Patterns: Benghazi, Tripoli and Kidnapping

Note: The following report shall be introduced as Addendum L to Ironclad: Egypt involved in Benghazi Attacks. It is intended to demonstrate a pattern of behavior with Muslim Brotherhood-inspired Islamists. That pattern involves kidnapping for the sole purpose of releasing high value targets captured by the U.S. and the west.

Kidnapping to free the Blind Sheikh and al Libi?

Kidnapping to free the Blind Sheikh and al Libi?

An Islamic group in Libya is calling for U.S. journalists to be kidnapped and used in an effort to secure the release of Abu Anas al Libi, who is wanted for his role in the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Al Libi was captured in Tripoli, Libya by U.S. Special Forces on October 5th. Five days later, Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan was abducted by Islamists and held for several hours, in response to Al Libi’s capture.

Here is what Bill Gertz of WFB wrote about this latest development:

The most serious threat included a posting on Facebook warning that U.S. journalists in the country will be kidnapped and used to try and exchange them for Abu Anas al Libi, who was snatched by commandos on Saturday in the Libyan capital.

Most of the threats appeared on the Facebook page “We are all Nazih al Rugai”—another name used by al Libi. The site was opened Oct. 6 and closed on Wednesday.

Other Libyan Islamists issued threats to target U.S. interests in North Africa, Malta, and Italy. The group Al Ruqayat Rebels Assembly posted the statement on Facebook and said the attacks would be in retaliation for the “treacherous abduction” of al Libi.

Islamists also called for mass demonstrations outside the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. {emphasis ours}

The excerpts from Gertz’s article above are potentially very important because they may establish a pattern of behavior within the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya. Take notice of the obscure and previously unknown name of the group that wants to use kidnapped journalists in a prisoner swap for al Libi; it goes by the name Al Ruqayat Rebels Assembly. Had it gone by the name Ansar Al-Sharia, for example, we’d have something quite interesting indeed but if both groups are identified as Muslim Brotherhood extensions, we still do.

Consider the parallels between al Libi and Omar Abdul Rahman (the “Blind Sheikh”). Both are highly regarded by the Brotherhood and forces loyal to it. On June 5-6, 2012, a group identifying itself as the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades attacked the U.S. Special Mission Compound (SMC) that was ultimately attacked on 9/11/12. The charter of this group can be found in its name; it wants the “Blind Sheikh” released. The lead terrorist in that June 5th attack is believed to have been Tarek Taha Abu Al-Azm and that attack was allegedly in response to the killing of Al-Qaeda No. 2, Abu Yahya al Libi one day earlier.

If the “Blind Sheikh” brigades and Al-Qaeda are all that different, why did the former seek to avenge the death of a leader belonging to the latter? The answer: they’re both Muslim Brotherhood.

According to Gertz, Islamists were called to perform “mass demonstrations outside the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli” for the purpose of demanding al Libi’s release. This leads to EXHIBIT Z from our “Ironclad” Report.

For months prior to the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi, protesters were outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo demanding the release of the “Blind Sheikh”. As our EXHIBIT Z points out, CNN was at the scene of these protests with the Blind Sheikh’s son and Mohammed al-Zawahiri, the brother of Al-Qaeda’s number 1, Ayman al-Zawahiri on the morning of the attack on that embassy and the SMC in Benghazi.

Yet, despite this, CNN did not report that the attack on the embassy later that day or the SMC in Benghazi later that night may have had something to do with the “Blind Sheikh” (See EXHIBIT Z3). CNN, along with the White House, parroted the notion that both attacks were in response to a video.

Check out Ansar Al-Sharia’s reaction to the capture of al Libi, via WFB:

The Libyan jihadist group Ansar al Sharia, that has been linked by U.S. officials to the September 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, denounced the al Libi operation but did not issue a direct threat against the United States, a U.S. official said.

However, Ansar al Sharia criticized the Libyan government for weakness in allowing the operation and called for a major campaign to seek al Libi’s release. {emphasis ours}

So, why would a group that was behind the murder of four Americans – one an Ambassador – suddenly be exercising calm, compared to the reaction of the obscure Al Ruqayat Rebels Assembly, which is calling for the kidnapping of American journalists to get al Libi released? Could it be that doing as Al Ruqayat is doing might connect a few dots relative to Ansar Al-Sharia’s willingness to use hostages to seek the release of high value prisoners like the “Blind Sheikh” and al Libi?

At a minimum, Ansar Al-Sharia and Al Ruqayat Rebels Assembly have found common cause, which fits right in with the premise that both groups are simply extensions of the Muslim Brotherhood, the same Muslim Brotherhood that was leading Egypt at the time of the Benghazi attack and the U.S. Embassy attack in Cairo earlier that day.

There are far too many unanswered questions when it comes to what happened in Benghazi but when it comes to the reaction of Islamists to the capture of al Libi, it would seem that we may be establishing a pattern of behavior that might lend credence to the possibility that the Benghazi attack was about a kidnapping operation gone bad.


, ,