pledged they would never use violence against Gaddafi again.

But nearly as soon as the LIFG was released they took up arms against the Qaddafi regime.

Just as there was ample evidence that Hillary’s “pro-democracy protestors” were radical Islamists, there was no truth to the assertion a civilian massacre was imminent.

Libyan doctors told United Nations investigators that, of the more than 200 corpses in Tripoli’s morgues following fighting in late February 2011, only two were female. This indicates Qaddafi’s forces targeted male combatants and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. Nor had Qaddafi forces attacked civilians after retaking towns from the rebels in early February 2011.

While Muammar Qaddafi had a 40-year record of appalling human rights violations, his abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians. We restored full diplomatic relations with Qaddafi in 2007 and he was a key partner in counter-terrorism efforts.

LIFG and affiliated jihadis received at least 18 shipments of arms from Qatar with the blessing of the U.S., the Wall Street Journal reports. The arms shipments were funneled through none other than Ali al-Sallabi, the Qatar cleric who brokered their release from prison.

The Islamists were able to pay for the weapons because Clinton had convinced Obama to grant full diplomatic recognition to the rebels, against the advice of State Department lawyers and the Secretary of Defense.

As the Washington Post reported, this move “allowed the Libyans access to billions of dollars from Qaddafi’s frozen accounts.”

These arms shipments are significant for several reasons. It led to the indictment of American arms dealer Marc Turi who was charged with selling weapons to Islamist militants in Libya through Qatar. The charges were dropped this week after Turi threatened to reveal emails showing Clinton had approved the sales.

Here’s where it gets very sticky for Secretary Clinton. The rebel leaders were on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list. It is a direct violation of the law to provide material support for terrorist organizations under 18 U.S. Code 2339A & 2339B. Penalties for providing or attempting to provide material support to terrorism include imprisonment from 15 years to life.

Nor is the Qatar connection insignificant. Qatar has donated anywhere from $1 to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, and emails reveal members of the Qatari royal family were privileged with back channel meetings with Secretary Clinton at the State Department. While whipping up support for the Libya military campaign, Clinton told Arab leaders, “it’s important to me personally,” the Washington Post reported.

Hillary Clinton’s prosecution of foreign policy in Libya crossed several lines: she showed extremely bad judgment by ignoring military and intelligence officials, she let personal interests conflict with U.S. foreign policy and, most importantly, she may have broken the law — again.

Any one of these transgressions should disqualify her from holding any kind of leadership role in our government, let alone president of the United States. The last one qualifies Hillary Clinton for government housing, though not in the White House.

The Benghazi Hearing: What Neither Hillary nor the Republicans Want to Talk About


The Benghazi Hearing: What Neither Hillary nor the Republicans Want to Talk About

by JoanneM

Here’s what Members of both parties desperately avoided bringing up at the Benghazi hearing this week: the US knew its partners in Libya were jihadist terrorists and the Benghazi “consulate” was a CIA facility to smuggle weapons and terrorists from Libya to Syria for the next “regime change.” This is no conspiracy: it was openly covered in the media right after the attack.
The Benghazi Hearing: What Neither Hillary nor the Republicans Want to Talk About

GREAT ARTICLE POSTED FROM DR RON PAUL INSTITUTE
_____________________________________________________________________
The Benghazi Hearing: What Neither Hillary nor the Republicans Want to Talk About
Written by James George Jatras
Friday October 23, 2015

As I write this, Hillary Clinton’s appearance before the House panel investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks that killed four Americans is still going on. I wasn’t able to listen to all of it live, and will plow through the transcript in due course.

Two things already are notable: one concerning the impact of the hearing itself – plus another aspect marked only by the sound of crickets chirping.

First, as one would have expected, the hearing has generated more heat than light. As has been the case to date, Republican lawmakers seem mainly interested in granular details of the State Department’s bureaucratic handling of the Benghazi post’s requests for more security, what did then-Secretary Clinton know and when did she know it, whether help could have and should have been sent and who stopped any such attempt, whether prompt action might have changed the outcome, questionable claims regarding a movie riling up the Muslim rabble, Hillary’s reliance on the expertise (or lack thereof) of Sidney Blumenthal, and all the other back-and-forth that’s dominated the issue since the events in question.

Democrats predictably shilled for her, the poor innocent victim of a GOP Star Chamber.

In short, nothing new.

Hillary boosters will be reinforced in their conviction that the inquiry is a witch hunt to hurt political prospects of the still-presumptive (especially with “Uncle Joe” Biden’s declining to run) Democratic presidential nominee. In supporting that conviction, the ill-phrased comments of abortive House Speaker candidate Kevin McCarthy were a godsend.

Conversely, Hillary-haters (who outnumber her fans, according to polling) will be buttressed in their conviction that she’s a lying incompetent with the blood of four Americans on her hands. (There’s nothing wrong with a witch hunt if you catch a real witch.)

Aside from digging Americans more firmly into the partisan points of view they already hold, little of importance is likely to result.

Which is unfortunate, because the hearing could have been a watershed in American foreign policy if someone on either side of the aisle had wished to pillory Hillary on an issue that screams out for public answers. But certainly no Democrat would do so for partisan reasons, and no Republican seemed to care. (One can only wish that Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, or both, had been on that panel!)

That issue is what was really going on in Benghazi. Unremarked upon from the lawmakers’ bench was Clinton’s admission that the post in Benghazi was not a consulate, as it is uniformly reported in the media. She did refer several times to the CIA compound.

No Sherlock Holmes is needed here. The facts have been in plain sight for over three years. As just one example, the following is a good summary from October 2012, barely a month after the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans:

‘There’s growing evidence that US agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official US liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group — a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi’s stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between him and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

Last week The Telegraph reported that an FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”

And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the US surely knew about it.

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the US consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at [the] rented villa where Stevens died.”

And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.’

“How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria,” Business Insider, by Michael B Kelley, October 19, 2012

In short, to an extent still undisclosed to the American people, US agencies (and specifically the CIA) were at least aware of – and almost certainly complicit in – a pipeline to ship weapons from Gaddafi’s captured stocks to jihad terrorists in Syria seeking to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The key actors were jihadists, including elements of al-Qaeda, that NATO had assisted in overthrowing Gaddafi.

Shockingly, such savages don’t always remain on the leash and sometimes bite the hand that fed them. In a word, the Benghazi debacle was blowback from a “regime change” operation in which our allies and clients were the very terrorists we’ve been told for 14 years by both parties are the greatest threat to Americans’ lives and freedoms.

It’s then clear why Republican Congressmen declined to grill Hill’ on the details of our canoodling with terrorists: to do so would be to call into question the bipartisan penchant for supporting jihadists in multiple conflicts. Perpetuating a pattern established no later than the 1980s in Afghanistan (under Ronald Reagan, when at least Cold War vicissitudes could be considered a partial excuse), terrorists inspired by Saudi Wahhabist ideology were “our guys” in Bosnia and Kosovo (under Bill Clinton) and in Libya (under Barack Obama).

While the presidents in the post-Cold War cases were Democrats, most Republican criticism was not that supporting people of that ilk was a bad idea but that, respectively, Clinton or Obama wasn’t moving decisively enough to empower the terrorists. Hence, the familiar refrain that Obama was “leading from behind” in Libya. If only we had moved faster, critics claimed, pro-American, democratic “moderates” might have gained power . . . Sure.

The same pattern continues today, in Syria. Just this week, in light of Russia’s airstrikes against the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesh), the al-Nusra Front (the official al-Qaeda affiliate), Ahrar al-Sham, and other jihadists, the Obama administration boldly responded – with arms drops to “trusted” terrorists. Having been up to their elbows in supporting jihad in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the Gulf States are now doubling down on their aid to terror groups in Syria, while publicly members of the US-led “anti-ISIL coalition.” Some allies.

And where is the GOP? Aside from a few noble exceptions, Republicans are faulting Obama for not providing more help to the jihadists, even joining with none other than Hillary Clinton in calling for a no-fly zone. How little we’ve learned.

Other angles could also have been explored at the hearing, such as Hillary’s faux Caesaresque cackle regarding Gaddafi’s murder: “We came, we saw, he died!” One yearns to ask her if extrajudicial murder of foreign heads of state is now official US policy, or is that just her private peccadillo? Can she suggest a list of other countries’ leaders who, without benefit of trial, should have a knife shoved up their rectum, then get shot in the head?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Article link: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/october/23/t…

Assassin Attempt on Libyan Prime Minister


Assassin Attempt on Libyan Prime Minister

A spokesman for Libya’s internationally recognized government says gunmen tried to assassinate the prime minister on his way to the airport in the eastern city of Tobruk.
Arish Said, head of the government’s media department, said that Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni’s motorcade was attacked and one of his guards was lightly wounded Tuesday but that there were no fatalities.
Prior to the attack, he said that armed men who had been protesting outside a session of the Tobruk government’s House of Representatives tried to storm the building, firing shots into the air and demanding al-Thinni resign. The session was postponed until next week.
Libya’s elected parliament was forced to relocate to the far-eastern city of Tobruk after Islamist-allied militias took over the country’s capital, Tripoli, and the second-largest city of Benghazi after fierce clashes. Fighting is still underway in much of the country.

The Psychopath Bady decided to regroup and change the name of FAJR LIBYA …. ALSHOROOQ AND NOW AL SUMOOD


The Psychopath Bady decided to regroup and change the name of FAJR LIBYA …. ALSHOROOQ AND NOW AL SUMOOD

RESPONSIBLE FOR: THE GARGOUR MASSACRE, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OF TRIPOLI, THE USE OF WHITE PHOSPHORUS IN BAN WALID, TAWERGHA GENOCIDE AND MISPLACEMENT, RAPES, KIDNAPPING, TARGET KILLING WHO EVER DISAGREES WITH THEM, EXPLOSIONS OF OIL FIELDS, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, ORGAN TRAFFICKING, ORPHAN CHILDREN TRAFFICKING. THEY ARE A GREAT BUNCH THE MOST HATED LIBYANS IN LIBYA

RESPONSIBLE FOR: THE GARGOUR MASSACRE, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OF TRIPOLI, THE USE OF WHITE PHOSPHORUS IN BAN WALID, TAWERGHA GENOCIDE AND MISPLACEMENT, RAPES, KIDNAPPING, TARGET KILLING WHO EVER DISAGREES WITH THEM, EXPLOSIONS OF OIL FIELDS, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, ORGAN TRAFFICKING, ORPHAN CHILDREN TRAFFICKING. THEY ARE A GREAT BUNCH THE MOST HATED LIBYANS IN LIBYA

On the 15th of June 2015 Al Naba TV interviewed (the asshole self-made) COLONEL Salah Bady (phone interview)
Bady One of Fajr Libya’s main commanders announced a new operation under the name “Sumood” This means Resistance. ****(what resistance?)
Here is the summary of what (the psychopath) Bady said in his interview.

“The masks of many people have now fallen and their true colours have shown”
“There are plots being set inside Libya and outside” (he must be hallucinating from the drugs and alcohol or he is afraid what he did to the other militias they will do it to him… or he is afraid of the Libyan citizens which ever comes first..)
“The battalions that were fighting at the front lines have now got together to form Al Sumood”
“The objectives of “Al Sumood”are to confront all plots such as the Reconciliations and Truces. ****(Yes he is afraid that he will go to jail and have his assets frozen and have the same death that all traitors get)This is because we are worried that the same thing could happen in the Capital Tripoli ****(What worse could happen to Tripoli than to be hold captive by this asshole and his crew). So the forces will relocate around the Capital.”
“It will be an active force, from 7 different brigades who will protect the Institutions ***(what institutions there are no institutions only terrorists in the capital, NOTHING BUT NOTHING IS WORKING IN THE CAPITAL for fear of getting shot by these lunatics) in the Capital, we will prevent anyone that tries to enter the Capital, We will use extreme force ****(yes like SARIN GAS as we used in Ban Walid) on anyone who attempts too”
“We report back to the legislative body in Libya, the GNC, the Government and Daar Allfta”

This is a very sincere issue, it is very important that we take this announcement very seriously. The latest UN draft states that all armed groups will need to leave the cities, yet Bady here announces that there are plots being set which could refer to the UN Dialogue meaning that he will not hand over Tripoli or pull his forces out no matter what. ****(What to lose all the luxury, power and the thrill of watching the fear in the eyes of the Tripolitanian’s)
Shouldn’t it be necessary that the GNC make a clear statement that they have full control over these militias and show the world where they stand on this new operation? ***(The GNC has no control never had/have the ones who control Tripoli are BELHAJ, BADY and THE UNITED STATES REPRESENTED BY DEBORAH JONES…..)

Bady Interview: https://www.facebook.com/1439435110613235/videos/1430143946065/?permPage=1