Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood: Syria, Egypt, and Beyond

Len Colby · January 18, 2013

The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 8, No. 1/2 (Winter/Summer 2012)

The Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic “democracy” in Egypt as part of the New World Order

TAKIS FOTOPOULOS

'Paper' by an obscure author 'published' by his own obscure 'journal'

British Creation: Muslim Brotherhood - UK's Love Affair With Radical Islam - al Nursa Mercenary Interview - Radicalized Outside of Syria - 95 Percent Are Foreign Mercenaries In Syria

Monday, December 17, 2012

By Mark Curtis

Global Research, July 07, 2010

Guardian 5 July, 2010

UK’s collusion with radical Islam: Bin Laden, the Taliban, Zawahiri: Britain’s Done Business With Them All

Questions about the validity of his claims aside, Curtis does not back your thesis, the top headline and some to analysis comes from a mentally ill obscure blogger who believes that “British Bankers' Association Planned and Executed 911 with Thomson Reuters for Libor Profits” and claims the Airline Pilots Association, is in some conspiracy with Boeing, NORAD, FAA, US Naval Academy (USNA), FBI and DOJ to allow “electronic interference” with planes which blames for a number of incidents (some involving non-Boeing planes).
The problems with your sources aside quote the passages you think demonstrate the MB is a puppet of the US or other Western governments

Steven Gaal · January 28, 2013

Muslim Brotherhood get rebel (CIA) Syrian Arms (see below)

==============================================================================================

The Benghazi Affair: Uncovering the Mystery of the Benghazi CIA Annex

“The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to the officials who briefed on intelligence.” WSJ, Nov 1, 2012

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, finally appeared before the US Senate and House Foreign Relations Committees on Wednesday, January 23, after a long delay. She was asked many questions by the Congress about what had happened in Benghazi on September 11 and how this could happen. The problem with the responses she gave to these questions was that she focused on the narrative presented in the State Department Report that had been released a month earlier, and which is deeply flawed.

In order to understand the nature of what happened on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, and how the State Department under Hillary Clinton has been an important part of the cover up of what this second September 11 is actually a part of, it is important to understand the problem with the State Department Report being used to carry out the US government cover up of what I call the Benghazi Affair.

On December 18, the US State Department released its report on the September 11, 2012 attacks on two US facilities in Benghazi, Libya. These attacks had resulted in the deaths of the US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans working for the US government in Libya. The US government had claimed that its report would shed light on what had become a contentious Congressional and media debate over the cause and details of the attack on these two US government compounds in Benghazi.

Soon, however, it became clear that the State Department Report issued by the Accountability Review Board (hereafter ARB Report), offered the public little information to add to what had already been made available by the State Department or the media. Instead, the public version of the ARB Report, referred to as the “unclassified” version, actually functions as part of the cover-up of what happened on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi. Most of this public document carefully refrains from any discussion of the role or activities of the CIA and what bearing this had on the events of September 11-12 2012 in Benghazi. But the role of the CIA in Benghazi and its bearing on what happened there on September 11 is the crucial question that any legitimate investigation into the situation must explore.

The trick of the Accountability Review Board (ARB) was that it issued two different versions of its Report. One version was an “unclassified” report that was available to the press, the public and the US Congress to discuss in public.(1) The other version was a “classified” report that was to be hidden from public or press scrutiny and was only to be available to Congress in a closed Congressional process. The unclassified version of the ARB Report could not mention the CIA activities. It could only discuss the role of the State Department in what happened.

The problem with such a restriction is that one of the US government sites in Benghazi that was attacked was a CIA facility referred to as the ‘Annex’ (hereafter CIA annex compound). The other site was allegedly a State Department administered facility referred to as the ‘Special Mission Benghazi Compound’ (hereafter special mission compound). This second compound, according to the WSJ, was actually created to provide diplomatic cover for the CIA facility.(2)

While some US Congressional Committees have been conducting investigations into what happened in Benghazi, they have agreed to discuss only the activities of the State Department in their open, public sessions, and to reserve any consideration or questions about the activities of the CIA for closed sessions of their committees, away from public view.(3)

Not only is the US Congress restricted from discussing the role of the CIA in Benghazi in open session, some of the mainstream US media have agreed to a request by the US government to withhold details about the CIA operations in Benghazi. The New York Times (NYT) is one such publication. (4) In an article briefly referring to the CIA annex compound, which the NYT says “encompassed four buildings inside a low-walled compound….” The NYT acknowledges that, “From among these buildings, the C.I.A. personnel carried out their secret missions.” But then the article explains that, “The New York Times agreed to withhold locations and details of these operations at the request of Obama administration officials….”

To declare an investigation into or discussion of the activities regarding the role of the CIA and its Annex compound as a forbidden subject during an open committee meeting of Congress, is to prevent the US Congress from fulfilling its oversight obligations over the US Executive branch of government. For the US government to require the US media to restrict coverage is to shroud the needed public discussion and investigation in darkness.

The effort to cover up the role of the CIA in the events resulting in the attack on the two US government facilities in Benghazi, however, demonstrates that something important is at stake and worth investigating.

Despite the US government effort to impose such restrictions, there are media accounts and some Congressional documents that provide a glimpse into the details of hidden CIA activity that the attacks on the US facilities in Benghazi help to reveal.

To understand the nature of this hidden activity, requires a willingness not only to critique the official explanations, but also to examine the events that can help to uncover the actual forces at work in Benghazi and the role they played in CIA activities in Libya.

One Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article is particularly helpful. The article, is titled “CIA Takes Heat for Role in Libya.” It provides a rare window into details of the murky world of the CIA operation in Benghazi and how it came about.(5)

The article notes that former CIA Director David Petraeus did not greet the bodies of the four Americans killed in Benghazi when they were returned to the US, even though two of those killed are acknowledged to have worked for the CIA. “Officials close to Mr. Petraeus,” the WSJ explains, “say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency’s role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi.”

Of the 30 or more American officials evacuated from Benghazi, only seven worked for the State Department. According to the WSJ, “Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principle purpose” of the special mission compound.

Soon after the struggle against the government of Libya began in February 2011, the CIA set up a compound in Benghazi for its spy operations. Eventually, the CIA gave its compound a State Department office name, the Annex, to disguise its purpose, the WSJ reveals. According to the US government, the role of the CIA in Benghazi was “focused on countering proliferation and terrorist threats….A main concern was the spread of weapons….”

“At the annex,” the WSJ explains, “many of the analysts and officers had what is referred to in intelligence circles as ‘light cover’ carrying U.S. diplomatic passports.”

Providing a cover for the secret operation of the CIA, however, created problems for State Department officials who felt the CIA was not “forthcoming with information,” even in the midst of the attack on the US facilities. As the WSJ notes, on September 11, 2012, “At 5:41 p.m. Eastern time, Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Petraeus. She wanted to make sure the two agencies were on the same page.”

Even after the attack was over and the analysts and officers had been evacuated, the accounts in the WSJ and McClatchy Newspapers, describe how quickly the CIA acted to clean out documents and equipment from the Annex. By contrast, the US government left the premises of the special mission compound unguarded and open to looters for weeks after the attack.

“The significance of the annex was a well-kept secret in Benghazi,” the WSJ reporters conclude. A McClatchy article documents how a well guarded secret was even the location of the CIA Annex compound. (6)

The implication is that the attackers at the special mission compound intended to flush out the covert location and presence of the CIA Annex compound so as to end its ability to continue its secret activities.(7)

An opinion piece, “The Fog of Benghazi”, appeared in the WSJ on November 3. It discusses what was at stake for the US government as a result of the September 11 attack in Benghazi(8): “America has since closed the Libya diplomatic outpost and pulled a critical intelligence unit out of a hotbed of Islamism, conceding a defeat. U.S. standing in the region and the ability to fight terrorist groups were undermined, with worrying repercussions for a turbulent Middle East and America’s security. This is why it’s so important to learn what happened in Benghazi.”

The effort to learn what happened in the Benghazi Affair, is similarly the subject of a 10 page letter dated October 19 sent by two US Congressmen to President Obama. (9) One of the Congressmen, Darrell Issa, is Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The other, Jason Chaffetz, is Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations.

Their letter raises ten questions for President Obama, the answers to which they explain are needed for the US Congressional investigation to determine the significance of the Benghazi affair. Also in their letter they include an attachment of 160 pages of data and photos which document the lawless environment in Libya, and particularly in Benghazi in the months before the Benghazi attack. This data was obtained by the US Congress from the State Department. (10) Though the data is labeled as sensitive, it is not classified material.

This data documents in a way that is now public, the perilous environment existing in Libya, providing a graphic description of the armed militias who carry out bombings, murders and kidnappings of government officials and others who try to challenge the lawlessness.

The data demonstrates the details of what the ARB Report acknowledges as “a general backdrop of political violence, assassinations, targeting former regime officials, lawlessness, and an overarching absence of central government authority in eastern Libya.” (11)

The Internet has made possible the publication of a number of investigative accounts of various aspects of the Benghazi Affair. Several of these propose that the CIA and even Chris Stevens were part of a gun running operation, gathering up weapons from Libya and facilitating their shipment to the insurgents fighting against the government in Syria. Some of the articles also propose that the CIA operation in Benghazi helped to send mercenaries from other countries to fight against the government of Syria. (12)

Fox News and a number of associated websites have featured articles which offer such accounts. Often, however, the articles rely on anonymous sources to support their claims.

Rarely are media offering accounts that portray this reality able to present direct evidence to support the narratives they develop.

An important exception is an article that appeared in the Times of London on September 14, 2012. This was three days after Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

The article documents that a ship, the Al Entisar (also written as Intisaar or The Victory in English), sailing under a Libyan flag with a 400 ton cargo, which included SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and some humanitarian supplies, is said to have arrived September 6 at the Turkish Port of Iskenderun.(13)

The captain of the ship, Omar Mousaeeb, a Libyan from Benghazi, was accompanied by 26 Libyans who were on board to help smuggle the shipment from the Turkish Port across the border into Syria. The plan was then to distribute the weapons to insurgents in Syria who were allied with the Muslim Brotherhood.

This account by the Times of London provides specific details about the mechanisms and problems of this Libyan weapons pipeline to the insurgency in Syria. The article describes the conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) over who would get the weapons from the Al Entisar shipment.

“The scale of the shipment and how it should be disbursed, has sparked a row between the FSA and the Muslim Brotherhood, who took control of the shipment when it arrived in Turkey,” writes Sheera Frenkel, the author of the Times of London article.

Though the ship arrived at the port in Turkey on September 6, not all of the cargo had been transported into Syria by September 14, the article notes, though this is over a week after the ship arrived at the port in Turkey. While “more than 80 percent of the ship’s cargo,” the Times of London explains, “had been moved into Syria, Mr. Mousaeeb and a group of Libyans who had arrived with the ship said they were preparing to travel with the final load into Syria to ensure it was being distributed.” Actually their concern appeared to be to whom it was distributed, not how.

The Times of London refers to two Syrian activists with the FSA who complained that infighting within the insurgent ranks had delayed the arrival of the weapons in Syria, “There was widespread talk of Syrian groups who allied themselves with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood movement being given a larger share of the ship’s cargo.” One activist quoted objects that, “The Muslim Brotherhood, through its ties with Turkey, was seizing control of this ship and its cargo.”

While the Times of London does not directly link Chris Stevens or the CIA annex compound to the Al Entisar arms shipment to Turkey, the article does provide an important context for how the conflict over which insurgent group would get weapons from the shipment created a source of significant tension at the very time the attack on the two US compounds in Benghazi took place.

Given the question, “Why Chris Stevens would have traveled to Benghazi to be in this perilous environment on September 11,” an answer which points to some urgent matter which needed his attention, would help to provide the rationale for him to ignore the security considerations against his making such a trip.

Keeping in mind the importance of this shipment of weapons from Benghazi to Turkey, the need to work out the details of the weapons distribution process could very well have provided the motive for Stevens to plan a visit in Benghazi during such a perilous period as the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attack on the US.

By September 11, infighting among the Muslim Brotherhood and other insurgent groups, over who would be given the weapons from the Al Entisar shipment, suggests the likelihood that Turkey’s Consul General in Benghazi and the US Ambassador needed to discuss the conflict over the weapons and the problem of how they should be moved into Syria and distributed among the insurgent groups.

In line with this reasoning, it is not surprising that Chris Stevens had a meeting with Turkey’s Consul General to Benghazi, Ali Sait Akin on September 11 at the Benghazi special mission compound.

The description of the infighting over the Al Entisar shipment to a port in Turkey of weapons for the Syrian insurgency, raises the possibility that the Turkish Consul General to Benghazi and Stevens discussed the conflict over the weapons. As of September 11, there were weapons that had yet to be distributed and smuggled into Syria from the Al Entisar shipment.

On September 10, when Stevens arrived in Benghazi, the shipment of arms had only recently been received at the Turkish port of Iskenderun, and the conflict among the insurgent groups who were to receive the weapons was not yet resolved.

According to documents that Congress received from the State Department, soon after Stevens arrived in Benghazi on September 10, he visited the CIA annex compound for a briefing.

On September 11 he stayed at the special mission compound but had meetings scheduled with someone from the Arabian Gulf Oil Co. (AGOCO), and later in the afternoon with someone from the Al Marfa Shipping and Maritime Services Co. (The names of the individuals were blacked out.) Then he had dinner and discussion with Ali Sait Akin, Turkey’s Consul General to Benghazi.(14)

While there has been no specific information made available by the State Department about the content of the meetings Stevens had on September 10 and 11, Turkey’s role in the shipping of weapons and foreign fighters into Syria to assist the fight against the Syrian government is the subject of numerous articles. The Times of London article describes previous difficulty experienced in trying to ship a cargo of weapons to where they could be safely unloaded and moved to insurgents in Syria. Given this previous experience it is not surprising that it was necessary to have the Turkish government intervene to settle problems that arose with the Al Entisar weapons shipment. It had taken several weeks “to arrange the paperwork for the Turkish port authorities to release the cargo.”(15) The Times of London quoted Suleiman Haari, who worked with Captain Mousaeeb. Haari explained that “Everyone wanted a piece of the ship. Certain groups wanted to get involved and claim the cargo for themselves. It took a long time to work through the logistics.”

This could account for the surprise visit by the then head of the CIA, David Petraeus on September 2 to Ankara. (16) Petraeus arrived in Ankara for what appeared to be talks with the President of Turkey and other Turkish government officials. Were Petraeus’s meetings with Turkish government officials needed to help make the arrangements for the Libyan ship to dock at the port in Turkey and unload the weapons that were to be smuggled across the border into Syria? This is a question Petraeus could answer if he were to testify at a US Congressional hearing again.

In light of the WSJ claim that the special mission compound had been set up to provide diplomatic cover for the CIA operation run out of the Annex, the question is raised as to whether the special mission compound was actually a State Department facility or a CIA facility acting under cover as a State Department operation.

According to the unclassified version of the ARB Report, Chris Stevens had arrived in Benghazi on April 5, 2011, “via a Greek cargo ship at the rebel-held city of Benghazi to re-establish a U.S. presence in Libya.” He had been appointed the US government’s “Special Envoy to the Libyan Transitional National Council” (TNC), acting as an official contact between the insurgents fighting to overthrow the government of Libya and the US government that was aiding them to bring about regime change in Libya. (17) Such an activity is contrary to international law and provisions of the UN charter (Article 2 Sections 1, 4, 7) which prohibit interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. (18)

Stevens’ mission, the Report states, “was to serve as the liaison with the TNC” for a post-Qaddafi government in Libya. The US embassy had been closed in February 2011, and was only reopened on September 22, 2011 with Gene Cretz as the Ambassador.

The ARB Report notes, however, that the CIA had set up the CIA compound in Benghazi in February 2011 soon after the insurgency arose against the Libyan government. This is a confirmation that the US government had put intelligence operatives on the ground in Benghazi just as the insurgency against the Libyan government was getting underway. This is also at least one month before Chris Stevens arrived in Benghazi.

The ARB Report also reveals that Chris Stevens stayed at the CIA Annex from the beginning of June, 2011 until June 21, 2011. Not until June 21 did “he and his security contingent move into what would become the Special Mission Benghazi compound….” According to the ARB Report the special mission compound in Benghazi was set up a few months after the CIA compound. (19)

This puts in perspective why the WSJ article on November 1 says that the special mission compound was established to provide diplomatic cover for the CIA facility, subsequently referred to as “the Annex”. Stevens remained as Special Envoy to the TNC and stayed in Benghazi until November 17, 2011. On May 26, 2012 Stevens arrived in Tripoli to replace Cretz as US Ambassador to Libya.

What was the State Department responsibility for the special mission compound? If its purpose was to provide diplomatic cover for the CIA, then what was the CIA responsibility? These are significant questions. But it is unlikely that such questions will be asked at the public Congressional oversight investigations because questions about the role of the CIA Annex in Benghazi have been declared to be a classified matter.

Though the NYT article, ”U.S. Approved Weapons for Libya Rebels Fell into Jihadis’ Hands,” about the Benghazi affair doesn’t go into detail about what the CIA was doing in Benghazi, it raises a significant issue that is likely to be at the root of why there was an attack on both the special mission compound and the CIA Annex compound.(20) The NYT refers to the concern US government officials involved in the program raise about the problems created by the US government helping to provide weapons to insurgents fighting in Libya and Syria. According to the NYT, what these Islamic militants will do with these weapons worries high level US government national security officials.

While officially, the US government claims it is not providing weapons, the Times of London article about the shipment of weapons from Benghazi to Turkey, provides a striking example of how the US and Turkish governments, both overtly, and covertly, appear to be involved in collecting weapons in Libya and helping to ship them to be used against the Syrian government and people.(21)

The NYT claims that the US government has little control over where these weapons go and the harm they do when used in Libya, Syria, or other conflicts in the region. The NYT reports, “Concerns in Washington soon rose about the groups Qatar was supporting, officials said. A debate over what to do about the weapons shipments dominated at least one meeting of the so-called Deputies Committee, the interagency panel consisting of the second-ranking officials in major agencies involved in national security. ‘There was a lot of concern that Qatar weapons were going to Islamist groups,’ one official recalled.” (22)

These supposed ‘Qatar’ weapons, however, did not originate with Qatar alone. By way of an example, the NYT quotes one US weapons dealer who wanted to sell weapons to the insurgency in Libya during the war against Libya. The NYT describes how he applied to the State Department for a license. “He also sent an e-mail to J. Christopher Stevens, then the special representative to the Libyan rebel Alliance, ” reports the NYT. According to e-mails provided to the NYT by the arms dealer, Marc Turi, Stevens wrote back to Turi that he would “share Mr. Turi’s proposal with colleagues in Washington.” Eventually the weapons dealer was encouraged to communicate with contacts in Qatar.(23)

Such examples help to demonstrate both that there is concern among US government officials in Washington about the US government arming militant Islamists, the very people the US government condemns as “terrorists” in other situations. Also though the weapons pipeline may have on the surface been made to appear unconnected to the US actually supplying the arms that are being distributed by Qatar or Saudi Arabia, in the case of Marc Turi, as one example, the weapons pipeline was arranged for by a license provided by the US government to ship the weapons to Qatar.

Such examples provide the context for how the US government has covertly and overtly been helping to provide the weapons that are then used by those hostile to the US to inflict harm on the Libyan and Syrian people and even on Americans, as those killed in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. This situation, several commentators have noted, is reminiscent to the Iran Contra Affair where the US government entities covertly acted in a way that jeopardized the interests and even the physical well being of US officials and civilians. And it is likely that the actions being taken by US government officials to arm and provide other forms of support for the Libyan and Syrian insurgencies, are contrary to US laws and constitutional obligations.(24)

Such considerations reflect some of the salient concerns raised by a number of online commentators about the Benghazi Affair. One example of many that have been published online in the last few months is the article “Benghazigate: The Cover-up continues” by Bill Shanefeld published at the American Thinker website. The article raises two important questions (25): “(1) The pre-”event” purpose of the compound and its Annex (since these operations probably motivated the perpetrators of the “event”); and (2) Team Obama’s failed policies in North Africa, the Middle East, and Afghanistan.”

The article also refers to some of the many contributions made by other online commentators. These various commentaries help to clarify that the Benghazi affair offers a relatively rare window into the on the ground actions of the US government’s clandestine operations. These actions are the partner to the role the US government is playing in the UN Security Council and the UN in general in its efforts to turn the UN into a partner in its CIA and NATO activities. The Benghazi Affair is an important situation and the question remains as to whether the illegal activities of the US government acting contrary to the obligations of the UN Charter in Libya and more recently Syria will come to light.

Notes

1. U.S. State Department Public Accountability Board Report

http://www.state.gov...tion/202446.pdf

2.Margaret Coker, Adam Entous, Siobhan Gorman, Margaret Coker, ”CIA

Takes Heat for Role in Libya,” WSJ, November 1, 2012.

http://online.wsj.co...3621061838.html

3. Dana Milbanks, “Letting Us in on a Secret,” Washington Post,

October 10, 2012,

http://www.washingto...b2a7_print.html

4.Helene and Eric Schmidt, Michael S Schmidt, “Deadly Attack In Libya

was Major Blow to CIA Efforts,” New York Times, September 23, 2012.

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

5. Margaret Coker, Adam Entous, Siobhan Gorman, Margaret Coker, ”CIA

Takes Heat for Role in Libya,” WSJ, November 1, 2012.

http://online.wsj.co...3621061838.html

6.Nancy A. Youssef, “Libyans, diplomats: CIA’s Benghazi station a

secret – and quickly repaired,” McClatchy Newspapers, November 12,

2012.

http://www.mcclatchy...s-benghazi.html

7. Catherine Herridge, “CIA moved swiftly to scrub, abandon Libya

facility after attack, source says,” Fox News, December 5, 2012.

http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2IE8icKIQ

8. “The Fog of Benghazi,” Opinion Piece, WSJ, Nov. 3, 2012

http://online.wsj.co...2465153472.html

9. Letter from Representative Issa and Representative Chaffetz to

President Obama, October 19, 2012

http://oversight.hou...o-President.pdf

10. The Oversight Committee’s letter was accompanied by 166 pages of

documents and photos.

http://oversight.hou...ization-effort/

documents

http://1.usa.gov/S89qG7

11. U.S. State Department Public Accountability Board Report

http://www.state.gov...tion/202446.pdf

12. See for example, ”Interview with Clare M. Lopez”

http://goldandguns.w...zi-gun-running/

13. Sheera Frenkel, “Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest

shipload arrives from Libya; Turkey,” Times (London), September 14,

2012, p. 23

14. Schedule of Chris Stevens activities on September 10 and September 14.

Included in data sent to President Obama by Issa and Chaffetz

15. Sheeran Frenkel, “Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest

shipload arrives from Libya; Turkey,” Times (London), September 14,

2012, p. 23

16. “CIA chief Petraeus pays surprise visit to Turkey,” Hurriyet Daily

News, September 2, 2012

http://www.hurriyetd...D=238&nid=29175

J. Millard Burr, “The Benghazi Attack: Some Thoughts,” Economic

Warfare Institute Blog, Oct 24, 2012.

http://econwarfare.o...cle.cfm?id=5109

17. U.S. State Department Public Accountability Board Report

http://www.state.gov...tion/202446.pdf

18. Dr. Curtis Doebbler, “It is illegal to support rebels fighting a

legitimate government,” Note from Sibialiria.org,

http://syria360.word...ernational-law/

19. U.S. State Department Public Accountability Board Report

http://www.state.gov...tion/202446.pdf

Margaret Coker, Adam Entous, Siobhan Gorman, Margaret Coker, ”CIA

Takes Heat for Role in Libya,” WSJ, November 1, 2012.

http://online.wsj.co...3621061838.html

20. Mark Mazzetti, James Risen, Michael S Schmidt, ”U.S. Approved Arms

for Libya Rebels Fell into Jihadis’ Hands,” NYT, December 5, 2012.

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

21. Sheera Frenkel, “Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest

shipload arrives from Libya; Turkey,” Times ( London), September 14,

2012, p. 23

Also see other relevant articles such as:

Christina Lamb, “Covert US Plan to Arm Rebels,” The Sunday Times

(London), December 9, 2012, p. 1,2

Franklin Lamb, “Flooding Syria with Foreign Arms: A View from

Damascus”, Foreign Policy Journal, Nov. 5, 2012.

http://www.foreignpo...-from-damascus/

J. Millard Burr, “You Can Kiss Petraeus Goodbye,” End Time News, Nov. 5, 2012

http://endtimesnews....nning-factions/

22. Mark Mazzetti, James Risen, Michael S Schmidt, ”U.S. Approved Arms

for Libya Rebels Fell into Jihadis’ Hands,” NYT, December 5, 2012.

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

23. Mark Mazzetti, James Risen, Michael S Schmidt, ”U.S. Approved Arms

for Libya Rebels Fell into Jihadis’ Hands,” NYT, December 5, 2012.

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

24. Michael Kelley, “The CIA’s Benghazi Operation May Have Violated

International Law,” Nov. 5, 2012

http://endtimesnews....nning-factions/

Oona A. Hathaway, Elizabeth Nielsen, Chelsea Purvis, Saurabh Sanghvi,

and Sara Solow, “ARMS TRAFFICKING: THE INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC

LEGAL FRAMEWORK.,” Yale Law School Report. Posted Nov. 15, 2011.

http://www.law.yale....Trafficking.pdf

25. Bill Shanefeld, “Benghazigate the cover-up continues.” American

Thinker, January 9, 2013.

http://www.americant..._continues.html

A version of this article appears on my netizenblog at

http://blogs.taz.de/...fair-cia-annex/

By Ronda Hauben

Global Research, January 28, 2013

blogs.taz.de/netizenblog

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Edited January 29, 2013 by Steven Gaal

Len Colby · January 29, 2013

Can you tell us succinctly what in the absurdly large wall of text above supports the notion the MB are pawns of Western intel.?

Steven Gaal · January 31, 2013

CURRENT CONNECTIONS WESTERN INTELL (POSTS #1,#15)

As the New York Times reported in June of 2012, “CIA officers are operating secretly in Southern Turkey helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms…by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood.”[4]

=========

http://www.abeldange...erhood-uks.html (post #15)

=========

HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS MI6/CIA (POST #1)(also POSTS #5,#7,#15)

As explained in the Mother Jones article entitled What is the Muslim Brotherhood and Will It Take Over Egypt?, the author explains that, “The Muslim Brotherhood served as a battering ram against nationalists and communists, despite the Brothers’ Islam-based anti-imperialism, the group often ended up making common cause with the colonial British. It functioned as an intelligence agency, infiltrating left-wing and nationalist groups.”[6] This indisputable fact, that the Muslim Brotherhood functioned, even its early days, as a de facto arm of Western intelligence, is critical to understanding its development and current political power.

However, there are those who argue that, despite this “coincidence” of objectives and agendas, the Muslim Brotherhood could never be tied directly to the intelligence community. However, as Robert Dreyfuss, author of the Mother Jones article clearly points out, there is ample evidence tying the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood directly to the CIA:

REDUX CURRENT CONNECTIONS (POST #7)

President Obama at al-Azhar University Cairo, June, 2009 “A New Beginning” Speech

With the election of President Obama in November 2008 and his Muslim Outreach initiative, exemplified by his Cairo “A New Beginnings Speech” at al Azhar University, the Obama administration extended a welcome to the MB. Investor’s Business Daily noted the ensuing chronology of events, punctuated by the overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt during the Arab Spring of 2011 that swept the heartland of the Muslim ummah.

2009: The White House invites ISNA’s president to President Obama’s inauguration ceremonies, even though the Justice Department just two years earlier had blacklisted the Brotherhood affiliate as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land trial — the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history.

2009: Obama delivers his Cairo speech to Muslims, infuriating the Mubarak regime by inviting Brotherhood leaders to attend.

2009: The White House dispatches top presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett to give the keynote speech at ISNA’s annual convention.

2009: Obama appoints a Brotherhood-tied Islamist — Rashad Hussain — as U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which strongly supports the Brotherhood.

2010: Hussain meets with the Brotherhood’s grand mufti in Egypt.

2011: White House sends intelligence czar James Clapper to Capitol Hill to whitewash the Brotherhood’s extremism. Clapper testifies the group is a moderate, “largely secular” organization.

2011: The Brotherhood’s spiritual leader — Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi — is given a hero’s welcome in Tahrir Square, where he raises the banner of jihad. Qaradawi, exiled from Egypt for 30 years, had been calling for “days of rage” before the rioting in Egypt. Before Obama’s Cairo speech, Qaradawi wrote an open letter to the President arguing [islamic] terrorism is a direct response to U.S. foreign policy.

2011: The Brotherhood vows to tear up Egypt’s 30-year peace treaty with Israel. Since Mubarak’s fall, it has worked to formally reestablish Cairo’s ties with Hamas and Hezbollah.

2011: Obama gives Mideast speech demanding Israel relinquish land to Palestinians.

2011: White House security adviser gives friendly speech at Washington-area mosque headed by ISNA’s new president.

2011: Justice Department pulls plug on further prosecution of Muslim Brotherhood front groups identified as collaborators in conspiracy to funnel millions to Hamas.

========= CURRENT CONNECTION (POST #17) TURKEY

“There was widespread talk of Syrian groups who allied themselves with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood movement being given a larger share of the ship’s cargo.” One activist quoted objects that, “The Muslim Brotherhood, through its ties with Turkey, was seizing control of this ship and its cargo.”

=== Since Turkey a total Western tool....MB western assets. QUESTION WHY DO SYRIAN GROUPS THINK MB WOULD GET LARGEST SHARE WEAPONS ??

ANSWER: THEY (SYRIAN REBELS) KNOW MB IS ALLIED WITH WESTERN INTELL.

Len Colby · January 31, 2013

Since you've been reduced to repeating yourself I'll just repost my replies which you've yet to respond to.

The US backed Stalin and co-operated with Tito, Mao and Ho during WWII, that doesn't mean they were American tools, the MB initially backed Nasser while the US never did, they initially backed Sadat at a time when the US was hostile to him, they turned against him at the same time the US turned toward him, after he approached Israel, they opposed Mubarak who was a close US ally until shortly before his fall.

I'm no fan of the MB but the notion they are CIA tools is absurd, like a typical crank the author above ignored all the evidence that contradicts his theory. Though they turned against Nasser they initially backed him and they backed Sadat until he started negotiating a peace treaty with Israel after which they adamantly opposed him. If one actually reads Draitser'a sources one will see they do NOT back his theory

========= CURRENT CONNECTION (POST #17) TURKEY
“There was widespread talk of Syrian groups who allied themselves with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood movement being given a larger share of the ship’s cargo.” One activist quoted objects that, “The Muslim Brotherhood, through its ties with Turkey, was seizing control of this ship and its cargo.”

=== Since Turkey a total Western tool....MB western assets. QUESTION WHY DO SYRIAN GROUPS THINK MB WOULD GET LARGEST SHARE WEAPONS ??

ANSWER: THEY (SYRIAN REBELS) KNOW MB IS ALLIED WITH WESTERN INTELL

Got evidence "Turkey a total Western tool"? They aren't exactly pro-Israel. Why most of the weapons going to to MB groups? If true I can see several reasons 1) they are close to the Turkish gov't, 2) they are among the biggest best organized groups, 3) they other well organized groups are more radical.

Steven Gaal · February 1, 2013

Got evidence "Turkey a total Western tool"? They aren't exactly pro-Israel. // END Colby

DOUBLE WORDS OF DAY. (used in sentence)

It is the height of naivety to blindly accept the anti-west posturing of the Turkey government.

Naivety (or naïvety, naïveté, etc.), is the state of being naive—having or showing a lack of experience, understanding or sophistication.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

pos·turing

a. A position of the body or of body parts: a sitting posture.

b. An attitude; a pose: assumed a posture of angry defiance.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Turkey: NATO’s Policeman in the Middle East

NATO’s Arm, the Neo-Ottomans

By Mostafa Zein

Global Research, August 15, 2011

Dar Al-Hayat 15 August 2011

===========================================

Turkey does not get its reputation from the history of its empire, despite the theories of its Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, and despite the attempt to renew Ottomanism and return to the country’s roots and to its neighborhood, after the illusion of exile to Europe. Neither does it get its reputation from the history of its army, which ruled it and upheld “its secularism and its democracy” until the Justice and Development Party (AKP – Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi) came to power, nor from oppressing Kurds and forbidding them from speaking their language.

Turkey gets its reputation and its power from being the second military force in the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO). In other words, Turkey is the arm of the Europeans and the Americans in the Middle East, not to say the policeman entrusted with guarding Western interests, without being accepted into the European Union because of its ancient and modern Islamic history. And it is well known that the United States has always been exerting pressures on the EU in favor of Ankara, and that France and Germany were those most opposed to its entry into the Union.

The Middle East’s policeman had also not been accepted in the region when the military controlled its political fate, and had adopted a path opposed to Arab causes, with the Palestinian Cause at their forefront. In fact, Turkey’s military went as far as sealing a strategic alliance with the Hebrew state in order to confront any Arab attempt to rise up.

Such recent history could not be erased by the leader of the ruling AKP party Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. His stances on Shimon Peres at the Davos forum, as well as his stance on the Gaza war, were only attempts at distinguishing himself from the Europeans and the Americans in order to prove that he had a regional role to play, without this meaning to depart from the interests of both, especially when it comes to issues that have a direct impact on his own domestic situation, such as his stance on the Iraq war.

Based on such a stance, Erdoğan started, from the first day of the events in Syria, behaving on the basis that this was an “internal Turkish matter”. He thus went on to exercise his policies on this basis. He hosted conferences for the Syrian opposition and adopted its slogans. Moreover, he contributed to shaping an Arab and international public opinion opposed to the Syrian regime, making use of the presence of thosee displaced from Jisr Al-Shughur on Turkish soil near the Syrian border.

Erdoğan was coordinating each of the steps he was taking with the United States and Europe, believing that the Syrian regime was doomed to fall, wagering on playing a role in shaping another regime that would succeed that of Assad, and presenting himself as a model of “democratic” Islamists acceptable to the West. And after the events developed and reached what they have in Syria, he was systematically used by the Americans to convey messages to Assad – messages that could be summed up as “reform now or leave”. He is well aware that such a condition cannot be fulfilled. The violence will not stop, because it has gone beyond the phase of confrontation between security forces and peaceful protesters to one between armed fighters whom Damascus calls “terrorists” and the army. Another reason is that reform “now” is not possible in Syria, nor in any other country. Moreover, the promises made by Assad and the laws he is drafting are not being accepted by the opposition nor by Western countries, which considered them to be “provocation”, as French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said.

It is not true that Davutoğlu did not convey an American message to Assad. And it is not true that the warning directed at him by Erdoğan of “reform within 15 days or face dire consequences” was a warning from Ankara alone. Rather, such a warning sums up the stances of the Europeans and the Americans, and those of the Arabs as well, however with a Turkish Islamic eloquence which both the West and the East understand. Moreover, the United States would prefer to arrive at consensus by “the international community, including Arab countries”, for many reasons, most importantly the fact that it does not want to take decisions “unilaterally”. Indeed, the US has learned from its experience in Iraq. And here it is waging the war in Libya with NATO forces and the support of some Arab countries, without bearing the blame alone for killing civilians and for the failure of the war to topple Gaddafi and spread democracy.

Turkey is preparing itself to lead change in Syria and in the Middle East, believing itself to be qualified to do so. Indeed, it is acceptable for both the Muslim World and the West, and its relations with Israel no longer represent an obstacle after “the threat of the Hebrew state has gone”, in addition to the fact that its situation is ideal for confronting Iran and its influence.

Turkey has returned to the region through the Syrian gateway, and it has the ambition of consecrating its leadership status by changing a regime that does not agree with its “democratic Islamism”, nor with its role as NATO’s arm. As for the legitimate and urgent demands of Syrians, neither Erdoğan, nor the United States, nor Europe will fulfill them.

###################################

Turkey: NATO’s Neo-Ottoman Spearhead in the Middle East

By Rick Rozoff

Global Research, August 08, 2012

Stop NATO 8 August 2012

Turkey already has troops in Syria and has threatened military action to protect the site they guard.

A 1921 agreement between Ottoman Turkey and France (the Treaty of Ankara), the latter at the time the colonial administrator of Syria, guaranteed Turkey the right to station military personnel at the mausoleum of Suleyman Shah (Süleyman Şah), the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire, Osman I (Osman Bey).

Turkey considers the area adjacent to the tomb to be its, and not Syria’s, sovereign territory and late last month reinforced its 15-troop contingent there.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated the following in an interview televised on August 5: “The tomb of Süleyman Şah and the land surrounding it is our territory. We cannot ignore any unfavorable act against that monument, as it would be an attack on our territory, as well as an attack on NATO land. Everyone knows his duty, and will continue to do what is necessary.” The gravesite of a Seljuk sultan who was reputed to have drowned in the Euphrates River while on a campaign of conquest is now proclaimed a NATO outpost in Syria.

If confirmation was required that a neo-Ottoman Turkey is determined to reassert the influence and authority in Mesopotamia it gained 700 years before and lost a century ago and, moreover, that it was doing so as part of a campaign by self-christened global NATO to expand into the Arab world, the Turkish head of state’s threat to militarily intervene in Syria with the support of its 27 NATO allies should provide it.

Especially as the above complements and reinforces the roles of the U.S. and NATO in providing military assistance to Ankara in its current war of attrition against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in Turkey and Iraq, with Syria soon to follow as last week Turkey deployed troops, tanks, other armored vehicles and missile batteries to within two kilometers of the Syrian border for war games. Last week a retired Turkish official compared the current anti-Kurdish offensive to the Sri Lankan military’s final onslaught against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) three years ago, ending the 25-year-long war against the latter with its complete annihilation.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s trip to Colombia in April was designed to achieve the same result in the 48-year joint Colombian-U.S. counterinsurgency war against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).In the current era of international lawlessness, only NATO states and American clients like Colombia and Israel are permitted to conduct military strikes and incursions into other nations and to wage wars of extermination against opponents.

In the same interview cited above, Turkey’s Erdogan asserted the right to continue launching military strikes against Kurdish targets in neighboring countries, stating, “It should be known that as long as the region remains a source of threat for Turkey we will continue staging operations wherever it is needed.”

Turkish Interior Minister Idris Naim Sahin recently claimed that his nation’s armed forces had killed 130 suspected PKK members and supporters in Hakkari province, which borders Iran and Iraq.

Specifically in respect to military attacks inside Syria, Erdogan stated: “One cannot rule that out. We have three brigades along the border currently conducting maneuvers there. And we cannot remain patient in the face of a mistake that can be made there.”

He also stated, in reference to fighting in the Syrian city of Aleppo, “I believe the Assad regime draws to its end with each passing day” and criticized Iran’s support, which is to say its recognition, of the Syrian government. Iran is the inevitable secondary target of actions directed by Turkey and its NATO and Persian Gulf Arab allies against Syria and will be struck through Iraq also.

In the same interview the Turkish head of state identified a third target: Iraq. He condemned the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, declaring it illegitimate and urging it be overthrown. In what portends confrontation and possible conflict with Iran and Syria as well by exploiting the PKK issue, he added:

“Even though we should be countries that share the same values, for us to be in such rigor [conflict?] only makes the terrorist organization more powerful. This leads us to approach each other with suspicion.”

In the process he criticized Iran as well:

“It is not possible to accept Iran’s stance [of supporting the Iraqi government]. We conveyed this to them at the highest level of talks. We said to them, ‘Look, this has been a source of disturbance in the region.’”

His comments occurred after the Iraqi government criticized the visit of Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu to the cities of Kirkuk and Irbil in the Kurdistan Regional Government-controlled north of Iraq in part to secure oil and natural gas deals with the regime of Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdish autonomous region. Irbil is the region’s capital, but Kirkuk is claimed by Iraq’s central government too. Davutoglu’s trip to Kirkuk was the first by a Turkish foreign minister since 1937.

On August 7 Hurriyet Daily News columnist Murat Yetkin offered this perspective on the matter:

“Because Iraq [is] at risk of falling apart. Massoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in the north of the country, which borders Turkey, has started to sign oil and gas deals with energy giants despite the objection of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad, who refuses to approve a hydrocarbons law to regulate the sharing of oil and gas income. The energy giants have an interest in supplying more oil and gas that is not controlled or is less controlled by Russia and Iran to Western markets; Turkey provides an option under NATO protection for both Iraqi Kurdish and Azeri resources to be transferred further west. The presence of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in the KRG region and its armed campaign is, of course, a pain in the neck and a big obstacle to greater cooperation…”

On July 26 the same commentator claimed that “There are already political and economic actors trying to push Turkey to claim some energy-rich parts of Iraq and Syria, which would mean a regime change such as a federated Turkey, with Kurdish and possibly Arabic members,” which, he conceded, “could drag the whole region into a chain reaction of wars.”

Part of Turkey’s justification for involvement in northern Iraq, and another pretext for potential military intervention, is the protection of their ethnic kin, the Turkmen, in the country.

However, since the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq in 2003 the true indigenous people of the north, the Assyrians, have been decimated by attacks from Barzani’s peshmergas and Saudi-backed Wahhabi extremists without Turkey, or the West, being in the least degree concerned. Nine years ago there were an estimated 1.5 million Assyrian and other Christians in Iraq; now there under 500,000. Churches have been destroyed and in 2008 the Chaldean Catholic Archeparch of Mosul, Archbishop Mar Paulos Faraj Rahho, was kidnapped and murdered in the northern Iraqi city where he resided. Other religious minorities – Mandeans, Sabeans and Yezidis – have suffered the same fate. Shiites are regularly targeted by Wahhabi death squads.

The Barzani domain in the north has become a Turkish foothold inside the country, which has aided Ankara by preventing the PKK from operating on its territory and suppressing its sympathizers. It is also a dependable Sunni ally for Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies in efforts to weaken the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. The al-Maliki administration condemned last week’s visit by the Turkish foreign minister to the Kurdish-dominated north as a violation of Iraq’s constitution and national sovereignty as Davutoglu had neither requested nor obtained permission to enter Kirkuk.

Iraq’s Foreign Ministry handed the Turkish chargé d’affaires in Baghdad a harshly-worded statement and the Turkish Foreign Minister in response summoned the Iraqi ambassador to lodge a protest.

With Turkish threats against Iraq and Syria, and by inevitable implication Iran, mounting, on August 6 the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Seyed Hassan Firuzabadi, warned that:

“Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey are responsible for blood being shed on Syrian soil.

“This is not an appropriate precedent, that neighboring countries of Syria contribute to the belligerent purposes of…the United States. If these countries have accepted such a precedent, they must be aware that after Syria, it will be the turn of Turkey and other countries.

He added that Iran fears “Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar have become victims of promoting the terrorism of al-Qaeda and we warn our friends about this.”

On the same day Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian stated, “There is a question that when al-Qaeda plays an active role in Syrian terrorism and violence, why the US and other countries back the shipment of heavy and semi-heavy weapons to the country?”

Kazem Jalali, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said that “Turkey and those who support and arm terrorists” in Syria were responsible for the safety of 48 Iranians kidnapped in the country on August 4.

The following day the Turkish press reported that Osman Karahan, a Turkish lawyer who defended a suspected top-level al-Qaeda operative accused of participating in deadly bomb attacks in Istanbul in November of 2003 was killed in Aleppo fighting with anti-government forces. In 2006 the Turkish government charged Karahan with aiding and abetting al-Qaeda.

Syria has announced that it captured several Turkish and Saudi military officers in Aleppo. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have established a base in the Turkish city of Adana, 60 miles from the Syrian border, to supply weapons and training to Syrian rebels for cross-border attacks.

The Turkish government is providing bases, training and advisers for al-Qaeda and other participants in the insurrection against the Syrian government at the same time that it is threatening Syria, Iraq and Iran over the “terrorist” Kurdistan Workers’ Party.

In bordering Iran, Iraq and Syria, Turkey provides NATO – and through NATO the Pentagon – direct access to those three nations. The final stage in the West’s Greater Missile East Initiative is now well underway, as is a new redivision of the Levant modeled after the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Steven Gaal

Len Colby · February 2, 2013

If you want to do any better than preaching to than cheap sarcasm and obscure bloggers whose only sources are each other and Iranian gov't officials.

Steven Gaal · February 2, 2013

If you want to do any better than preaching to than cheap sarcasm and obscure bloggers whose only sources are each other and Iranian gov't officials. // END COLBY

==========================================================

Oh......an Iranian said it. It must be lie and he must be evil. The Iranians they lie day and night ,dont they ?

AH ...how do we stop these lies ??

I know.....BOMB IRAN .

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Len Colby · February 2, 2013

If you want to do any better than preaching to than cheap sarcasm and obscure bloggers whose only sources are each other and Iranian gov't officials. // END COLBY

==========================================================

Oh......an Iranian said it. It must be lie and he must be evil. The Iranians they lie day and night ,dont they ?

AH ...how do we stop these lies ??

I know.....BOMB IRAN .

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

You love to twist things don't you? No, since the Iranian gov't is a partisan in the Syrian Civil War any pronouncements must treated with skepticism, would believe something about the conflict stated by a USG official? If not by YOUR “logic” you must be a self-hating American.

Steven Gaal · February 3, 2013

The argument that the CIA/MI6 back the MB is not made out of 'whole cloth' , but a real issue. Many Egyptians feel/think this way.

I live next to a Coptic Church and interact with Egyptians. BTW is a , (Colby) " a self-hating American " similar to a expatriot ?

========================================

http://www.breitbart...Hamas-Supporter

http://www.nybooks.c...agination=false

Muslim Brotherhoodwww.historycommons.org

1954-1970: CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood Ally to Oppose Egyptian President Nasser ... MI6 and the CIA jointly hatch plans for his assassination. .... to be fronts to fund the Abu Sayyaf and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) militant groups: ...

see http://www.bulatlat.com/news/3-7/3-7-ciaabbu.html

Edited February 3, 2013 by Steven Gaal

Len Colby · February 3, 2013

The argument that the CIA/MI6 back the MB is not made out of 'whole cloth' , but a real issue. Many Egyptians feel/think this way.

I live next to a Coptic Church and interact with Egyptians. BTW is a , (Colby) " a self-hating American " similar to a expatriot ?

========================================

Well if some of your neighbors think this is the case it must be true, were any of them involved in that video?

http://www.breitbart...Hamas-Supporter

Oh yes the every reliable Breitbart site, whose principle sources are other articles on the site. I did see when they alleged let alone produced evidence the MB was a US tool

http://www.nybooks.c...agination=false

Did you bother to read beyond the title Johnson (who didn't provide any citations) wrote, "And if we look to history, we can see a familiar pattern: each time, US leaders have decided that the Brotherhood could be useful and tried to bend it to America’s goals, and each time, maybe not surprisingly, the only party that clearly has benefited has been the Brotherhood."

Muslim Brotherhoodwww.historycommons.org
1954-1970: CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood Ally to Oppose Egyptian President Nasser ... MI6 and the CIA jointly hatch plans for his assassination. .... to be fronts to fund the Abu Sayyaf and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) militant groups: ..

.

As already pointed out an over simplification at first the MB backed Nasser and they turned against Sadat when he made peace with Israel.

see http://www.bulatlat....-7-ciaabbu.html

An obscure blog with no citations, how compelling!

Steven Gaal · February 3, 2013

Follow the money.

http://www.thedailyb...nomic-pact.html

################################

Muslim Brotherhood group to ‘connect all U.S. schools.’ Partners with State, Education departments on international initiative

January 30, 2013

Aaron Klein 1/24/2013 Source …..

A Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization has partnered with the U.S. Department of Education and the State Department to facilitate an online program aiming to connect all U.S. schools with classrooms abroad by 2016.

Vartan Gregorian, a board member of the organization in question, the Qatar Foundation International, was appointed in 2009 to President Obama’s White House Fellowships Commission.

WND previously exposed how Gregorian served as a point man in granting $49.2 million in start up capital to an education-reform project founded by Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers and chaired by Obama.

Documentation shows Gregorian was central in Ayers’ recruitment of Obama to serve as the first chairman of the project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge – a job in which Obama worked closely on a regular basis with Ayers.

Obama also later touted his job at the project as qualifying him to run for public office, as WND previously reported.

Connecting schools to fulfil Obama pledge to Arab world

The Qatar Foundation International, or QFI, in 2011 partnered with the Department of State and the U.S. Department of Education to facilitate matchmaking between classrooms in the U.S. and international schools through something called the “Connect All Schools” project.

QFI, funded by the Qatari government, explains on its website the online initiative was founded in response to Obama’s call to “create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo,” during his June 2009 speech to the Arab world from Cairo, Egypt.

QFI relates how more than 100 U.S. schools and organizations have already connected on the interactive website, www.connectallschools.org.

The stated goal of the online intiative is to “connect every school in the US with the world by 2016.”

This is not the QFI’s first foray into the U.S. education system.

WND reported last May how the Qatar-based foundation awarded “Curriculum Grants” to seven U.S. schools and language organizations to “develop comprehensive and innovative curricula and teaching materials to be used in any Arabic language classroom.”

QFI, based in Washington, D.C., is the U.S. branch of the Qatar Foundation, founded in 1995 by Qatar’s ruling emir, Sheikha Hind bint Hamad Al Thani.

Thani is still the group’s vice-chairman, while his wife, Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, chairs the organization’s board.

Thani also launched Al Jazeera in 1996 and served as the television network’s chairman.

The Qatar foundation is close to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Last January, it launched the Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics under the guidance of Tariq Ramadan, who serves as the center’s director.

Ramadan is the grandson of the notorious founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al Banna. Ramadan was banned from the U.S. until 2010 when the Obama administration issued him a visa to give a lecture at a New York school.

QFI, meanwhile, named several institutions after Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Many regard Qaradawi as the de facto spiritual leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

The foundation instituted the Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi Scholarships and in 2009 established a research center named the Qaradawi Center for Islamic Moderation and Renewal.

Qaradawi has personally attended scores of foundation events, including conferences at which he served as a keynote speaker.

Qaradawi achieved star status because of his regular sermons and interviews on Al Jazeera.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism documents how Qardawi openly permitted the killing of American troops in Iraq and praised the “heroic deeds” of “Hamas, Jihad, Al-Aqsa Brigades and others.”

################################

How the World Really Works, Pt. 1: The MI6 Model

January 30, 2013

The present book under analysis.

By: Jay

For those who enjoy the subject matter in my analysis, Stephen Dorril’s MI6 is often referenced, recommended and cited as a prime example of real-world intrigue. It’s functions as a window into how the West has operated geo-politically the last one hundred years, during the two great wars, the Cold War, and into the modern era of the “war on terrorism” so-called. The book was published in 2002, so it’s also not that out of date, and since its publication, Mark Curtis’ 2010 Secret Affairs has also been published vindicating much of Dorril’s analysis. Dorril’s book can be seen as a lengthier, massive version of the material in Curtis’ book, with Secret Affairs focusing on the West’s utilization of radical Islam. Curtis is also a former LSE graduate and Royal Institute research fellow. Dorril is also a professor and intelligence researcher, as well as a BBC consultant. The point being, neither of these authors are “conspiratorial” in their approach. While both might be said to be probably somewhat “left” in their analysis, the presentation in both are attempts at factual analysis.

The purpose of this article? To shut the mouths of the countless idiots and lazy intellectuals that sit back offering endless criticism and don’t read or know about any of this. Do I really care? No, but it’s fun to make mincemeat of the pseudo-intellectuals that sit back as armchair philosophers and critics that don’t read jack xxxx about jack xxxx, but feel the need to correct me in every possible way. You see, it’s “bad” to read books on a multitude of subjects – it’s bad to be interested in geo-politics. What you’re supposed to do is get married, get screwed over by your fat wife, then get screwed by some vulturous corporation after 40 years of servile servitude, and then proceed to your early grave through orderly euthanasia by the stategod, should you be allowed to live that long, after all your cancer-causing vaccines, Soviet-fluoridated water and GMO foods. I’ll gladly take the gadfly mantle of “failure” by this ridiculous “society.” When this all converts to the automatic technocratic technocracy, what some boomer thinks in 2012 will be on no one’s mind, other than for a good laugh. To other detractors and critics who complain that this blog is not written for a mass audience, no it isn’t. This is supposed to be the “real world” isn’t it? Grow up and read a book.

But back to the point: what’s the really cool xxxx in Dorril’s book that outlines how the world really works? Well, I’m going to tell you, and in the process you’ll see why I chose to write my (now derailed) master’s thesis on Ian Fleming and MI6. Keep in mind too that this book is almost a thousand pages, so unpacking all the golden nuggets of admissions and insights in this book is no small task. I haven’t finished it yet, but after a few hundred pages, I’m already inundated with more information than I know what to do with. I suppose that’s why this book is 900 pages. I sat here planning and plotting an article, but I think the best way to approach it is just to write an article listing the fascinating stuff I’ve found so far. I would like to note as well that my purpose here is not to accuse MI6 of being some super evil thing: this is an objective analysis of how the world works. This is not a moralistic leftist treatise.

To begin with, in regard to Bond and the thesis I was writing, we read as follows:

“The modern conception of the world of secret intelligence services and assassinations derives partly from the fictionalised activities of James Bond. The licensed-to-kill operative is the model for the secret service agent of the public’s imagination. While this is fantasy, the former Naval Intelligence and one-time MI6 asset Ian Fleming based the plots and details of for his 007 books on his own life and information he picked up during his career in the secret world. However fantastic the story, there is always an element of truth in Bond.

=======

The World is not Enough.

In Casino Royale, Bond earns his double-O designation – his license to kill – by shooting a Japanese cipher expert at Rockefeller Center in New York. In June 1941, Fleming had visited the United States to see how an offshoot of MI6, The British Security Co-ordination (BSC), operated in the Americas. Fleming was shown around the intelligence complex by the ‘Quiet Canadian,’ Sir William Stephenson, head of the BSC. Below Stephenson’s spacious office was the Japanese Consular Office, occupied by a cipher expert who was transmitting coded messages back to Tokyo. He was not assassinated, but Fleming did witness the burglary of the office and out of this grew the adventure that would find its way into Casino Royale….It may be that Fleming was let into the secret that Stephenson was running an assassination squad.” MI6, pg. 610.

Those two paragraphs alone are fascinating and explain why I would have been interested in a thesis on Bond and Fleming. The secret world is very real, and most definitely operates in a “hidden in plain sight” fashion. However, in understanding Bond, it is of crucial import to understand the Cold War, which is the setting for much of Dorril’s book and the raison d’etre for the “great game.” Dorril explains, “Little changes in the intelligence world, and today MI6 officers use the Baltic states as a staging post for missions into Russia. The former southern states of the old Soviet Union are once again an arena for the ‘Great Game’ and oilmen operating under cover of the intelligence services…The dream of rolling back the Soviet Empire was never more than a dream and, in reality, a nightmare.” (Ibid., 164).

So according to Dorril, we are still operating in a world where the ‘Great Game’ is afoot in the East versus West dialectic. In regard to the Cold War and the setting for the famous Kim Philby incident of the Soviet penetration of MI5, we read of Dick White, who took over MI5 in the 1950s after fear that “Syria was headed irreversibly toward becoming a Soviet satellite” (Ibid., pg. 621):

“The British ambassador in Damascus, John Gardener, was alarmed that the head of the new government [in Iraq], Nationalist Party politician Sabri el-Aasali, under pressure from Ba’ath and left-wing army officers led by Col. Mustafa Hamdun and head of security, Capt. Hamid Sarraj, waned to create an Egyptian-Syrian union. Gardener intended to stifle it and stiffen the pro-Iraqi elements by providing funds to officers of the anti-left Arab Liberation Party, so they could cooperate with the politicians Michael Ilyan and Jallal ul Sayid, an MI6 agent working in the Ba’ath Party. Support was also sought from the tribes on the Syrian Iraq border from the Muslim Brotherhood, which had been founded before the war by the writer, traveller and member of MI6′s pre-war Section D, Freya Stark.” (Ibid., pg 622).

What an amazing admission, which is lost on so many in modernity’s mind controlled morass. The Muslim Brotherhood, as anyone who reads a few books in intelligence knows, was founded by British Intelligence. Of course it was. But the modern West still operates under the delusion and psy op that radical Islam is against the West. It is, because it is run by the West, as we now know openly in the western mainstream media with Benghazi, Syria and now Algeria. Dorril goes on to mention MI6 operatives art work in Malta and Cyprus, as I’ve mentioned before (pg. 623). So here we have the implied usage of false flag terrorism and intelligence front parties.

The cartoonish Muslim pawns.

Dorril goes on to mention the Anglo-American establishment and the Bilderberg Group:

“When the influential Bilderberg Group met in February of 1957 at St Simon, to discuss the agenda simply called the ‘Middle East,’ ‘sparks flew.’ Intended to heal the transatlantic rift in the wake of the recent debacle, which was threatening the West’s position in the Middle East, the British and French ‘almost came to blows over the Suez’ with American participants….Their talks with Allen Dulles, the new liaison officer in London, Cleveland Cram, and the chief of operations, Richard Helms, largely centered on the Middle East, where Americans wanted the British to keep their bases as an assistance ot future Anglo-American partnership.” (Ibid., pg. 651)

I thought there was no Bilderberg Group and that there is no Anglo-American establishment? We will pick up in Part 2 with more insights and admissions.

============ MORE TO COME +++

Edited February 3, 2013 by Steven Gaal

Len Colby · February 3, 2013

Follow the money.

http://www.thedailyb...nomic-pact.html

################################

OMG! Morsi wants to continue Egypt's profitable textile sales to Israel at a time when the country's main industry, tourism, is at a virtual stand still and few if any new foreign investments are being made. That settles it he must be a tool of the CIA!

Muslim Brotherhood group to ‘connect all U.S. schools.’ Partners with State, Education departments on international initiative
January 30, 2013

Aaron Klein 1/24/2013 Source …..

A Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization has partnered with the U.S. Department of Education and the State Department to facilitate an online program aiming to connect all U.S. schools with classrooms abroad by 2016.

Vartan Gregorian, a board member of the organization in question, the Qatar Foundation International, was appointed in 2009 to President Obama’s White House Fellowships Commission.

WND previously exposed how Gregorian served as a point man in granting $49.2 million in start up capital to an education-reform project founded by Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers and chaired by Obama.

Documentation shows Gregorian was central in Ayers’ recruitment of Obama to serve as the first chairman of the project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge – a job in which Obama worked closely on a regular basis with Ayers.

Obama also later touted his job at the project as qualifying him to run for public office, as WND previously reported.

[...]

Well if WND, which on the same page labels Obama "THE FIRST MUSLIM PRESIDENT". says so it must me true; note the lack of citations for the key claims. They speak of "The Muslim Brotherhood's infiltration of Washington..." not vice versa.

################################

How the World Really Works, Pt. 1: The MI6 Model

January 30, 2013

The present book under analysis.

By: Jay

[...]

The Muslim Brotherhood, as anyone who reads a few books in intelligence knows, was founded by British Intelligence. Of course it was.

Well if Jay, the obscure blogger, says so it must me true!

============ MORE TO COME +++

RIP Bob Stinson

Edited February 3, 2013 by Len Colby

Steven Gaal · February 5, 2013

I PUT THIS UP TWICE , BUT NO REFUTATION OF THESE FACTS.