Latest update: 18/09/2012 

- diplomacy - Islam - Islamist militants - Libya - USA


Mystery surrounds attack on Benghazi’s US consulate

Mystery surrounds attack on Benghazi’s US consulate

New reports gleaned from Libyan officials and militia commanders suggest that, contrary to earlier accounts, last week's deadly attack in Benghazi occurred at two different sites in two stages.

By Leela JACINTO (text)
 

Amid contradictory accounts of whether the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was spontaneous or premeditated, alarming new details have emerged on the September 11 assault, which killed the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.

According to senior Libyan officials, as well as militia sources and witnesses on the ground, last week’s seemingly carefully planned assault occurred in two stages at two different sites in the eastern Libyan port city.

In an exhaustive account of the attack, the French daily Le Figaro reported Sunday that only US Ambassador Christopher Stevens perished – from smoke inhalation – inside the US consulate premises. (Click here for the report in French.)

At least three other people, including two US Marines, were killed in a house – sometimes called “a farm” by Libyan sources – about a kilometre away from the US consulate premises, according to Le Figaro.

In a timeline of the sequence of events that fateful night - which Le Figaro described as “worthy of a spy novel” – a rebel commander told the French daily that hours after the attack on the US consulate began, he was ordered to go the Benghazi airport to support US Marines who had flown in from the capital of Tripoli.

The order came at around 3am on September 12, according to Imad Shaqabi, a commander of the Dernaa Brigade, one of numerous militias still operating in Libya following the 2011 uprising that ousted Muammar Gaddafi.

According to Shaqabi, they were given no details of their mission. His men assumed they were being called to provide support for the US team to reach a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens’ body.

The body of the US ambassador to Libya was extracted from the consulate around 1am and had been taken to the hospital in a private car minutes later, according to witness reports.

But when the Libyan militia fighters arrived at Benghazi airport, US Marines provided them with GPS coordinates of a second site about a kilometre from the consulate where US diplomatic staff had fled, the newspaper reported.

A secret second site?

Reports of a second site - which some Libyan officials have called a “safe house” - emerged days after the attack, which killed the first US ambassador in more than 30 years.

In an interview with Reuters last week, Libyan Deputy Interior Minister Wanis Al-Sharif said hours after the attack on the consulate started, US commando units arrived from the capital of Tripoli to evacuate the consulate staff from a Benghazi safe house.

"It was supposed to be a secret place and we were surprised the armed groups knew about it,” Sharif told Reuters.

Sharif’s account of a US commando unit arriving from Tripoli, as well as the deaths of two US personnel in a second Benghazi location, matches the sequence of events relayed by the Dernaa Brigade commander to Le Figaro.

If true, the reports suggest that the assault had been planned in advance by a group – or groups - with access to sensitive security information.

Planned or spontaneous?

Details of the September 11 attack have been sketchy, with senior US officials warning reporters against jumping to conclusions while investigations are still underway.

Syndicate contentGLOBAL MUSLIM PROTESTS

But over the weekend, senior US officials appeared to backtrack from earlier statements that the assault on the US consulate in Benghazi was premeditated.

"People gathered outside the embassy (consulate) and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control," US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told Fox News Sunday.

"But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, a premeditated attack,” she noted.

Her comments however were in stark contrast to the assessments of senior Libyan officials as well as militia sources in Benghazi.

"The way these perpetrators acted, and moved... leaves us with no doubt that this was pre-planned, determined, predetermined," Mohammed al-Megaryef, president of the Libyan National Congress, told CBS News.

In a phone interview with FRANCE 24 from Benghazi, a fighter with the Shuhada Libya al-Hurra brigade, who declined to be named, said he witnessed the assault on the US consulate and he was sure it was a planned attack.

“They knew the embassy (consulate) very well. They came with heavy weapons and they overtook the place very fast, it was very quick. You can’t do something like that without planning,” he said.

According to the Shuhada Libya al-Hurra brigade fighter, he was unable to get near the consulate premises due to the heavy fighting Tuesday night. Instead his group of fighters were stuck a few blocks away from the by-now burning building, vainly awaiting orders from their commanders.

“It was a mess, there was very heavy fighting. I didn’t understand what was going on. The people attacking the consulate looked like Islamists, they were not at all like the fighters from my katiba (brigade). It was obvious that they had planned this before and they now had a good pretext to attack the embassy (consulate),” he said.

An unclaimed 9/11 attack

The timing of the assault – on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the US – has also raised questions among security experts.

Syndicate contentFOCUS

In a message posted on jihadist sites before the attack, al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called on Libyans to target Americans in order to avenge the death of his former deputy, Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was killed on June 4 by a US drone in Pakistan”.

In a statement released over the weekend, the Yemen-based al Qaeda affiliate AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabic Peninsula) said al Libi’s killing “increased the enthusiasm and determination of the sons of (Libyan independence hero) Omar al-Mukhtar to take revenge upon those who attack our Prophet".

But the group has not claimed responsibility for the attack.

Libyan officials have arrested around 50 suspects in the attack and have pointed a finger at a Salafist group, Ansar al-Sharia, or “Supporters of Islamic law”.

But following the public outcry against the attack by Benghazi residents, the group’s leaders have tried to distance themselves from the assault, often in what the New York Times called “muddled or contradictory ways”.
 

 

 

Read more
React to the article
Comment this article typing your message in the above text zone. Please note that this is limited to 1500 characters or less.
(23) Reactions

LIARS!!!!!!!!!!

LIARS!!!!!!!!!!

obama lied & American's died,

obama lied & American's died, impeach obama !

WE NEED MORE ANSWERS There is

WE NEED MORE ANSWERS

There is another burning issue beyond the latest revelations based on the emails from Libya. To reject a request for additional security from one of our Ambassadors is a grave matter, with possible security implications that are far-reaching.

It is therefore more likely than not that this rejection would have had to have been approved at the highest policy making level of our government.

So if President Obama still claims ignorance of the disapproval of this request at the time, what efforts if any did he make to keep himself informed of a major security issue of this nature? What if any instructions did he provide as to who could disapprove extraordinary security requests of this nature? And for reporting to him on this type of major issue, with all its consequences?
what did relevant regulations provide about this?

And did President Obama in fact approve or at least acquiesce to the rejection of this security request?
It is time for a searching inquiry as to exactly what Mr. Obama knew about the rejection of this security request at the time. Congress and the media should get to the bottom of this--before the election. We can't depend on his own Executive Branch to investigate itself.

Daniel Robert S

There is anothe burning issue

There is anothe burning issue beyond the latest revelations based on the emails from Libya. To reject a request for additional security from one of our Ambassadors, the top US diplomat accredited to a foreign government, is a grave matter, with possible implications for national security that are far-reaching.

It is therefore more likely than not that this rejection would have had to have been approved at the highest policy making level of our government.

So if President Obama still claims ignorance of the disapproval of this request at the time, what efforts if any did he make to keep himself informed of a major security issue of this nature? What if any instructions did he provide as to who could disapprove security requests of this nature? What guidance if any did he provide for reporting to him on this type of major issue? And what did relevant regulations provide about this?

And did he in factapprove or at least acquiesce to the rejection of this security request?
It is time for a searching inquiry as to exactly what President Obama knew about the rejection of this security request at the time. Congress and the media should get to the bottom of this--before the election. We can't depend on his own Executive Branch to investigate itself.

interesting that i still

interesting that i still can't find anything on your site regarding the supposed "transparency" of the Libya debacle (correct me if i'm wrong and show me where). this is a mess and if it smells like a coverup, looks like a coverup, then it is a coverup! i try very hard to look at all sides and am amazed that you're right there with CNN, MSNBC, etc., in hiding anything that smells like anti-Obama.

Liban atack

I read these reports and wish that you all would just chile out a little. When you serve in a war zone thing happen that just can not be prevented even with the best information. I we make this political we miss the reason those heros died.
In these situation you are always at the disadvantage. Believe me, been there done that!
I thank God Obama did not over react and go to war,it's not the answer in these evens. Going after who did it is the answer and not blow up the whole country.

Brave Americans

These specialized Men need to be recognized and on everyones mind They are my brothers I love them and wish our American family best wishes for all of us a refendum on this presidency needs to be made no more Pres Obama and his incompetencies!!!!! Vote Romney/Ryan They are our only hope at this point!! To reboot and reset...

Brave Americans

These specialized Men need to be recognized and on everyones mind They are my brothers I love them and wish our American family best wishes for all of us a refendum on this presidency needs to be made no more Pres Obama and his incompetencies!!!!! Vote Romney/Ryan They are our only hope at this point!! To reboot and reset...

Benghaz Attack

As a veteran of the Vietnam war I am ashamed of this administration for not protecting our personnel in Benghaz. For which is much worse of all the bull sh-- they have put out trying to cover up the mess.

Benghazigate May Cost OBama his 2nd term

A review of the transcripts of President Obama’s "act of terror" phrase in his Sept. 12th Rose Garden address on Benghazi and Tuesday night’s 2nd televised debate, clearly show that both candidates and the moderator got the "act of terror" statement by the President on Sept 12th totally wrong.

The transcript of President Obama's Rose Garden address confirms that his only use of a word that began with "terror" was in his statement that "no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation". He never linked that phrase to the Benghazi atrocity.

He purposely refused to call the attacks "terrorist attacks" committed by "terrorists" and continued to blame it on a “video” and demonstrations gone wild for more than 30 days after the killing of Ambassador Stevens and 3 others.

It is evident, therefore that when President Obama, in the 2nd televised debate, insisted that in his Sept. 12th address he had definitely called Benghazi “an act of terror”, he out and out lied.

There is a significant difference between "terrorism" and "an act of terror". By definition, very act of terrorism is an act of terror, but not every act of terror is act of terrorism.

The massacre in Colorado at the midnight showing of the new Batman movie was an act of terror but was not terrorism.

I have reviewed transcripts of the initial addresses to the Nation from Presidents Bush and Obama on the 9/11 attacks against the United States that occurred on their respective watches. Comparing the two we see that:

President Bush, the supposedly dumbest President in American history, according to his opponents, delivered a Presidential/Commander-in-Chief address to the Nation from behind his desk in the Oval Office and correctly informed us that the attacks were “Terrorist Attacks” committed by “Terrorists”. Hence no questions of a cover-up. And he needed only 402 words to do it.

President Obama, By contrast, the supposedly smartest President in American history, according to his supporters, delivered a “Chamberlinesk”, pastor like, address to the Nation from the “non-threatening” atmosphere of a garden, raising varied and significant ongoing questions of a cover-up. And he needed over 800 words to do it. And 37 days after the Benghazi attack President Obama still had not directly informed the Nation that attack was a “Terrorist Attack” committed by “Terrorists”.

Now that Congress and the media are digging into the facts behind the Benghazi atrocity, the President and the White House's initial story and attempted cover ups are unraveling.

People died in Benghazi and I truly believe they were sacrificed to his foreign policies and PC coddling of Muslim/Islamic Extremists who are bent on taking down America and destroying its interests around the world.

And we still have not heard directly from the President on the specific steps he has taken to make sure we don't have a repeat of Benghazi. Presidents Bush, Clinton, Reagan and FDR would have. They would have personally delivered the message directly to the American people from behind their desk in the Oval Office. They wouldn't use a mouthpiece and they wouldn't have done it in a Garden or on a late night talk or comedy show.

When the whole truth about Benghazi and its aftermath comes out, and it will before the election, Americans will be outraged. It will hit home that the Administration’s incompetence and “political correctness” cost lives, not income or jobs or benefits or wealth, but real American lives.

And they’ll need to place blame, and placing that blame where it belongs will result in changed minds leading to changed votes.

Because of Benghazi, and the handling of it by his Administration, President Obama may well lose his bid for a 2nd term on November 6th.

Close