Get PJ Media on your Apple

Benghazi: Arabic-Language Media Implicates Egypt’s Fallen Muslim Brotherhood Regime

Arabic sources offer significant evidence of Mohammed Mursi's involvement in the deadly attack.

by
Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

Bio

August 12, 2013 - 12:00 am
Page 1 of 3  Next ->   View as Single Page

U.S. officials and experts do acknowledge an Egyptian connection to the Benghazi attacks. They’ll point to what they call a ragtag group of jihadists, led by Muhammad Jamal Abdo Al-Kashif (aka Abu Ahmad), known as the “Jamal network.” However, the U.S. administration downplays this Egyptian connection, whereas several Arabic-language sources reveal a much larger connection. It is significant to point out that the first attack against the U.S. embassies on September 11, 2012, happened in Cairo. Egypt was the spark and Egyptians were the agents of both attacks.

Al-Kashif had been locked up in one of Egypt’s most secure prisons, but he was released by deposed president Mohammad Mursi prior to the attacks. Al-Kashif had been Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard. Mursi was the primary agent behind his release.

Here is Al-Kashif praising Egyptian security for orchestrating his release. Al-Wafd (translated into English) mentions Mursi’s involvement:

Mursi released the most dangerous of terrorists, who have sentences that include death and life imprisonment, as reported by Nour al-Huda Zaki in her report regarding the terms of the exchange. She quoted Karam Zuhdi, of Jama’t Al-Islamieh, saying that he mediated the liberation of soldiers in the Sinai in return for the release of 18 Jihadi inmates. The list included al-Kashif, who was known to have attacked the American embassy in Benghazi. … This is the most distinguished of the entire group who carried out missions in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. … Allowing the return of 300 from the Jihad and Jama’t Al-Islamieh.

A leaked Libyan intelligence document dated four days after the attacks also implicates Mursi as being involved in Benghazi. (A full translation of this document is available here.) The document states that Ansar al-Sharia’s Egypt branch, led by Marjan Salem, was the main player, not the Libyan branch:

The initial investigation shows that the membership of the group [belongs] to the jihadist group Ansar al-Sharia in Egypt which was established and led by Egyptian cleric Marjan Salem. … The most distinguished names that were obtained from the confessions by members of the cell are the president of Egypt, Muhammad Mursi, Safwat Hijazy and Saudi businessman Mansour Bin Kadasa, the owner of Al-Nas TV station.

An Arabic video reportedly discovered on the ground in Benghazi during the attack features the terrorists stating that Mursi had sent them.

Multiple Arabic media sources have reported that the purpose of the Libyan intelligence chief’s recent trip to Cairo was to share information about Mursi’s involvement.

Other Arabic sources (1, 2, 3), including Masress, have reported on the details of the charges being filed against Mursi. They involve his release of Al-Kashif. Per New Elfagr:

As well as charging [Mursi] in complaint No. 3790 for the year 2012 petitioned by the attorney general for negligence and laxity and plunging the country into a chaotic security breach that caused seas of blood, which destabilized the security and stability of the country. Issuing a presidential pardon for Mohammed Jamal Al-Kashif (aka Abu Ahmad), who was responsible for terrorist operations in Egypt, Libya, Yemen and many of the jihadi groups. These elements — together with the Hamas movement — were behind the killing of 16 soldiers on the border during the last month of Ramadan. These groups also kidnapped six soldiers and then negotiated their release.

If Mursi was involved, what were his possible motives? Indisputably, the two most prominent voices as of late demanding the release of  “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdul Rahman were Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Muhammad Mursi. Interestingly, Mursi made such a demand before and days after the attacks in Benghazi.

The younger brother of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Muhammad Zawahiri, was outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on September 11, 2012, and he made the same plea for Rahman’s release. CNN’s Nic Robertson interviewed him and the blind sheikh’s son, also present, there at the scene. When discussing the protesters, Muhammad Zawahiri stated that they were demanding the release of the blind sheikh.

There was an additional attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound (SMC) in Benghazi on June 6, 2012. A group calling itself The Brigades of the Imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman claimed responsibility.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
What happened in Benghazi was a hostage taking - with the active connivance of the Obama administration - gone bad.

Obama's intent was for Amb. Stevens and perhaps a couple of others to be taken hostage, and then they would be ransomed by the release of the Blind Sheikh - the mastermind of the '93 WTC bombing - who today rots in a U.S. prison, and whose release Morsi has demanded repeatedly.

This was the reason for the "stand down" order given to local U.S. forces. Think about it; this order does not make any sense otherwise.

And, this would be perfectly in line with Obama's policy of appeasement/support of the MB in general, and Morsi in particular. Using this hostage taking as a pretext for giving Morsi back his Blind Sheikh would, Obama hoped, cement in our relationship with MB-led Egypt.

Things went awry when the two former Navy SEALs took it upon themselves to defend the embassy. They killed 60 terrorists before they were overrun. By the time the terrorists had the embassy, they were in no mood for taking hostages, and brutally murdered the Americans they captured.

I have no documentary proof of this chain of events, but it is the only way the stand down order makes any sense.

I hope and pray that this is revealed puiblicly, that a modern-day John Dean comes forward with this information, and names names. If this happens, there is no way Obama is NOT impeached and thrown out of office, as he more than deserves to be.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
What of Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, who visited the consulate in the hours before the attack and according to reports was able to walk through the lines of the gathering jihadists outside the consulate?

Would that indicate that there is more to this story than just the Egyptian facet covered here?

Personally, I do not think that there are any friendly actors amongst the Muslim countries at all; the United States has been held in contempt for decades and decades and the Obama administration has only sped up the disdain.

I also am convinced of Obama's direct involvement in the the transfer of arms to AQ. That is part of the reason why he and his administration refuse to articulate that we are at war, that we are at war with Islam, and that AQ is the leading terrorist organization within Islam.

Moreover, there is no gradation of Islam, radical, moderate or otherwise. Islam is a complete belief system incorporating the religious, the legal, the societal and the economic. There is no distillation of Islam, it is submission itself.

There are still mighty big shoes to drop in this story, and those shoes are going to land squarely on Barack Obama. He is obfuscating, lying, misdirecting, etc. to keep attention away from what his actions were not only on that night, but in the circumstances behind why Ambassador Stevens was in Behngazi in the first place.

I firmly believe that we have a traitor on our hands - a real one - one that needs to be adjudicated and punished severely for his deeds.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (32)
All Comments   (32)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Two words: Huma Abedin. Two more words: Her mother. Three more words: Muslim Brotherhood sisterhood.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am sure this is one of the biggest reasons barry boy has been ignoring @Benghazi for so long. He doesn't want anybody to know MB was involved because he is so in bed with them that any bad reporting about them will cause major aftershocks for many moons to come. That along with the illegal gun running, again to MB through the "Syrian rebel" excuse. So now we know the guns are directly going to MB!
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Identifying terrorist groups we entrusted to protect our diplomatic post in Benghazi is an admission that the Obama administration put the fox in charge of the henhouse...."
Just as the current administration is doing with DHS.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
obama and clinton should be indicted and put on trial for involuntary manslaughter regarding the deaths of tyrone woods, glen doherty, sean smith and chris stevens, all who were killed in benghazi because of politics.

obama and clinton gave these men no help and left them there to die. benghazi is one of the worse scandals ever perpetrated on our country.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Clinton, Obama #Benghazi Lies, Screaming Goat: http://youtu.be/AB_6chO1uD0
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
What's the Problem? Isn't this what the State Department just forced us in Israel to do?
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
What happened in Benghazi was a hostage taking - with the active connivance of the Obama administration - gone bad.

Obama's intent was for Amb. Stevens and perhaps a couple of others to be taken hostage, and then they would be ransomed by the release of the Blind Sheikh - the mastermind of the '93 WTC bombing - who today rots in a U.S. prison, and whose release Morsi has demanded repeatedly.

This was the reason for the "stand down" order given to local U.S. forces. Think about it; this order does not make any sense otherwise.

And, this would be perfectly in line with Obama's policy of appeasement/support of the MB in general, and Morsi in particular. Using this hostage taking as a pretext for giving Morsi back his Blind Sheikh would, Obama hoped, cement in our relationship with MB-led Egypt.

Things went awry when the two former Navy SEALs took it upon themselves to defend the embassy. They killed 60 terrorists before they were overrun. By the time the terrorists had the embassy, they were in no mood for taking hostages, and brutally murdered the Americans they captured.

I have no documentary proof of this chain of events, but it is the only way the stand down order makes any sense.

I hope and pray that this is revealed puiblicly, that a modern-day John Dean comes forward with this information, and names names. If this happens, there is no way Obama is NOT impeached and thrown out of office, as he more than deserves to be.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Perhaps, but if Amb. Stevens are / or others were taken hostage, it is likely Romney would be President. And if brother barry gets impeached, we get Jumpin Joe. Personally, I think it's just a side show to Iran.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Um, taken hostage as opposed to...brutally murdered within the context of extreme derelection of duty as Commander-in-Chief at the very least? And never mind my little theory, that was patently obvious BEFORE the election. And going a little further: taken hostage but then SAVED by Obama's "statesmanship" in releasing Blind Sheikh to Egypt and thus also "saving" our "alliance" with the same? For people who were going to vote Romney anyway, probably not impressive. But the political effect of Obama's "intended" outcome per my theory would have been far less dramatic than what wound up transpiring. I know here in Ohio, there were protesters on his routes to his campaign stops regarding Benghazi. Anything like a responsible media, and even what happened in terms of what facts were in the public domain pre-election should have been enough to sink him.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
and / or
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Making distinction between, and tracking the movements of, all the myriad Jihad terror groups amounts to counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. There are an estimated 30 major Jihad terror groups now, and keeping track of them is akin to being a Sabremetrician instead of straight ahead baseball fan. This is a necessary function best left to full-time Jihad resistance experts, but has little to do with fighting the main problem, a deadly one, which is Moslems.

Defeating al-Qaeda, whatever *that* means, is of little consequence. Defeating Islam is what counts. But what does even that mean? We know they're at war with us and we're not at war with them, and the vast majority of them are moderates with Madisonian intents that bear nuanced differences of multicultural benefit.

We have so very far to go, just to begin to resist. And anyway, at this point, what does it matter? A Yale Law School alum said that, she's the same one who signed a draft resolution to make it a crime in all countries to criticize religions. Guess which one urgently needs to be criticized in order to save civilization.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
OK commenters, if Islam is the problem, explain to me how Yasser Arafat, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Hafez-El-Assad attempted to create a second holocaust when they were all basically secular nationalists - the former two Communist-leaning, the latter an Arab Nazi (as was Saddam Hussein)? Not to mentioned Arafat's worldwide reign of terror, including ordering the execution of two American diplomats?

Maybe people use the term "Islamist" for a reason? Not all Moslems are terrorists, and plenty of Arabs (some Christian) were terrorists without Islam pushing them.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"OK commenters, if Islam is the problem, explain to me how Yasser Arafat, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Hafez-El-Assad attempted to create a second holocaust when they were all basically secular nationalists..."

Names. Sigh. Or, more properly put, terms. That's the art of misunderstanding, or, swallowing fictive realities.

Explanations about these three "basically secular nationalists":

1) Yasir Arafat's paternal uncle, Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, was recruited by Hitler to Berlin, where he formed all Moslem SS Divisions and, reportedly, had a hand in formation of the Holcaust. Yasir was quite proud of his Grand Mufti uncle and what he did.

2) Upon taking power, Nasser stripped the Coptics of their civil rights and seized their property and lands -- all based on their religious affiliation. The seized property was distributed among favored Moslem supporters. The British saw Moslems as fanatics and acceded to Nasser's religion-based fascist economics.

3) After taking over Syria, Hafffez al-Assad first delivered a constitution that called for rights to Infidel citizens, but soon reversed that under pressure from the Moslem Brotherhood. Later, he struck the alliance with Egypt that culminated in the Yom Kippur War, which was openly driven by commands like "We will not remove a Jew from the punishment. They know the shameful thing that awaits them." (Holy Ko-Ran 2:96).

There's your explanation.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Guess which one urgently needs to be criticized in order to save civilization.

Let's see...Hillary-ism ? Islam-ism?

More than criticized. Obliterated.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
No wonder Obama got along so well with Mursi. It must have hurt him to see his fall. But with Obama suggesting, demanding?, that there be a Muslim Brotherhood presence in an Egyptian government he show his loyalty and steadfastness to the cause, the radical muslim cause.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
typo-surprise
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All

48 Trackbacks to “Benghazi: Arabic-Language Media Implicates Egypt’s Fallen Muslim Brotherhood Regime”