Should The War On ISIS Have Ever Been Declared? Is It A Diversionary Tactic?

URL and to post comments: http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/10/8/the-khorasan-group-terrorist-flavor-of-the-month.html Wednesday,October 08, 2014 [The following post is by TDV Contributor, Wendy McElroy] All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. --George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia Obama has scammed the world into war...again. He is unlikely to repeat the facilitating lie this time, however. It was too thoroughly and quickly debunked for him to take the risk. Besides, there is no need. Iraq and Syria are already being bombed. Instead, the lie is now forgotten except by critics of Obama or of war. The Lie And Why The Liars Told It In early September, as he prepared to bomb Iraq and Syria without approval from Congress or the United Nations, Obama faced a dilemma. America had been actively at war for 13 years, ever since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. The public was war-weary. And the public would be voting Republican or Democrat in only two months time. How could he bomb with public support and without losing the election? The situation was especially problematic for three reasons. There was general consensus that the new military front on terrorism would consume years and might require U.S. boots on the ground. Iraq and Syria posed no provable or imminent threat to the American homeland nor did they commit an act of war. And Obama had no constitutional, congressional, U.N. or other authority to launch yet another war. In an article (Sept. 28) entitled “The Fake Terror Threat Used To Justify Bombing Syria,” journalists Glenn Greenwald and Murtaza Hussain explained how Obama solved his dilemma. The solution “was found in the wholesale concoction of a brand new terror threat...'The Khorasan Group'. After spending weeks depicting ISIS as an unprecedented threat — too radical even for Al Qaeda! — administration officials suddenly began spoon-feeding their favorite media organizations and national security journalists tales of a secret group that was even scarier and more threatening than ISIS, one that posed a direct and immediate threat to the American Homeland. Seemingly out of nowhere, a new terror group was created in media lore.” (Note: Khorasan is a former province of Iran. The term is sometimes used to reference a more general Afghanistan-Pakistan-Iran region.) The meticulous stripping of the lie came only 15 days after its debut. The debut: On September 13, about a week before the bombing of Syria began, the Associated Press drew upon unnamed officials and classified (undisclosed) U.S. Intelligence assessments to warn of a new and deadlier terrorist threat. “At the center is...the Khorasan group, a cadre of veteran al-Qaida fighters.” The Khorasan group were “recruit[ing] Europeans and Americans whose passports allow them to board a U.S.-bound airliner” with explosives and destroy airplanes. The AP continued, “The Obama administration has said that the Islamic State group [ISIS], the target of more than 150 U.S. airstrikes in recent weeks, does not pose an imminent threat to the continental U.S. The Khorasan group, which has not been subject to American military action, is considered the more immediate threat.” In an anti-war.com article (Sept. 28) entitled “They're Making Up Stuff,” Justin Raimondo explained the new group's importance to Obama. “What’s so fearsome about 'Khorasan'?” Raimondo asked, “Well, they couldn’t care less about establishing a Caliphate...and as for overthrowing Assad, the Khorasanians won’t stoop to conquer. No, nothing less than an attack on America, preferably using an airliner as a weapon of choice, will do. What they lack in originality they more than make up for when it comes to the all-important Imminence Factor.”  Problems one and two were diminished, if not entirely solved. Conveniently, the Khorasan group threatened the American homeland with violence, which is a traditional cause of war. The terrorists-on-steroids roused enough public rage and fear to justify an extended campaign against them...or, at least, to quiet or confuse most objections to it. Still One Stumbling Block But what of problem three: the lack of Congressional and U.N. approval? The Congressional problem remains. Congress is not rushing back to vote on war; it will stay on hiatus until after the November 4th election. For one thing, the Republicans who dominate the House are mostly hawkish and probably content enough with the status quo. They are also content to have Democrats absorb blow back or military disasters. Obama chose to bypass Congress so let the fall-out land on his shoulders. No wonder Nancy Pelosi, the leading House Democrat, is calling for her colleagues to return early for a war vote.  Their absence harms Democrats. The U.N. problem remains. On October 3, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for “all warring sides in this brutal and bloody conflict [in Syria]....“to redouble their efforts to bring this horrific conflict to an end and help reach a long-overdue political solution.” In short, stop bombing. Obama has tried to sidestep such criticism by organizing a coalition to support his Syrian policy; this gave the appearance of global consensus. The Daily Mail reported “the U.S. is working with 60 other nations in these attacks against the terrorist group” as of September 28.  Domestic Acceptance Is Constructed The path around political problems is to secure popular opinion. The corporate mainstream media lost no time in stirring the panic that promotes war. Airwaves, internet and print were filled with reports of the Khorasan's threat to average Americans. On September 20, a New York Times headline declared, “U.S. Suspects More Direct Threats Beyond ISIS.” While admitting “[t]here is almost no public information about the Khorasan group,” the article went on to state, “it is the cell in Syria that may be the most intent on hitting the United States or its installations overseas with a terror attack.”  On September 23, the Defense of Department (DOD) announced that the U.S. had expanded its “action [in Syria] to disrupt the imminent attack...against the United States and Western interests conducted...by the Khorasan Group - who have established a safe haven in Syria to develop external attacks, construct and test improvised explosive devices and recruit Westerners.”  Even then, however, voices of skepticism spoke in the background. On the same day as the DOD's announcement, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace raised a red flag. Noting that “[t]he 'Khorasan Group' is a term that gained currency only in the past two week,” Carnegie remarked “[w]hat is being discussed is not a 'new terrorist group', but rather a special cell...of an already existing al-Qaeda franchise.” The article concluded, “[t]he sudden flurry of revelations about the 'Khorasan Group' in the past two weeks smacks of strategic leaks and political spin.” As skepticism grew, the corporate mainstream media began to backpedal. Five days after pushing the Khorasan story, The New York Times (Sept. 25) questioned the group's existence. It also observed that official accounts of the threat Khorasan posed “differed” and an attack on the American homeland was now being described as “aspirational” rather than “imminent.” The pivotal point came on September 28 when Greenwald and Hussain blew the lid off the lie. They did so with such force that even liberal, pro-Democrat outlets such as Democracy Now! began running headlines such as, “How the U.S. Concocted a Terror Threat to Justify Syria Strikes, and the Corporate Media Went Along.” Conclusion In record time, a lie was born and died. But does the truth matter? The bombing goes on. Perhaps the saga will convince some Americans to vote differently in November. Even if they do, will Republicans be any better on the war issue? Whatever happens in America, the Iraqis and Syrians murdered by bombing raids that were launched will never draw breath again. Comments? Join us at TDV! Wendy McElroy is a regular contributor to the Dollar Vigilante, and a renowned individualist anarchist and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder along with Carl Watner and George H. Smith of The Voluntaryist in 1982, and is the author/editor of twelve books,

Obama Administration Now Is Making Up Names For New Enemies. Khorasan Is A White House Creation!

Analysts: Khorasan a New Name, Not a New Group

Thursday, 02 Oct 2014 10:34 AM

By Jennifer G. Hickey

Share:

  Get Short Link |

  Email Article |

  Comment  |

   Contact Us  |

  Print  

|  A   A  

• 0
  inShare

On Sept. 13, The New York Times reported that American officials said "the group called Khorasan had emerged in the past year as the cell in Syria that may be the most intent" on striking the United States homeland, but foreign policy analysts and experts argue the term "Khorasan group" is nothing more than a name created by the Obama administration.

"What is being discussed is not a 'new terrorist group,' but rather a specialized cell that has gradually been established within, or on, the fringes of an already existing al-Qaida franchise, the so-called Nusra Front," said Aron Lund of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

In fact, Lund asserts that the "label has simply been invented for convenience by U.S. intelligence or adopted from informal references within the Nusra Front to these men as being, for example, 'our brothers from Khorasan.'"

But it is a term that has gained popularity with administration officials, including President Barack Obama.

On Sept. 23, Obama stood on the South Lawn to deliver a statement on airstrikes in Syria and said that the U.S. "also took strikes to disrupt plotting against the United States and our allies by seasoned al-Qaida operatives in Syria who are known as the Khorasan group."

The Pentagon also used the term in its announcement the same day that the U.S. had targeted other groups in Syria to disrupt imminent attack plotting by "a network of seasoned al-Qaida veterans — sometimes referred to as the Khorasan group" that had sought refuge in Syria.

Those references had other defense experts wondering who the new group was.

Imran Khan, a foreign correspondent for Al Jazeera based on Doha, Qatar, said he called contacts in the region to find out who the group was.

"To say I drew a blank would be an understatement. Reactions ranged from a hearty laugh to confusion. The name was new," he writes.

Khan even called a source who openly supports ISIS and is a veteran of Jihad in Afghanistan and he responded, "Khorasan? I don't know that name. I don't know who they are."

"What it clearly isn't is a name that Jihadists know or use," he adds.

Intelligence experts also have been left scratching their heads about the emergence of the Khorasan group.

"I’d certainly never heard of this group while working at the agency," Aki Peritz, a former CIA counterterrorism analyst told Time magazine.

"If senior members from a company’s headquarters go work in a branch office, are they still part of the main office or a super empowered part of the branch?" added Peritz.

Even if the Khorasan group is simply a new name to describe an old threat, Lund says using it "makes no sense either in Arabic or any other language" since "Khorasan is not an organizational name or even some exotic acronym, but an ancient Islamic historical term from the far east of the Muslim world."

Related Stories:

• Khorasan Leader Killed by U.S. Strike in Syria
• FBI, Pentagon: Not Sure If Khorasan Threat is 'Imminent'
  

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Obama's ISIS War--Weak, Ill-Planned, Highly Restricted And Eventually Disastrously Unsuccessful.

Gen. Hayden: US Attacks Not Sufficient Yet, Obama 'Restrictions' Undermine Effort

Wednesday, 24 Sep 2014 11:46 PM

By Wanda Carruthers

Share:

  Get Short Link |

  Email Article |

  Comment  |

   Contact Us  |

  Print  

|  A   A  

• inShare

The U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State (ISIS) shot "easier" targets during Monday evening's air campaign, but intelligence will be the challenge as the terrorists become harder to find, Gen. Michael Hayden told NewsmaxTV's "America's Forum."

"These are probably the easier targets to identify. These are the ones that you had good intelligence on," the retired Air Force general said Wednesday.

Story continues below video.

"You're going to run out of those, and the enemy is going to get smarter, and they're going to go underground and blend in with the civilian population. So, to keep this up, and we have to keep it up, we're going to need a lot more very exquisite intelligence, and it's going to be hard to come by. So, we've got a challenge here," he added.


Hayden, who was the former director of the National Security Agency and the CIA, said he was surprised that no NATO nations joined in Monday's airstrikes. Of the five Arab nations that did participate, he said it would be unwise to "underestimate" the importance of the Sunni-Arab coalition they represented.

Hayden said he understood the hesitation of Great Britain to participate after last year's refusal to join the U.S. in bombing Syria over President Bashar Assad's use of chemical weapons.

He said France had only indicated they "may bomb in Iraq, but they won't bomb in Syria." The real focus needed to be on Turkey, Hayden said, where there was a "hundreds of kilometers-long border" with Iraq and Syria.

The airstrikes on Monday also included attacks on a terrorist organization called the Khorasan group, with links to al-Qaida. There are reports that its leader, Mushin al-Fadhli, may have been killed during the attack.

Hayden said al-Fadhli, was "somebody we've known for a long time" and was considered somewhat of a "rock star" among terrorist organizations.

"As a teenager he was in [Osama] bin Laden's inner circle. According to press accounts, he was actually one of the few who knew about 9/11 before 9/11," he said.

White House official Tony Blinken said Iran was alerted prior to Monday's airstrikes,
and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power informed Syria as well about the impending attacks, USA Today reported.

Hayden explained he wasn't "quite sure why [Iran] needed prior notice," but said officials probably informed Syria to prevent them from attacking the coalition planes.

"My sense is that we were trying to inform them that these are what they are, and you would be well advised to stay away from the area and not even begin to suggest any kind of response to what we intend to do here," he said.

President Barack Obama has continually stressed there would be no U.S. ground forces as part of the campaign against ISIS, and Hayden said he didn't anticipate combat action by American troops, unless the president "dramatically changes his mind."

Despite that, the actions Obama has already taken with airstrikes in Iraq and Syria put the effort "in a far better place than we were two weeks ago."

"I don't think it's sufficient stuff yet, because of some of the restrictions (Obama's) placed on us. And, no one I know is calling for American maneuver battalion brigades out there in the Syrian or Iraqi dessert. But, he has put some artificial restrictions that's going to make it harder to do this," he said.

Because of those restrictions, Hayden said some countries in the region "still have to question the depth of American commitment, because we spend an awful lot of time telling them and our own citizens all the things we're not going to do."



Related Stories:

• Obama Calls on UN to Dismantle ISIS 'Network of Death'
• Pentagon: US Launched Most Airstrikes Against ISIS

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Do We Believe Holder's Explanation Of Rationale For Airstrikes Against Khorasan Group In Syria?