by Julie Lévesque
May 28, 2015
disclosed Pentagon documents prove what we've
known for a while now: the Obama administration
knew as early as 2012 that weapons were being
sent from Benghazi, Libya, to rebels in Syria.
government also knew at the time that:
Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and [Al
Qaeda in Iraq were] the major forces driving
the insurgency in Syria."
But did they just "know" or was it part
of the plan?
These official documents of the
administration add to the large amount of evidence proving that the
actual chaos and havoc wreaked by extremist groups in the Middle
East was deliberately created by the U.S. and its allies and is not
the result of a "failed foreign policy".
Judicial Watch recently revealed:
The DoD documents also contain the first
official documentation that the Obama administration knew
that weapons were being shipped from the Port of Benghazi to
rebel troops in Syria.
An October 2012 report confirms:
Weapons from the former Libya
military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi,
Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria.
The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles,
RPG's, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.
During the immediate aftermath of,
and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the
(Qaddafi) regime in October 2011 and up until early September
of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles
located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of
Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj
The Syrian ports
were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting
these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were
medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of
The heavily redacted document does
not disclose who was shipping the weapons.
Scandal: Obama Administration Knew Weapons Were Being Sent to
Al-Qaeda in Syria, New Documents Show,
Judicial Watch 18 May 2015)
Although the documents do not reveal who
was responsible for sending weapons
to Syria, it is quite obvious
from the language used in the documents that it was a US initiative
and the CIA presence in Benghazi at the time suggests that US
intelligence was behind this gun-running operation.
Libyan Terrorists in Syria
On September 11, 2012, the U.S.
consulate in Benghazi was attacked.
Four people were killed,
including the U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and two CIA officers.
In August 2013,
The Agency, for its part, doesn't want anyone
knowing what it was doing in the Libyan port city.
On Thursday Drew
Griffin and Kathleen
Johnston of CNN reported that the
"is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was
doing, remains a secret."
Sources told CNN that 35 Americans
were in Benghazi that night - 21 of whom were working out of the
annex - and that several were wounded, some seriously.
One source said:
"You have no idea
the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with
knowledge of this operation."
Among the questions are whether CIA
missteps contributed to the security failure in Benghazi and,
more importantly, whether the
Agency's Benghazi operation had anything to do with reported
heavy weapons shipments from the
local port to Syrian rebels.
In short, the CIA operation is the
most intriguing thing about Benghazi.
(Michael B. Kelley and
Intrigue Surrounding The Secret CIA Operation In Benghazi Is Not
Going Away, Business Insider, August 3, 2013)
Last January, the Citizens
Commission on Benghazi concluded that the,
White House and the State Department under the management of
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 'changed sides in the war on
terror' in 2011 by implementing a policy of facilitating the
delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-dominated rebel militias in
Libya attempting to oust Moammar Gadhafi from power",
WND added that
"several members of the commission
have disclosed their finding that
the mission of Christopher Stevens, prior to the fall of Gadhafi
and during Stevens' time as U.S. ambassador, was the management
of a secret gun-running program operated out of the Benghazi
(Jerome R. Corsi,
U.S. Generals Conclude Obama Backed Al-Qaida and Operated a
Secret Gun-Running Program in Benghazi, WND, January 20,
We've also known for several years that
Western special operations forces were on the ground training rebels
to fight against Assad.
In January 2012, Michel Chossudovsky
Several articles in the British
media confirm that British Special Forces are training Syrian
The underlying pattern is similar to
that of Libya where British SAS were on the ground prior to the
launching of NATO's military intervention. A Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
NATO intervention modeled on Libya is contemplated…
confirm that British military and intelligence operatives are
already on the ground inside Syria.
(Michel Chossudovsky, SYRIA:
British Special Forces, CIA and MI6 Supporting Armed Insurgency.
NATO Intervention Contemplated, Global Research, January 7,
Even CNN reported back in 2012 that
rebels were being trained by defense contractors to handle chemical
The US and some of its European
allies "are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on
how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria," according
to "a senior US official and several senior diplomats," CNN reports.
The US-funded training is going on inside Syria,
as well as in neighboring Turkey and Jordan and "involves how to
monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and
materials," according to CNN. US
Defense Contractors Training Syrian Rebels to Handle Chemical
Is The Target
The deadly chemical weapons were later
used against Syrian soldiers and civilians.
The U.S. government and the Western
mainstream media tried to blame President Assad, but a UN
investigation later concluded that it was the rebels who had used
the chemical weapons.
Another official document from 2012
revealed by Judicial Watch indicates that the "growing sectarian
direction of the war was predicted to have dire consequences for
Iraq, which included the "grave danger" of the rise of ISIS:
This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al
Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi,
and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of
unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of
the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one
enemy, the dissenters.
could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other
terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will
create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the
protection of its territory. (Judicial Watch, op., cit.)
The U.S. did exactly what was needed to
create "the ideal atmosphere" for Mosul and Ramadi to fall and for
ISIS to declare an "Islamic state".
With the fall of Mosul last June, the
recent fall of Ramadi in Iraq and numerous reports about the U.S.
delivering weapons and ammunition to ISIS, the recently disclosed
official documents show once more that the U.S. gun-running
operation created "the ideal atmosphere" for Al Qaeda Iraq and "the
rise of ISIS" in the region.
The war against the so-called Islamic
State can thus only be a flatout lie.
As a solution to the problem they
created, with full knowledge of the consequences, the U.S. and its
allies offered a military intervention with the stated intent of
fighting the enemy they had created while covertly supporting it in
order to sustain the war, for the greatest benefit of defense
contractors and Israel, which has the a lot to gain in the
dismantlement of neighboring states.
The purpose of this "constructive chaos"
is nothing less than to redraw the map of the region and create a
"New Middle East."
As Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya explained
back in 2006:
The term "New Middle East" was
introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the
Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older
and more imposing term, the "Greater Middle East."
This shift in foreign policy
phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
(BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The term and
conceptualization of the "New Middle East," was subsequently
heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime
Minister at the height of the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli
siege of Lebanon.
Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had
informed the international media that a project for a "New
Middle East" was being launched from Lebanon.
This announcement was a confirmation of an
Anglo-American-Israeli "military roadmap" in the Middle East.
This project, which has been in the planning stages for several
years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and
violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq,
the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned
The "New Middle East" project was
introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the
expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for
realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the
forces of "constructive chaos."
This "constructive chaos" - which generates conditions of
violence and warfare throughout the region - would in turn be
used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw
the map of the Middle East in accordance with their
geo-strategic needs and objectives.
Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a "New
Middle East", Global Research, November 2006)
above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel
It was published
in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006,
Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S.
National War Academy. (Map Copyright
Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).
Although the map
does not officially reflect Pentagon
doctrine, it has been used in a training
program at NATO's Defense College for senior
This map, as
well as other similar maps, has most
probably been used at the National War
Academy as well as in military planning
All the evidence is there to prove ISIS
and their ilks are instruments of U.S.-NATO-Israel foreign policy.
How long can the Western mainstream
media ignore this overwhelming evidence that the U.S. and its allies
are supporting the entities they claim to be be fighting in the
Middle East without totally losing the very little credibility it
Looking at the situation, Joachim
Hagopian argues that the war on ISIS is just for show since its
"enemy" is only gaining territory:
The US led coalition air strikes in Syria and
Iraq have failed to stop the Islamic State's expansion.
Four months ago it was noted that since the US
air campaign began last August, the Islamic
State has doubled its space in Syria, controlling more than
one third of the country's territory.
In the same way that the US predator
drone warfare policy has only caused more hatred against America
in the nations it's been deployed against in Pakistan, Yemen,
Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, the same reverse effect is
occurring in Syria where residents are increasingly sympathetic
to Islamic State.
Additionally, Syrian opposition
groups bitterly complain that the US
led coalition forces fail to coordinate dropping bombs with the
rebels, thus not permitting them any tactical advantage in
driving IS back.
It's as if the air strikes are more for show than to actually
neutralize the enemy.
US-Islamic State Dance: One Step Forward and Two Steps Back - By
Design, Global Research, May 19, 2015)
This war on ISIS is just another
disastrous endeavor for populations in the Middle East, another
military intervention under a false pretext, another lie to divide
And once more, the Western mainstream
media has failed to report the truth.