Did Mandela’s friend supply chemical weapons to Syrian rebels?

September 8, 2013
Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Nelson Mandela
REPORTS from Syria by Jordanian journalists allege that it was Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia who distributed those chemical weapons to the Syrian rebels.
If true, it indicates the chemical attack in Damascus to have been a false-flag operation by the American war business.
This would be entirely in keeping with Prince Bandar’s history of organising the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s, the Iran-Contra weapons exchanges, Libya in 2011, the suppression of the Shia uprising in Bahrain, Saudi support for the coup d’etat in Egypt and support for Syrian rebels.
Other reports confirm that Prince Bandar also went to see Russian President Vladimir Putin last month and offered to buy $15bn worth of Russian weapons provided Mr Putin abandoned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr Putin gave him short shrift.
Prince Bandar was not only the Saudi ambassador in Washington for 22 years and friends of Ronald Reagan and the Bush family, but he also negotiated the 1985 £43bn Al-Yamamah weapons deal with Margaret Thatcher, which Tony Blair renewed in 2007 with the Al-Salaam weapons deal.
When the British Serious Fraud Office investigated the bribes which BAE Systems paid him, Prince Bandar allegedly threatened blood in the streets of London.
Mr Blair squelched the investigation citing “national security.” The Guardian newspaper revealed a couple of months later how BAE with collusion of the British government had laundered bribes to Prince Bandar of over £1bn through Riggs Bank in Washington DC and other US banks.
Most importantly, Prince Bandar and Ms Thatcher negotiated the Al-Yamamah deal under the British Official Secrets Act, meaning that it cannot be investigated in Britain.
Saudi Arabia ships thousands of barrels per day of oil consigned to the Bank of England, which is then distributed to Shell and BP.
Over the years a surplus has developed, which is guesstimated to be worth over $150bn. Its purpose is a) to guarantee British and US support for the Saudi royal family against domestic insurrection and b) to fund covert destabilisation of resource-rich countries in Asia and Africa under the guise of the war on terror.
Having targeted Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and other countries over the years, Syria and Egypt are Prince Bandar’s current targets. When will SA be targeted by the American and British “war business” given our country’s mineral wealth?
Saudi Arabia made lavish donations to the African National Congress. Prince Bandar was also the only foreigner present at Nelson Mandela’s secret wedding to Graca Machel, and was a frequent visitor to SA when the arms deal was being negotiated.

#Females on #Gaza aid convoy sexually assaulted in #Libya | #Feminism

March 29, 2013

It doesn’t just happen in Gaza and Egypt. Three female Leftists riding a Gaza aid convoy have been sexually assaulted in Libya.

[Quoting from al-Guardian]:

Three women who were part of an aid convoy passing through Libya on the way to Gaza have been sexually assaulted in Benghazi, after a group of five British nationals were briefly kidnapped.

The three women, two of whom are sisters, were part of a large aid convoy travelling to the Gaza Strip. It is thought that they were part of a group of five people who were briefly kidnapped near Benghazi in the early hours of Tuesday and they were released some hours later. The group is currently safe in the Turkish consul in Benghazi and is expected to return to the UK.

Libyan security officials said the attacks happened in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Abdul Barghathi, commander of preventative security in the Libyan defence ministry, said the women had been sexually assaulted, but not raped. “There was no rape, just touching (sexual assault),” he said. “Because there is no British consulate here they were handed to the Turkish consulate.” The three women are not badly wounded and are being attended to by consular staff from the UK, he added.

The women were part of a large convoy taking vehicles and aid to the Gaza Strip on a journey that had taken them through France, Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and then Libya. It had intended to cross the border with Egypt but was prevented from doing so by Egyptian authorities. The 10-vehicle convoy is still stuck at the border but the five British nationals returned to Benghazi in eastern Libya late on Monday night in order to return home.

I wonder whether these do-gooders will try to make their way back to Gaza again, or maybe this will finally be a wake-up call about the ‘respect’ that Arab Muslims give women.

…just waiting to hear from Western feminists claiming that all men are like this


Benghazi attacking militias return

February 17, 2013

Doc’s Talk: Libya militia linked to US attack returns to Benghazi
Libya militia linked to US attack returns to Benghazi
REUTERS
LAST UPDATED: 02/17/2013

BENGHAZI – An Islamist militia linked to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi and kicked out of the city by locals is back openly manning checkpoints and building up support promising much-needed security.

Heavily bearded youths from Ansar al-Sharia control the western entrance into Libya’s second biggest metropolis, patrol a hospital and check cars and trucks passing through another checkpoint in the south.

Witnesses say the group’s members were at the scene of the Sept. 11 attack that killed the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans – though Ansar al-Sharia denied any involvement.

Days after the assault, outraged residents drove the group out of its bases in the city in a “Rescue Benghazi” protest.

The group’s highly visible return, five months on, underlines the complex security situation on the ground two years after the start of the revolt that ousted Muammar Gaddafi.


Hillary Clinton denies blaming free speech for Benghazi jihad massacre

January 24, 2013

“Hillary Clinton: ‘I Did Not Say That It Was About the Video for Libya,’” from Fox News, January 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified at the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, answering questions on the attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) pressed her on the anti-Islamic video that was originally blamed for the attack. “When you briefed us, you said unequivocally this was a result of a video and I remember in fact you got pretty upset about it when somebody suggested this was a terrorist attack.”
Clinton said, “I did not say … that it was about the video for Libya, it certainly was for many of the other places where we were watching these disturbances.”

Oh yes she did:

heh exact spot of internet video reference is around 8:45


From the Barbary wars till now: how Muslims win by claiming victimhood

December 9, 2012

How To Disarm Good People: here you can learn how its done. Works like a charm, for our enemies.

“We are oppressed, persecuted people. We’re a minority. We’re under siege. We are wrongly accused. We’re victims of bigotry, hatred, and Islamophobia….”

When  perps claim victimhood:
IN THE BOOK, The Sociopath Next Door, Martha Stout says something really interesting. Her book is about normal, everyday sociopaths (also known by the somewhat outdated term, “psychopath”). In other words, the book is not about serial killers, but about the neighbor who drives you crazy, the spouse who seems dedicated to making your life miserable, the cruel, unfeeling boss, etc.
A sociopath is someone who feels no empathy for other human beings. The consequences of this lack are enormous. These people are, in many ways, not recognizably human. And there is no cure for sociopathy. It is not caused by upbringing. Therapy only makes them worse.
About two percent of the population is sociopathic, and those who are in a relationship with a sociopath need to understand what makes sociopaths tick. The more you know, the less likely you are to be fooled, used, or destroyed by a sociopath.

But Martha Stout said something interesting for us here in our conversation about Islam. She wrote about the techniques sociopaths use to exploit people around them. Sociopaths use people. And there is one thing experienced sociopaths use more than anything else because it works so well with normal people. Their ultra-effective weapon is to evoke pity. Stout wrote:

The most reliable sign, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy.
I first learned this when I was still a graduate student in psychology and had the opportunity to interview a court-referred patient the system had already identified as a “psychopath.” He was not violent, preferring instead to swindle people out of their money with elaborate investment scams. Intrigued by this individual and what could possibly motivate him…I asked, “What is important to you in your life? What do you want more than anything else?” I thought he might say “getting money,” or “staying out of jail,” which were the activities to which he devoted most of his time. Instead, without a moment’s hesitation, he replied, “Oh, that’s easy. What I like better than anything else is when people feel sorry for me. The thing I really want more than anything else out of life is people’s pity.”
I was astonished, and more than a little put off. I think I would have liked him better if he had said “staying out of jail,” or even “getting money.” Also, I was mystified. Why would this man — why would anyone — wish to be pitied, let alone wish to be pitied above all other ambitions? I could not imagine. But now, after twenty-five years of listening to victims, I realize there is an excellent reason for the sociopathic fondness for pity. As obvious as the nose on one’s face, and just as difficult to see without the help of a mirror, the explanation is that good people will let pathetic individuals get by with murder, so to speak, and therefore any sociopath wishing to continue with his game, whatever it happens to be, should play repeatedly for none other than pity.
More than admiration — more even than fear — pity from good people is carte blanche. When we pity, we are, at least for the moment, defenseless, and like so many of the other positive human characteristics that bind us together in groups…our emotional vulnerability when we pity is used against us…

The reason I thought that was interesting and relevant is that pity is one of the most common techniques orthodox Muslims use, and it is the main reason they’ve been able to get away with as much as they have so far. They exploit the egalitarian,multiculturalist, good-hearted nature of non-Muslims. They evoke pity and then use our own kindness and our desire to “get along with others” against us.
I was just reading the book, Tripoli: The United States’ First War on Terror. The ruler of Tripoli had been seizing U.S. merchant ships, adding the ship to his own fleet, keeping the contents of the ship, and selling the captured sailors into slavery. It was a very lucrative pirating business. The U.S. wanted Tripoli to stop it, of course. The ruler of Tripoli said, “Sure, we’ll stop attacking your ships if you pay us tribute every year.”
So for awhile the U.S. paid the tribute because they were a new country and had no navy to speak of, and they wanted to continue with their overseas trade. But the ruler of Tripoli decided the tribute they had agreed to wasn’t enough, so he demanded more and when he didn’t get it, he started seizing U.S. ships again.
Meanwhile, the U.S. was frantically building a navy, and by this time had enough warships to put up a fight, so they did. Suddenly Tripoli’s ruler wanted to talk peace. But in the negotiations, the man negotiating on behalf of the ruler asked for a gift of money. The U.S. said no, absolutely not. The U.S. said basically, “You have not been fair in any way and have only acted as our enemy, and no, we will not pay you to stop the fighting.”
Then Tripoli’s negotiator tried to appeal to pity: “But Tripoli is very poor,” he pleaded. “she cannot subsist without the generosity of her friends; give something then on the score of charity.” In this case, Tripoli had already established a poor reputation with the Americans, so the pity plea did not work. But even after the U.S. negotiator said no, Tripoli’s negotiator tried to make the U.S. negotiator feel guilty for not feeling pity. He asked, basically, “You say you want peace but you won’t give this gift of charity to obtain the peace?”
Islam uses the pity plea anywhere it can. Mohammad used it, Muslims in Tripoli were using it, and Muslims today are still at it. In their dealings with powerful non-Muslims, the basic stance of Islam is: “We are an oppressed, persecuted people. We’re a minority. We’re under siege. We are wrongly accused. We’re the victims of bigotry, hatred, and Islamophobia.” And if they can’t find anything to point to that proves their oppression, they literally create something (click here for an example).
It’s like a game they are playing, except this is a game with very serious consequences. A single sociopath using the appeal to pity can completely ruin the lives of many people. And this is, of course, nothing compared with what orthodox Muslims have done. They’ve killed over 270 million people since they started. They’ve ruined even more lives, and they are affecting the lives and livelihoods of billions of us today.
I would like to spend my time working on productive, positive, life-affirming activities. Instead, I am spending many hours of my short time here on earth trying to stop the insidious Islamic encroachment, reading and writing about things I wish didn’t exist. It’s an upsetting topic. It’s disturbing. But the consequences of ignoring it are even worse, so I devote a large portion of my life to it.
And, of course, I’m not alone. Each of us has been influenced in hundreds of ways we don’t even know about by the third jihad (and the first two jihads).
It’s important to understand how they are Islamizing the free world so successfully. One of the most effective techniques they use is the appeal to pity. The good news is that as soon as you see the appeal for what it is, the game is over, the magic disappears, the trance is lifted.
The above is an excerpt from the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam by Citizen Warrior.


Mainstream media watchdogs are toothless covering Obama and Libya scandal

October 29, 2012

(EYE)(Fox News) When Mitt Romney chose not to directly engage President Obama on Libya in last Monday’s third presidential debate, the mainstream media wrote it off as over-caution on the Republican challenger’s part.That might be true. Certainly a lot of Republicans think so. But what is the mainstream media’s excuse for cautiously engaging the president on Libya? Aren’t we supposed to be watchdogs? The ongoing story is story focused on whether the Obama administration provided, or refused to provide, adequate protection for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it faced the threat of attack on Sept. 11. The attack left the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans dead. Subsequent conflicting accounts coming from the administration on how the White House responded, or didn’t respond, are tailor-made for a full-blown media feeding frenzy.
Yet, the so-called media watchdogs so far have been mostly toothless.
Case in point: On Friday, FoxNews.com reported that it “learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command… — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.”
That’s a very chilling story. And if correct, it could be very damaging to the President Obama’s re-election chances. But looking at the websites Friday of other major news outlets, the story is mostly ignored.
It was not picked up or reported by The New York Times. The Washington Post didn’t cover it either. Same for USA Today. Neither did NBC, CBS, CNN or ABC.
CNN had a link on its Website front page to a story that says “doubts surface” on whether claims of responsibility for the Benghazi attacks was the work of terrorists. The story mostly supports administration accounts and refutes Republican critics such as Sen. John McCain, (R-Ariz.)
NBC’s only Friday story on Libya said in its headline. “Libya Disappears from Romney Stump Speeches.”
CBS’s latest story on Libya had House Speaker John Boehner asking Obama for “answers” about the attacks.
On Thursday, the major media were loaded with stories and videos in which Defense Secretary Leon Panetta defended the administration saying that the US military did not respond to the attack because in did not have adequate “real-time information” to put American forces at risk. Not much follow-up on that.
Also on Thursday, NBC’s Brian Williams interviewed Obama on “Rock Center” asking him what can only be described as a “softball” question on Libya: “Have you been happy with the intelligence, especially in our post 9/11 world? The assessment of your intelligence community, as we stand here, is that it still was a spontaneous terrorist attack and were you happy with what you were able to learn as this unfolded?”
A tougher question might have been, “Why have the administration’s explanations of what really happened, and how you responded, been all over the map?”
So what’s going on here? Are the media just protecting Obama at a critical time in this election campaign, or are they just not following the latest CIA story because they would have to give credit to Fox News?
Whatever the reason, it is not good watchdog journalism.


Did the White House order a cover-up over the murder of Libya’s US Ambassador? – Telegraph Blogs

October 2, 2012

Immediately after the murder of Chris Stevens, America’s Ambassador to Libya, I suggested that the assault on the US consulate in Benghazi on September 11 could have profound consequences for President Barack Obama, particulary if he failed to take appropriate action against the murderers – the most likely candidates being members of al-Qaeda’s new terror franchise in Mali.
But with the US presidential contest entering its critical final phase, the Obama administration deftly avoided getting into any controversy over the murder of Mr Stevens and three other members of the consulate staff by leading everyone to believe the murders were not part of an al-Qaeda plot, but the result of an outbreak of violence caused by a blaphemous film clip. This was certainly the line advanced by Dr Susan Rice, the American Ambassador to the United Nations, and a close confidante of Mr Obama.
Dr Rice, in common with other senior officials in the Obama administration, insisted that the assault on the US consulate had been “spontaneous”, rather than a carefully planned attack by terrorists. By making this claim, the White House effectively silenced any criticism that the Obama administration was culpable for not taking more effective measures to protect the consulate.
But now it appears that Rice’s version of events – endorsed by the White House – was wrong. Within 24 hours of the attack taking place, Washington was informed by a variety of intelligence sources that the attack had indeed been pre-planned and was undoubtedly the work of al-Qaeda which, apart from attacking the consulate, had also attacked the CIA’s safe house in Benghazi.
As a result, rather than absolving itself of any blame for this tragic incident, the White House – and Mr Obama – now find themselves at the centre of a mounting storm over what precisely they knew about the attack on the consulate, and when.
Now that Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has confirmed there was an explicit link between al-Qaeda and the attack, questions are being asked about the role Dr Rice played in trying to play down the significance of the attack. The Republicans have already called for her to resign from her post for misleading the American people.
But the real smoking gun is whether the Obama administration was warned in advance that al-Qaeda was planning an attack. A number of Israeli newspapers have suggested that Washington was warned as early as September 4 – a week earlier – that the environment in Benghazi was becoming increasingly hostile and anti-American, while in London the Foreign Office took the decision to withdraw all its consular staff from Benghazi two months before the murders. This decision was based on an intelligence assessment made by MI6 that al-Qaeda was openly operating in the area following a failed assassination attempt on Sir Dominic Asquith, Britain’s ambassador to Libya, in June.
It is well known that British intelligence works closely with its counterpart in America, and if MI6 knew al-Qaeda was operating in the Benghazi region, then it is highly likely that the CIA did too.
Suddenly the Administration’s “it’s nothing to do with us, guv,” defence is starting to look rather thin, with potentially disastrous consequences for Mr Obama’s re-election prospects.

al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, Chris Stevens, cover-up, Libya, Susan Rice