In September 2012 the US Ambassador in Benghazi was killed. Chris Stevens and three other Americans died when the American consulate was attacked. This week US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been questioned regarding the murder of these citizens.
The attack happened on the anniversary of 9/11. British nationals in Libya were already playing a more cautious game, they still are. Clinton is accused of failing to protect the ambassador and the others that died. A request for improved security at the embassy compound was allegedly ignored.
The Business Insider reports, 'In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. 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.'
Wouldn't it be both ironic and tragic if Stevens was killed by a former ally?
Media reports claim that Abdelhakim Belhadj and other Libyan rebels were instrumental in the civil war in Syria. "He 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."
Various reports show links between Libya and the Syrian rebels. It is speculated that vast amounts of Libyan weaponry have been shipped from Libya to support the Syrian opposition. Weapons dating back to the time of Qaddafi. Tough Jihadist fighters in Syria are Libyans, but they are not wanted by the FSA, Free Syrian Army.
So where does the late Chris Stevens and the Embassy fit into all of this?
According to jihad watch, 'Ambassador Stevens may have indeed been the point man in yet another U.S-led gun running scheme. From what can be pieced together thus far, the Muslim Brotherhood and its proxy, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) leader Abdulhakim Belhadj, were advising the U.S. on which rebel-factions in Libya and later, in Syria, should receive our arms. Those rebel factions, by the way, comprise members of al Qaeda, which stands to reason given that bin Laden’s alma matter is in fact Muslim Brotherhood progeny.'
The latest evidence indicates that US agents, including Stevens, were fully aware that heavy weapons were being moved from Libya to Syria. 'Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin—who is the former commander of the U.S. Special Forces Command, the former deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence' believes that the US was either supporting the Syrian rebels or was about to do so, via Benghazi.
The question many are still posing is, was Ambassador Stevens running guns to Syrian rebels. The CIA deny this.
The truth may never be known. If it is, that time could be well into the future. An uncertain future due to western interference. The West was so keen to oust the likes of Mubarak in Egypt, Qaddafi in Libya and now Assad in Syria, but why?
The people in these countries are not the first to be oppressed. They are not the first to revolt. What made their plight so appealing to the West? If you believe it was the humanitarian crisis I would say that you are wrong.
Oil will feature in the 'master plan'. However perhaps Islamist militants have a 'master plan' of their own and we are being sucked into it, hook, line and sinker.
Whatever drew the West in, we are now embroiled in a potential disaster. Our interference and manipulation has left a power and security vacuum across a wide swathe of the Middle East and North Africa.
It has allowed groups of Islamist militants to gather, increase in size and spread their terror reach far and wide.
Was Ambassador Stevens gun running? You tell me.