With friends like these: Was Egypt involved in the #Benghazi massacre?

Posted by: Phineas on June 2, 2013 at 2:26 pm

**Posted by Phineas

US Consulate, Benghazi

US Consulate, Benghazi

The idea seems insane — Egypt participating in the assault on our consulate, when they desperately need outside help to keep their economy (barely) functioning? Sounds like the stuff of conspiracy theories, and Egyptian society thrives on such, but journalist Cynthia Farahat presents enough interesting facts to make one go “hmmmm:”

The terrorist attack in Benghazi is far more disturbing than previously thought. Although it has not been reported in the U.S. media, the possibility exists that the Egyptian government may have played an operational role in the attack. YouTube videos of the terrorist strike raise a serious problem that only an Arabic speaker would detect: some of the terrorists are speaking in the Egyptian dialect of the Arabic language.

Indeed, one of the videos shot with a cell phone of one of the attackers emerged around the time four Americans were killed. It shows a mob approaching the American compound under siege, clearly telling the terrorists in the dialect of Upper Egypt: “Mahadesh, mahadesh yermi, Dr. Morsi ba’atna” —which translates to: “Don’t shoot, don’t shoot, Dr. Morsi sent us.”

The words “Mahadesh yermi” for “don’t shoot” are characteristically spoken in Egyptian Arabic, while Libyans from Benghazi would say, “Matermey” for “don’t shoot.”

“Dr. Morsi” refers, of course, to president Mohamed Morsi of Egypt. The name Morsi is Egyptian and does not exist in any other Arabic speaking country.

Farahat also draws an interesting connection to an event I had forgotten about: at a campaign rally a couple of days after the Benghazi massacre, Obama said Egypt is not an ally, an amazing statement of the deterioration in our relations, given the close cooperation between Egypt and the US over the prior 30 years.

Could it be that US intelligence had picked up on the same linguistic clues Farahat noticed and came to the same conclusion, and that Obama was sending a veiled message that “we know what you did?”

Later on, Farahat discusses a possible explanation for Egypt’s involvement (if they were) that makes the idea at least plausible for me: that Morsi needed to placate more radical Muslim Brotherhood factions and so sent some guys to Libya to establish his jihadi “street cred:”

According to the MB and Sunni doctrine, it’s only permissible for Islamist leaders to maintain a ten-year duration of hodna (Islamic truce) with an infidel nation. This raises the question of whether breaking the truce was the root of the Sep. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi. That attack against America was, according to Islamist doctrine, the only way the MB would be allowed to renew a truce. The MB also might have possibly needed to legitimize their Islamic rule among their jihadist followers through exercising jihad.

So, you see, if true, Morsi had to participate in the massacre of our people in order to keep the hotheads on his side happy.

Nothing personal, you know?

Except it was very “personal” for Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyone Woods.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

6 Responses to “With friends like these: Was Egypt involved in the #Benghazi massacre?”

Comments

  1. The one fact remaining above everything is that the consulate had despicably inadequate security in a hostile region. And the fact that the anniversary of 9/11 was ignored is called fatal self-delusion. All else is secondary.

    There is plenty of blame to go around, Washington that is.

  2. The situation at Benghazi showed a “state of absolute unpreparedness” coupled with an “indifference to danger” which resulted in an “unnecessary tragedy”.

    Those items in quotation marks are taken from the 1912 Senate Commerce Committee’s “Titanic” findings.

  3. Mike Giles says:

    Egyptian involvement feeds back into the rumor, that it was supposed to be a kidnapping; in order to have someone to trade for the blind sheik.

  4. Whatever happened to our policy of not negotiating with terrorists?

  5. Carlos says:

    Neither do they, Drew. Maybe that’s why they won’t negotiate with Obhammed.