ISIS Rewriting History in the Middle East

ISG = Islamic State Group

In part from: CSIS

Middle East Notes and Comment: The Islamic State (Re)Writes History

Did the Prophet Muhammad lash his followers for smoking cigarettes? He couldn’t have, as cigarettes were invented more than 1,200 years after his death, and tobacco itself did not come to the Middle East until 950 years afterwards. Bans on television, recorded music, soccer games and the like all reflect innovations.

What the ISG is, in fact, is a wholly modern movement that seeks to look ancient. Like the photo booths in tourist towns that produce sepia-toned photographs of contemporary subjects in period clothing, its wink toward the present is part of its appeal. Its followers are not recreating a holy seventh-century society of pious believers. They are gathering the dispossessed and disaffected to an invented homeland that strives to provide certainty, intimacy, and empowerment to a population that feels too little of any of them.

There is little use quibbling with their distortions of history, which are too numerous to mention. Instead, what is risible is their solemn use of history at all. This group is wholly modern and wholly innovative. It is wholly disruptive, as it seeks to be. Its followers should not be ennobled by their purported connection to history.

Western governments and their allies in the Middle East should not fall into the trap of seeing the ISG and its ilk as groups hostile to modernity. Instead, they should highlight how truly modern these groups are, and how selective they are in their readings of history. They do not guide their followers back to the well-worn path of tradition, but instead blaze a new trail of confrontation with the rest of the world.

Stripped of their historical costumes, we can see them as they are: the angry and the weak, preying on those even weaker than themselves. There is glory to be found in Islam. It is not to be found in them.

Islam is the Middle East noted by Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Afghanistan is in of itself in turmoil, while same fighters have known nothing but war all their lives and from this video below, war is being taught to the next generations, some as young as 8 years old. This also holds true for regions in the West Bank and Gaza. Children attend camps and training with weapons, vocabulary and to learn a twisted history.

Published on Nov 1, 2015

Raising its black flag over the rugged mountainous regions of Afghanistan, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has emerged as a new threat to the war-ravaged country as it battles the Taliban for supremacy. Employing violence and brutality used by the group in Syria and Iraq, Wilayat Khorasan, (the ancient name ISIL has chosen for the region made up of Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of neighbouring countries), has emerged in seven different areas and vowed to step up operations, where the veteran fighters, the Taliban, once held sway.Fighting to reconstitute the historical Khorasan into the so-called ‘Caliphate’ of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group says it has grand plans for the region, starting with uprooting the Taliban and the government of President Ashraf Ghani.Causing friction with the regional and overall leadership of the Taliban, armed battles have increased over the past few months with dozens of Taliban fighters killed in the clashes, most notably in the Taliban stronghold of Nangarhar province.ISIL’s local chapter has also managed to attract dozens of fighters from the Taliban’s ranks into its fold, while foreign fighters unable to make it to Syria and Iraq have thronged to the group’s territory.In ISIL and the Taliban we look at the group’s growing popularity, how it made steady inroads into the country and the threat it poses for the future of Afghanistan.We gain exclusive access to ISIL’s central leadership, and meet children as young as 5-years-old being trained to fight and dedicate their lives to the ‘Caliphate’.

 

Skreemr vs. the Boneyard

Courtesy of DailyMail: It’s 12 years since Concorde made its last supersonic flight at Mach 2.04, or 1,354 mph (2,179 km/h).  For the full article go here.

But the future of flight could be much faster, with a transatlantic journey taking as little as half an hour.

The designers say scramjet engines could then be used to propel Skreemr to speeds of over 10 times the speed of sound. Scramjets are set to be smaller, lighter and faster, because oxygen needed for engine combustion would be taken from air passing through a vehicle, instead of from a tank on board

A concept aircraft named Skreemr could reach speeds exceeding Mach 10 – that’s 10 times the speed of sound.

Designers Charles Bombardier and Ray Mattison envisage the craft could be launched using a magnetic railgun system to catapult it into the sky at high speed.

Using such a launch system, the craft would be positioned on a pair of conductive parallel rails and accelerated along them using a powerful electromagnetic field.

Liquid-oxygen or kerosene rockets would be fired to enable the plane to rapidly climb higher in the sky and reach Mach 4, which is around twice the speed of Concorde, The Globe and Mail reported.

The designers say scramjet engines could then be used to propel it to speeds of over 10 times the speed of sound, which is around 7,673mph (12,349km/h)

While scramjet engines are under development for drones and military planes, it could be years until they are used for consumer jets and there is no suggestion the designs for Skreemr will ever become reality.

Craft using scramjet propulsion systems are set to be smaller, lighter and faster, because oxygen needed for engine combustion would be taken from air passing through a vehicle, instead of from a tank on board, Nasa explains.

It’s predicted scramjets could reach 15 times the speed of sound.

Bombardier Skreemr’s sleek design, with four wings and two large rockets on the rear, is intended to be used as a commercial aircraft to carry 75 passengers in luxury.

While Bombardier came up with the idea, Mattison, from Design Eye-Q in Minnesota, created the renderings of the concept.

Earlier this month, illustrations emerged for ‘Concorde 2,’ based on a patent awarded to Airbus in July, which describes a craft that climbs vertically into the air before breaking the sound barrier as it travels horizontally across the sky.

It’s been dubbed Concorde 2 because it would be much faster and quieter than the retired supersonic jet, having been designed to have a top speed of Mach 4.5, meaning a journey from New York to London would take just one hour.

Airbus hopes its planned hypersonic jet, which would travel at 4.5 times the speed of sound, could take people between two major cities faster than most daily commutes.

Its proposed one-hour journey time between New York and London would be more than three times faster than the original Concorde, which made its final flight in 2003.

Standard airliners take around eight hours to complete the journey.

Airbus’ jet is described as ‘an air vehicle including a fuselage, a gothic delta wing distributed on either side of the fuselage, and a system of motors able to propel the air vehicle’.

The Boneyard:

Check Out This Awesome Aerial 360º Image Of The Department Of Defense's Boneyard

Check Out This Awesome Aerial 360º Image Of The Department Of Defense’s Boneyard

Aerial Sphere, a company that uses 360 degree photography in an aerial format, took this awesome image high over Davis Monthan Air Force Base and its sprawling boneyard ran by the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG). You can spin the image in every direction and zoom in wherever you like, it’s pretty awesome.

Check out AerialSphere here, as they already have the majority of Phoenix mapped with 360º images like these and they seem to be expanding. 360 photography and video has become increasingly popular in the aviation community, providing virtual tours of cockpits and even virtual ride-alongs in fighter aircraft. Once Virtual Reality headsets become just another fixture in most people’s homes, this technology should really, well, takeoff.

Obama DID Veto Defense Bill, Losing 40,000 Troops

While the media was consumed with Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the Gowdy Benghazi Commission, another important event took place and it included Barack Obama’s famous pen. He vetoed the$612 billion Defense bill, stating it was full of gimmicks and did not allow him the money or pathway to close Guantanamo.

Has anyone in the Obama administration bothered to consider what our adversaries are doing with their military like China and Russia much less Iran?

In part from FNC:

Four years after Congress passed and Obama signed into law strict, across-the-board spending limits, both parties are eager to bust through the caps for defense spending. But Obama has insisted that spending on domestic programs be raised at the same time, setting off a budget clash with Republicans that has yet to be resolved.

To side-step the budget caps, known in Washington as sequestration, lawmakers added an extra $38.3 billion to a separate account for wartime operations that is immune to the spending limits. The White House has dismissed that approach as a “gimmick” that fails to deal with the broader problem or provide long-term budget certainty for the Pentagon.

Obama also rejects the bill as written due to provisions making it harder for him to transfer suspected terror detainees out of the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a key campaign promise that Obama is hard-pressed to fulfill before his term ends. The White House has also expressed concerns over provisions preventing military base closures and funding equipment beyond what the military says it needs.

A deeper consequence for the military:

FreeBeacon: The Army has disclosed that it has cut 80,000 soldiers since 2010 and plans to reduce the force by another 40,000 by the end of 2017, bringing the total active number of troops to 450,000, according to a report to Congress that was recently released under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

“Nearly every Army installation will experience reductions of some size,” according to the report, which was obtained and released by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

It warns of a “permanent reduction of sizable numbers of members of the Armed Forces,” which translates to a 21 percent total cut across the board.

“Significant structure cuts at overseas installations have already occurred,” according to the report.

The Army will be forced to further cut its budget in 2018 and beyond, according to the report

“These force structure reductions and the resulting impacts on installation populations could be significant to both military communities and to the defense posture of our nation.”

At least six Army installations will see their forces cut by more than 1,000 soldiers, according to the report. These include Fort Benning in Georgia, Fort Bliss in Texas, Fort Hood in Texas, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington, and Schofield Barracks in Hawaii.

The continuing cuts come as the military faces massive and ongoing budget cuts that have not only reduced the forces but have also impacted the purchase and maintenance of military hardware.

While experts have expressed concerns about the United States’ ability to combat threats across the globe on multiple fronts, the Army maintains that the reduced force will not harm its abilities.

“The Army will continue to be a force that can deploy and sustain capabilities across the range of military operations anywhere in the world on short notice,” according to the report.

Still, “force structure reductions and the resulting impacts on installation populations could be significant to both military communities and to the defense posture of our nation,” the Army says in the report.

An additional number of posts in the civilian Army workforce will also be eliminated by 2019, the report states.

The report includes an evaluation of the “the local economic, strategic, and operational consequences of the reductions at” the six installations mentioned above.

The cuts were spread “broadly” across the force “in terms of geography and organizationally,” according to the report. “There simply was not one segment of the Army that could sustain the entirety of the cuts.”

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 1.43.35 PM

Soldiers will likely experience an interruption in their lives, though the Army is seeking to minimize this.

“The Army will employ all possible measures to minimize personnel turbulence (to both Soldiers and their Families) associated with the force structure reductions on the six installations in question,” the report states. “There will be instances where Soldiers (and Families) will depart an installation on an accelerated timeline.”

Local economies also will be impacted by the cuts. These include direct losses from government contract service jobs that will be cut, as well as “indirect job losses that would occur in the community because of a reduction in demand for goods and services.”

Meanwhile, President Obama vetoed on Thursday a massive defense spending bill that would fund military operations across the globe and provide troops with a pay raise.

Taliban WAS in that Hospital when Bombed, but…

The U.S. took the blame for the bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, but the question is why?

The Geneva Convention has rules and declares that internationally recognized medical insignia must be flown on the roof, but what was on the roof was NOT the recognized logo or insignia at the time of the bombing.

Afghan defense minister says Taliban hid in bombed hospital

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP)— Afghanistan’s acting defense minister said Monday that the Doctors Without Borders hospital bombed by U.S. forces in the northern city of Kunduz was being used by insurgents as a “safe place.” More here.

Yet, there was a much bigger problem at the time when the Afghanis called in the airstrike:

Army intelligence system allegedly down during hospital attack

Associated Press via ArmyTimes: WASHINGTON — The Army’s $5 billion intelligence network, which is designed to give commanders battlefield awareness but has been criticized for years as a boondoggle, was not working in Afghanistan during the recent American air attack on a hospital, according to a member of Congress who has been in touch with military whistleblowers.

Significant elements of the Distributed Common Ground System, a network of computers and sensors designed to knit together disparate strands of intelligence, were off line in Afghanistan when U.S. commanders approved an air strike Oct. 3 that killed 22 staff, patients and others at a Doctors without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Rep. Duncan Hunter wrote Tuesday to Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

“The purpose of DCGS is to enable commanders and service members to ‘see and know’ the battlefield and prevent incidents like the airstrike on the hospital in Kunduz,” wrote Hunter, a California Republican, combat veteran and armed services committee member who has been a persistent DCGS critic.

“Senior Army leaders have gone to extraordinary lengths in recent years to deny evidence of the failures of the DCGS program, and I am asking for your help to prevent them from doing so following this tragic incident,” he wrote.

Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It’s unclear whether the breakdown of key DCGS systems contributed to the decision to approve the air attack, which Pentagon officials say was a mistake. But the coordinates of the hospital were entered into an intelligence database that is part of the DCGS intelligence network, according to a U.S. official who would not be quoted because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.

The Army over the years has touted DCGS as having “saved lives” with its ability to fuse together various intelligence sources, including drone footage, mapping software, human source reports, social media and eavesdropping transcripts. But independent Army testers repeatedly have questioned the system’s effectiveness. One testing report in 2012 said it was “not survivable,” meaning it was at risk of failing in combat.

The Associated Press has reported that special operations intelligence analysts knew the Doctors without Borders facility was a hospital, and were circulating intelligence reports about possible enemy activity at the site. Some of those analysts were using a commercial software system made by Palantir, a Silicon Valley company that competes with DCGS, according to an Army official who would not be quoted because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

President Barack Obama apologized for the air attack to Dr. Joanne Liu, the international president of Doctors without Borders, who has called for an independent international investigation. U.S., NATO and Afghan investigations are looking into the matter. The U.S. has offered to compensate the families of those killed and injured.

Pentagon officials have said the military did not intentionally target the hospital, but they have not explained why the Army analysts who knew it was a medical facility were not able to convey that intelligence to commanders who approved the air strike.

Among the elements of DCGS that were not working, service members told Hunter, were the intelligence fusion server, which is supposed to allow seamless information sharing across various Army elements, and the cloud, which is supposed to offer connectivity to units in the field.

Hunter told Carter that his sources say they fear for their careers if they speak out publicly, because “members of Army leadership have previously gone to great lengths to protect this system and its proponents.”

“Army Brigade commanders have told me of intimidation and threats after saying in writing that DCGS ‘translates into operational opportunities missed and lives lost,’ Hunter wrote to Carter. “Such actions are indicative of a climate that is contradictory to a transparent and objective assessment of the facts with respect to this system.”

The Assignment of the CIA Annex in Benghazi

We keep asking what the CIA annex was actually tasked with doing in Benghazi. It was nothing nefarious but more to control what Hillary and her team were doing. Remember, the CIA is subservient to the White House and State Department. The Hillary-Benghazi testimony on Thursday is not about emails or the server. That track has already been established. The thrust of the questions will center on exactly what Hillary’s State Department intended to do about Libya after Qaddafi. Questions will be about mission pieces coming into play and being installed for deposing Qaddafi with regard to buying back weapons and buying others that were NOT bound for Syria but for the Transnational Council to take over the Qaddafi regime with particular emphasis on Tripoli and Benghazi. As noted from Politico below, this is the posture taken by Gowdy as his team.

Politico: The seven GOP members of the panel aim to strike the right balance during Thursday’s hearing with the former secretary of state. They’re hoping a professional approach, coupled with tough questions about security in Libya, U.S. foreign policy under Clinton and her email practices will help put to rest accusations that they’re ideologues bent on hurting the Democratic front-runner in the polls — or that the panel is a waste of taxpayer money. The hearing, which could last, sources say, until 8 p.m. or 9 p.m., will delve into U.S. policy toward Libya under Clinton, who encouraged U.S. support of the rebels fighting Qadhafi. Republicans want to know what the goal of that policy was and whether she was trying to make Libya a centerpiece of her foreign policy.

Gowdy said he’s particularly interested in asking Clinton about “the increase in violence juxtaposed with the decrease in security” at the mission that was attacked, because “it’s counterintuitive.”

A 1999 report after the East African embassy bombings recommended that the secretary of state take a “personal and active role” in security issues, Republicans — including Gowdy — have noted. Clinton, however, has testified previously that she was not aware of Stevens’ requests for more protection. And while it’s unclear whether the panel has any evidence suggesting that she was, Gowdy says there’s still the issue of “why” those pleas for help didn’t reach her.

When it comes to the machinery that Hillary’s team, it does involve weapons and the contracts and routes they took to reach the destination of Libya, all while doing so against rules and sanctions. Hillary may be actually guilty of much more than we can begin to define.

*** The facts begin to surface:

Washington Times – Tuesday, October 20, 2015
The State Department initially approved a weapons shipment from a California company to Libyans seeking to oust Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 even though a United Nations arms ban was in place, according to memos recovered from the burned-out compound in Benghazi.

The documents, obtained by The Washington Times, show U.S. diplomats at the Benghazi compound were keeping track of several potential U.S.-sanctioned shipments to allies, one or more of which were destined for the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to oust Gadhafi and form a new government. At least one of those shipments, kept in a file marked “arms deal,” was supposed to come from Dolarian Capital Inc. of Fresno, California, according to an end use certificate from the State Department’s office of defense trade controls licensing that was contained in the file.
The shipment was to include rocket launchers, grenade launchers, 7,000 machine guns and 8 million rounds of ammunition, much of it new and inexpensive hardware originally produced in the former Soviet bloc of Eastern Europe, according to an itemized list included in the end use certificate.

Dolarian Capital, part of a small network of U.S. arms merchants that has worked with U.S. intelligence, confirmed one of its licensing requests to ship weapons via Kuwait to Libya was approved by the State Department in spring 2011 and then inexplicably revoked before the armaments were sent. “Dolarian Capital submitted the end user certificate in question to the U.S. Department of State for review and issuance of a license to transfer the arms and ammunition to Libya. The U.S. Department of State responded with a approval, which was revoked shortly thereafter,” one of its attorneys said in a statement issued to The Washington Times. “As a result no arms or ammunition was shipped or delivered to Libya under the end user certificate.”

Nonetheless, the existence of the documents and the temporary approval of at least one U.S. arms shipment provides the most direct evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department was aware of efforts to get weapons into the hands of rebels seeking to oust Gadhafi.

Mrs. Clinton is set to testify Thursday during a highly anticipated appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

The Obama administration has been ambiguous about the exact role the United States played in arming the rebels who overthrew Gadhafi, even as arms merchants and former CIA officials have stated publicly that a covert program facilitated such weapons transfers through a network of friendly weapons brokers and third-party countries.

The issue is sensitive because a U.N. ban on weapons shipments to Libya was in place at the time, although the State Department had the authority to deem a specific shipment in the United States interest and permit its transference, officials said.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach declined to comment Tuesday, as did the CIA public affairs office.

To date, the public evidence of U.S. involvement in weapons trafficking to Libya has been episodic.

Reuters reported in 2011 that President Obama signed a special presidential directive that authorized covert U.S. action to destabilize Gadhafi and stand up a new regime, up to and including facilitating weapons transfers if it was deemed in the U.S. interest.

The New York Times, quoting anonymous officials, reported a year later that the Obama administration gave its secret blessing to some weapons shipments to Libyan rebels routed through Qatar during the height of the country’s revolution.

Fox News this summer quoted a former CIA official as providing testimony in a court case that the U.S. almost certainly ran a covert weapons operation to help arm the Libyan rebels.
But to date, no evidence has emerged publicly that the State Department had direct knowledge or involvement in reviewing potential shipments.

The Benghazi documents, however, show that U.S. diplomats in the consulate were monitoring a series of potential exports in spring and summer 2011 to third-party countries and that one or more were likely to land in Libya.

For instance, a June 28, 2011, email chain contained in a file titled “arms deal” documents an exchange among State Department employees about eight export licensing application numbers, indicating one or more of the shipments involved Libya’s Transitional National Council.

“DRL recommends BA L181-11 T6-F RWA — need decision from higher level on TNC,” reads one of the notations in the email.

DRL stands for the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and TNC is the interchangeable acronym for the Transitional National Council, the NATO-supported Libyan rebel government.

The email also references the office of defense trade controls licensing, the State directorate in charge of registering arms exports.

The Dolarian Capital papers, dated May 18, 2011, include an end-user certificate that outlines a long list of heavy former Eastern-bloc weaponry and artillery to be shipped from the California-based arms dealer first to Kuwait, and then to Libya.

“This is to certify the following items are to be delivered by Dolarian Capital, Inc. [of] Fresno, California, United States and secured by M/s Specter Consultancy Services G.T.C. [of] Kuwait City, Kuwait to the Ministry of Interior of the Translational [sic] Government of Libya. The Ministry of Interior has agreed the items are for the exclusive disposition of the Ministry of Interior of the Translational [sic] Government of Libya and will not be re-exported or transferred to any third countries,” the certificate reads.

Just one month earlier, Mrs. Clinton privately endorsed inside the State Department the idea of using arms merchants to help the Libyans. “Fyi. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in an email to her most senior aides.

Dolarian Capital and other U.S. arms merchants — all legally registered with the State Department — have worked with U.S. intelligence over the years to move covert shipments into hot spots around the globe such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria.

It applied for several State Department licenses to ship weapons to Libya, but only one got approved and then only temporarily before being revoked. The one export listed in the certificate was among the smaller shipments the company proposed for Libya, according to people familiar with the applications. In each instance, State and other U.S. agencies were directly aware the end destinations for the weapons were in Libya.

Dolarian Capital also is listed in court records as the source of weapons for another U.S. arms dealer, Marc Turi, who sought permission to ship weapons to Libya during the same time frame. Mr. Turi since has been charged criminally with making false statements in his application for those shipments, and has publicly asserted that Mrs. Clinton’s State Department and other U.S. officials sanctioned his involvement.

His attorney, J. Cabou, told The Times on Tuesday his client intends to show the United States facilitated the possible weapons shipments to Libya, which never occurred.

Mr. Turi strongly believes he had the permission of the U.S. government to engage in the actions for which he is now charged with and he is vigorously trying to prove that fact,” Mr. Cabou said in a phone interview.

Supporting Mr. Turi’s case is a former CIA officer named David Manners, who has told a federal judge in the case that “It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council (TNC).”
The end-user certificate for the one Dolarian transfer, obtained by The Times, details an itemized list of Soviet developed weapons including 10 Konkrus missile launchers, 6,900 RPK, AKM, SPG-9 machine guns and 100 grenade launchers. It also included two Soviet SVD sniper rifles and nearly 8 million rounds of ammunition.

An authorization letter signed by TNC Defense Minister Omar Hareery accompanied the certificate “call[ing] upon” TNC Interior Minister Esam M.T. Shibani and representatives from Specter Consultancy GTC to “supply all military surplus and hardware to the Transitional National Council of Libya [and] provide military and security consultancy for both civilian and government elements within Libya.”

The sensitivity of U.S. involvement in arming the Libya rebels stems from a U.N. embargo.

On March 17, 2011, the U.N. passed Resolution 1973, which imposed a no-fly zone over Libya and also established a panel of experts to monitor the arms embargo.

However, on March 27, 2011, only days after the intervention began, Mrs. Clinton argued that the arms embargo could be disregarded if shipping weapons to rebels would help protect civilians, a claim that came under immediate fire from British defense officials who disagreed with her interpretation of international law.

“We’re not arming the rebels. We’re not planning to arm the rebels,” British Defense Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC the same day Mrs. Clinton hinted otherwise.

In February, The Times published as part of a series on the 2011 NATO intervention classified Libyan intelligence reports including a 16-page weapons list corroborated by Gadhafi aide and U.S. intelligence asset, Mohammed Ismael.

The weapons list revealed where and when arms were brought to both terror and jihadi groups in Libyan cities including the rebel fortress of Benghazi by the country of Qatar. It did not detail the weapons’ point of origin, but in February 2012 Qatari officials sent a letter to the U.N. “categorically” denying they had “supplied the revolutionaries with arms and ammunitions.”

Tape recordings obtained and released by The Times earlier this year depicting secret calls between a U.S. intelligence asset and members of the Gadhafi family revealed the then Libyan regime believed NATO was helping Qatar and other countries illegally smuggle arms across their country’s borders to aide rebel forces in an attempt to destabilize Libya.

In a May 2011 telephone call between U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and heir apparent Seif Gadhafi, Mr. Gadhafi alleged illegal arms shipments were coming into his country.

Mr. Kucinich, an outspoken critic against the Libyan intervention who has since retired from the Congress, told the Times he would not be surprised to learn the U.S. violated the arms embargo.

“Violating the arms embargo to send heavy weapons to Libyan rebels was a phase in engineering a crisis to establish a pretext for U.S. intervention and overthrow of the Libyan government, a very dirty business indeed,” Mr. Kucinich said.

The U.N. Security Council unanimously reinforced the embargo in May when the 15-member panel declined a request from the TNC for fighter jets, attack helicopters and munitions, fearing the weapons could get into the wrong hands.

This blogger has written about the operations in Benghazi, 3 days directly after the attack:

https://founderscode.com/look-who-hillary-hired-for-benghazi-help/admin/

https://founderscode.com/13-hours-of-benghazi-hat-tip-to-the-heroes-rip-to-the-heroes/admin/

https://founderscode.com/wall-street-and-5th-avenue-planned-for-benghazi/admin/

https://founderscode.com/tanto-explains-13-hours-of-benghazi/admin/

https://founderscode.com/the-chase-in-benghazi/admin/