HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Khora-Who?

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:05 PM

Khora-Who?

At the risk of being labeled a paranoid conspiracy theory monger, I will offer a few thoughts about the current round of "Oh-my-God-the-terra'ists-are-closing-in-on-Peoria" war drum beating that our august leaders -- of BOTH parties -- are engaging in.

First, a little refresher in recent history. Does anybody remember what the big news was last summer? You know, when the original neoconservative cheerleading squad for invading Iraq, along with a coterie of war profitee... -- er, sorry, defense contractors -- was suddenly demanding that the President intervene in Syria's civil war and to overthrow Assad, and the President appeared ready to go along with the idea? Of course, after some pretty intense public outcry, the President decided to consult Congress (even though he continued to assert he didn't legally need to do so). And then, as quickly as the whole 'crisis' arose, it simply disappeared. Congress never did actually vote on it. We did send some arms to the anti-Assad forces, but otherwise the matter was quietly dropped -- or so we thought.

Fast forward to this summer, and suddenly there's this group that had barely been mentioned -- ISIS, ISIL or just IS. They kill a couple of journalists and a British aid worker in a manner that offends our delicate imperialist sensibilities (after all, our murder-by-drone policy is infinitely more civilized, don't you think?), and suddenly it is imperative that we start a round of airstrikes in Iraq in order to save a subculture of Iraq's Kurds known as Yazidis to escape their mountaintop holdout, where they will surely die if we don't begin bombing -- oh, I'm sorry, I meant striking from the air (really not much more than a feather-dusting when you think about it).

Suddenly, lo and behold, our "no-boots-on-the-ground-limited-airstrikes-on-ISIS-in-Iraq has morphed into a "years-long" (as one top general has said) war against ISIS and Khorasan in where else but -- you guessed it -- SYRIA! Oh, but wait . . . . Korha-who? Suddenly, there's a new terra'ist group none of us has ever heard of before that we're also at war against. Oh, and they had an IMMINENT plan to attack the U.S.! So why have we never heard of this group that was surely about to hit Peoria next week? Because, the administration tells us, we didn't want to tip them off that we were hot on their trail. (Funny how that never stopped anybody from talkinb about Al Qaeda.) Oh, and Khorasan has an added benefit: if the administration can claim that they pose an 'imminent threat,' then it buys the President some time before he needs to seek authorization from Congress. That is, of course, if such authorization were needed, which, of course, it isn't, because by some novel legal contortions, the President is authorized to act under the original Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) passed 13 years ago in the wake of 9-11, which authorized the then-President to go after those responsible for 9-11.

So, let me see if I've got this straight: the President is authorized under a 13-year-old AUMF intended to permit the then-President to go after those responsible for 9-11 to intervene in a civil war of a country that had nothing to do with that event, and against a group that did not then exist. But hey, just in case that doesn't pan out legally, we have this handy-dandy imminent threat from still ANOTHER group that didn't exist 13 years ago. WHAT A COUNTRY!

Sorry, folks, but I ain't buyin'! We have been 'neo-CONNED' yet again. And most of us, it seems,are the neocons' willing dupes.

Polls are showing that something like 94% of Americans support airstrikes in Syria, thus once again proving the truth of that famous quote penned by H.L. Mencken: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

65 replies, 3021 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply Khora-Who? (Original post)
markpkessinger Sep 2014 OP
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #1
blm Sep 2014 #2
Uncle Joe Sep 2014 #45
oberliner Sep 2014 #3
markpkessinger Sep 2014 #5
msanthrope Sep 2014 #12
GeorgeGist Sep 2014 #60
Martin Eden Sep 2014 #15
oberliner Sep 2014 #21
Throd Sep 2014 #25
Martin Eden Sep 2014 #27
oberliner Sep 2014 #31
Martin Eden Sep 2014 #49
liberal_at_heart Sep 2014 #28
oberliner Sep 2014 #32
msanthrope Sep 2014 #33
7962 Sep 2014 #34
oberliner Sep 2014 #35
msanthrope Sep 2014 #38
oberliner Sep 2014 #39
msanthrope Sep 2014 #41
7962 Sep 2014 #40
oberliner Sep 2014 #56
MrMickeysMom Sep 2014 #62
leftstreet Sep 2014 #4
sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #6
GusBob Sep 2014 #7
Maedhros Sep 2014 #29
woo me with science Sep 2014 #48
BuelahWitch Sep 2014 #55
DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2014 #8
FrodosPet Sep 2014 #57
DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2014 #58
TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #9
whatchamacallit Sep 2014 #10
Maedhros Sep 2014 #53
msanthrope Sep 2014 #11
leftstreet Sep 2014 #13
msanthrope Sep 2014 #14
CJCRANE Sep 2014 #16
Xithras Sep 2014 #19
CJCRANE Sep 2014 #20
Xithras Sep 2014 #42
CJCRANE Sep 2014 #46
msanthrope Sep 2014 #23
CJCRANE Sep 2014 #24
msanthrope Sep 2014 #30
hack89 Sep 2014 #44
rusty fender Sep 2014 #17
msanthrope Sep 2014 #43
wandy Sep 2014 #18
msanthrope Sep 2014 #36
wandy Sep 2014 #47
leftstreet Sep 2014 #50
msanthrope Sep 2014 #51
woo me with science Sep 2014 #22
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #26
Man from Pickens Sep 2014 #37
FrodosPet Sep 2014 #59
ChisolmTrailDem Sep 2014 #52
KoKo Sep 2014 #64
RobertEarl Sep 2014 #54
GeorgeGist Sep 2014 #61
MrMickeysMom Sep 2014 #63
nationalize the fed Sep 2014 #65

Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:06 PM

1. Erect Bogeyman, wave flag, start bombing, send troops, and talk about peace.

 

Works every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:07 PM

2. What did Bush do on August 6, 2001?

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:17 PM

45. Dismissvely told his CIA briefer "All right. You've covered your ass, now." and went fishing

using the American People as bait.



http://www.salon.com/2006/06/20/911pdb/


Ron Suskind’s “The One Percent Doctrine” is out this week, and the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman says it’s full of “jaw-dropping stories” about the Bush administration’s war on terror.

Or lack thereof.

We’ve known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” We’ve known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward.

What we didn’t know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:08 PM

3. Bush was criticized for ignoring the threat of AQ before it was too late

 

Remember all the comments about the report saying they planned to fly planes into buildings that was ignored?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:16 PM

5. Yes, and I'm sure the administration will be forthcoming soon with the details of Khorasan's plot .

. . . just as soon as they are finished composing them, that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:45 PM

12. Um--I think if you want some background on Khorasan, you should familiarize

 

yourself on AQAP. They've been around for awhile, and they are pretty adept bombmakers. Think al-Asiri.

UN Resolution 1267 is always a good place to start when you are trying to figure out who players are. Think al-Fadhli.****

****We might have actually killed that son-of-a-b with these airstrikes. If we did, then good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #12)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 10:09 PM

60. Enjoy YOUR war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:55 PM

15. And your point is ..................???

Seriously, I don't see how that is at all relevant to the current situation ............

... unless you think the consensus here is that Bush should have acted to forestall the 9/11 attacks by bombing Muslim countries
(instead of acting on the intel to beef up airport security and arrest the conspirators who were in our country)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:04 PM

21. Maybe these people were actually planning a terror attack?

 

Maybe it's a good idea to prevent that from happening?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:30 PM

25. Nah, it's much easier to complain about the President regardless of which decision he makes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:41 PM

27. Maybe, maybe Not (planning an attack on US soil)

But the point you don't seem to grasp is that bombing campaigns in foreign countries is not how 9/11 could have been prevented -- and therefore your analogy to the current situation does not hold water.

Do you think the current bombing campaign against ISIS will avert a major attack on US soil?

If so, I will remind you that a conspiracy like 9/11 requires a relatively small group that is highly trained & motivated and has financing. Bombs are highlu unlikely to eliminate that kind of threat, but the blowback from US bombs and collateral damage in Muslim countries is very likely to generate plenty of highly motivated plotters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:58 PM

31. Killing the people who were in the process of planning 9/11 would have prevented 9/11

 

That is the point you don't seem to grasp and is the entire basis of the analogy.

Bear in mind, in his case, that permission was given from the host country to attack the terrorists residing there.

Also bear in mind that Muslim countries supported this action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #31)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 05:50 PM

49. Then we would have had to bomb the USA, or Germany, or Saudi Arabia (places the plotters were)

... astronomically doubtful we could have pinpointed the precise targets with our bombs.

Or are you suggesting we should have bombed them much sooner while they still resided in their home countries (mostly Saudi Arabia) well before we had intel about specific individuals in the conspiracy?

To make sure we got them all we'd have to nuke those countries and kill every last living soul, though methinks there could be even worse blowback after an atrocity of that scale.

Where, precisely, are the ISIS members who might sometime in the future conspire to pull off another 9/11?

How extensive does the bombing have to be in order to ensure we kill enough of them so there will never be a scecretive cell of highly motivated terrorists who can get training and finance?

Isn't it orders of magnitude more likely that bombing campaigns in the Middle East will generate more enemies and potential terrorists than to ensure we kill those who might plot against us?

Hopefully, it's beginning to dawn on you that the solution back in 2001 prior to 9/11 was appropriate measures based on good intel on specific terrorists who had entered our country ... as opposed to a bombing campain ... where, exactly!!???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:43 PM

28. so how many other countries should we preemptivly attack?

Here is a novel idea that I'm sure no one has ever thought about. Let's only use military force when we're actually being attacked by someone. If we bombed every country that might possibly conceivably attack us we would be in perpetual war. Oh, wait. That's what our country wants, perpetual war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #28)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:59 PM

32. None

 

No country was pre-emptively attacked. Specific terrorists who were in the process of planning an attack against the US were killed with the permission of the country in which they were residing and with the support of several Muslim nations in the region.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:01 PM

33. They've actually done terror attacks--these are the guys who did the Cole, the Limburg, the

 

BA bomb plot, the Chicago PETN bomb plot---this was Awlaki's and al-Asiri's group of bombers and terrorists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:03 PM

34. I'm willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt. We on DU dont know everything.

 

No one here knows what he sees on a daily basis. Which is also why I think he didnt do some of the things he campaigned on; he didnt know what the full story was on a lot of things.
I think the govt tells us WAY too much about security and whats happening.
Why tell everyone we're going to attack? Why not bomb them THEN go on TV to announce it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #34)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:05 PM

35. Isn't that exactly what he did?

 

The group he bombed in Syria - Khorasan. He took care of them first and then went on TV to explain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:07 PM

38. Well--we are already familiar with these guys, and their plots. Think Anwar Awlaki. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:08 PM

39. True

 

But my point was that he didn't announce he was attacking them first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #39)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:09 PM

41. Well, no, but these dudes are kind of used to shit falling from the sky unannounced. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:09 PM

40. They've been saying for 2 weeks now that hits in Syria were needed.

 

The Islamists, whatever name they may go by today, have had plenty of time to prepare. Its ridiculous how much stuff gets out of the govt when it comes to this. I remember way back before 9/11 when CNN reported that Bin Laden et al were using satellite phones and we were listening. They stopped using them that same day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #40)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 08:33 PM

56. Wasn't that in regard to ISIS?

 

I thought the attack on the other group was something of a surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 10:29 PM

62. Maybe the best way to prevent attacks by foreign bodies...

… is to cease our provocation of them.

By acts of imperialism that result in carving up foreign countries to control their natural resources and mechanize a war machine therein, I'd say we pretty much perpetuate "terror".

We have real history to back this theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:08 PM

4. The only thing missing are the props




DURec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:19 PM

6. Excellent summation of our Imperial policies in the ME and now Africa also.

You're NOT the only one 'not buyin' it. A few of our respected members of Congress, the few who were RIGHT last time, aren't buying it either.

But as it was back then, they will be marginalized, smeared, attacked as unAmerican as they were back then.

We are an 'Empire now'! Who needs the checks and balances of a democracy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:25 PM

7. Do you think the president should reveal all the intelligence information he has?

Not trying to be argumentative, but given this information age where it seems everything gets mashed up, maybe it would be better to play your cards close to the vest? And that works both ways. If there were an international terrorist plot, maybe the group planning it would want to keep a low profile?

By now everyone has heard of "Osama Bin Ladin Determined to attack the US" Maybe both sides don't want to make that same mistake?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GusBob (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:53 PM

29. The U.S. Government has cried wolf so many times they have lost any credibility.

 

A year ago there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth over Assad's alleged use of sarin gas that killed a number of Syrian civilians. This event triggered a 24/7 full-court press in the media calling for immediate strikes against Assad. As it turned out, the sarin attack was a false-flag operation instigated by Turkey:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

As intercepts and other data related to the 21 August attacks were gathered, the intelligence community saw evidence to support its suspicions. ‘We now know it was a covert action planned by Erdoğan’s people to push Obama over the red line,’ the former intelligence official said. ‘They had to escalate to a gas attack in or near Damascus when the UN inspectors’ – who arrived in Damascus on 18 August to investigate the earlier use of gas – ‘were there. The deal was to do something spectacular. Our senior military officers have been told by the DIA and other intelligence assets that the sarin was supplied through Turkey – that it could only have gotten there with Turkish support. The Turks also provided the training in producing the sarin and handling it.’ Much of the support for that assessment came from the Turks themselves, via intercepted conversations in the immediate aftermath of the attack. ‘Principal evidence came from the Turkish post-attack joy and back-slapping in numerous intercepts. Operations are always so super-secret in the planning but that all flies out the window when it comes to crowing afterwards. There is no greater vulnerability than in the perpetrators claiming credit for success.’ Erdoğan’s problems in Syria would soon be over: ‘Off goes the gas and Obama will say red line and America is going to attack Syria, or at least that was the idea. But it did not work out that way.’


The big question is: when did American intelligence services realize this?

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/04/06/who-was-behind-the-syrian-sarin-false-flag-attack/

What did the President know – and when did he know it? Hersh says "The post-attack intelligence on Turkey did not make its way to the White House" – except when Obama was confronted by the joint chiefs with the British report. "‘Nobody wants to talk about all this,’ the former intelligence official told {Hersh}":

"‘There is great reluctance to contradict the president, although no all-source intelligence community analysis supported his leap to convict. There has not been one single piece of additional evidence of Syrian involvement in the sarin attack produced by the White House since the bombing raid was called off. My government can’t say anything because we have acted so irresponsibly. And since we blamed Assad, we can’t go back and blame Erdoğan.’”

The President didn’t care about the facts in the first place, and his knowledge of the truth didn’t lead him to change course. If not for the public outcry against US intervention he would’ve gone ahead with it as long as he thought he could get away with it.


In the last week the Pentagon made allegations that ISIL conducted chlorine gas attacks, which seems convenient. Why on earth should I believe anything this Administration claims in matters of war?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #29)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 05:37 PM

48. Important post.

Thank you for the links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #29)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 08:15 PM

55. Thank you! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:35 PM

8. She's The Avatar. But that's not important right now. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 08:47 PM

57. Yes it is important!



She'll kick their asses from Raqqa to Republic City.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Reply #57)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 08:57 PM

58. Finally!

 

I was hoping someone would catch that. The Islamic State has nothing on the Avatar State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:36 PM

9. We didn't start airstrikes because of beheadings. We started them because ISIS took

over a huge portion of Iraq, and the Iraqi military was unable to stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:41 PM

10. David Khorasan

Branch Davidian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #10)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 07:56 PM

53. Isn't it a song by the Clash?

 

Spanish bombs, yo te quiero infinito
yo te acuerda oh mi Khorasan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:41 PM

11. Um..Khorasan's been around for a decade plus. Just because you never heard of them

 

doesn't mean some of us hadn't. They aren't new at all.

They've been primarily AQAP. And they are pretty adept bombmakers--think Al-Asiri.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:52 PM

13. How long have US Intel agencies been around? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:54 PM

14. Well, I'm watching TURN: Washington's Spies on AMC, so I'm going to say

 

that they predate Billy Elliot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 02:01 PM

16. When did you first hear the name Khorasan used?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 02:31 PM

19. Jihadists have been using the Khorasan name for a very long time.

Khorasan was the original name of western Afghanistan and eastern Iran during the first Caliphate, and many Muslims still consider it to be a proper name for the region. The term holds special meaning for jihadists because there are passages in the hadiths that talk about an uprising in which Muslims will conquer the world. It says that they will raise an army under a black flag and march west out of Khorasan to conquer the unbelievers. The name Khorasan has been appropriated by various jihadist groups since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan because of the symbolism it conveys. The black flag of ISIS, and the black flags of jihad, are also a nod to those passages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #19)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 02:54 PM

20. When did you first hear it used as the name of a specific group?

I'm aware of the history and connotations of the word. I posted about it myself a couple of days ago here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:11 PM

42. "Khorosan Group" is an American given name.

Al Qaida is not a top down organization, but is broken into relatively independent local branches. These branches are generally run by shuras. Shura is an Arabic term that generally means "leadership council", but can apply to everything from a parliament (the old upper house of the Egyptian parliament was called the Shura Council), to a couple of tribal elders getting together in the desert to work out grazing rights. In the case of Al Qaida, it simply means their senior local leadership.

The actual name of this particular group is the Shura of Al Qaida in the Khorosan. Basically, it's Al Qaida's leadership group from northern Afghanistan. The name doesn't refer to an actual jihadi group (they're simply Al Qaida), but to a subset of senior Al Qaida people from that particular area.

There's a bit of debate as to why they're in Syria. Officially, the U.S. is claiming that they've relocated to carry out some sort of attack. Unofficially, there's talk about Al Qaida, who popularized the use of the Black Flag of Khorosan in modern times, invoking the imagery of the end-times prophecies by moving their forces from Khorosan to the west, just as the hadith promised.

A lot of it may also be a power play by Al Qaida's leadership. It's no secret that there is a huge struggle between the ISIS leadership and Al Qaida over which group claims legitimate right to lead global jihad. ISIS says that Al Qaida has outlived its usefulness, while AQ essentially calls ISIS a regional upstart with a poor sense of priorities. By moving the Shura Khorosan from Afghanistan to Syria under the black flag, the AQ global leadership is symbolically stating that THEY are the army of global jihad that the hadiths promised, and not ISIS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #42)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:17 PM

46. Thanks for the explanation.

We don't often get in-depth explanations about these groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:25 PM

23. Applied to this group? I want to say 2004 or thereabouts. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:28 PM

24. Do have a reference in the MSM for it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #24)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:55 PM

30. Well, If you take a look at UN Resolution 1267, the various members of it started

 

appearing on the list in 2004-2005. I know that Bush talked about al-Fadhili publically as far back as 2005 (in Europe), and his Yemeni airstrikes in 2004 were apparently directed at them. They are part of the al-Nusra/Iranian structure, so you can find plenty of MSM info about them if you search under that.

It was Obama who went after these guys like a mofo, though, especially once British intelligence identified the BA bomb plot and the like.

Every single thing this guy writes is worth a read----



http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520244481

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:16 PM

44. Khorasan Group is what US intel calls them - they are al-Qaeda

The Khorasan Group - a name apparently coined by the US - is believed to be made up of about 50 veteran militants from Afghanistan and Pakistan, which jihadists refer to as Khorasan, as well as North Africa and Chechnya.

US officials said they had been sent to Syria by al-Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, not to fight the government of President Bashar al-Assad but to "develop external attacks, construct and test improvised explosive devices and recruit Westerners to conduct operations".

The militants are thought to have embedded themselves within al-Qaeda's local affiliate, the al-Nusra Front, and obtained land and buildings in its strongholds.

Several al-Qaeda veterans - including al-Nusra's spokesman Abu Firas al-Suri and its top military commander, Abu Humam al-Suri - moved to Syria over the past year and appeared in al-Nusra propaganda.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29350271

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 02:10 PM

17. This group is believed to have 50 members

Yes, that's 50 individuals, who are about to attack the U.S. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29350271

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rusty fender (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:13 PM

43. Read up on the BA bomb plot--it was these dudes. That's why the BBC is taking this

 

seriously.

These are the guys who did the Cole, and a shitload of other bombings. The PETN bombs.

Think Anwar Awlaki and al-Asiri.

Think what 50 of those bastards can do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 02:19 PM

18. I would tend to agree with you. It might appear we are being.......

'neo-CONNED' once again. Horrid terrorists arise out of nowhere and , wait have they tossed babies out of incubators yet? It wouldn't be the first time we have been lied to. At the very best, if ISIS has been around for a while someone hasn't been exactly truthful with telling us about it.

Let's for a moment tell this story a different way. Let us suppose that ISIS is in fact a threat. I don't mean raise hell in the Middle East type of threat, I mean "Clear and Present Danger" kind of threat.
President Obama should first bring his intentions before congress. It is congress that has the ability to declare / sanction war. Yes, our do-nothing congress. Our do-nothing congress that has convently been "out of Dodge" since all this started. Even in the short time they were around they paid no attention to them there Korha-what-who (?) forces. The only though or planning done in those few short days was how to have the best time on the new campaign fund windfall.

Now remember, we are talking "Clear and Present Danger" verses GOP obstructionism here.
How long would it have taken the teapublican house to vote to bring a declaration of war to a debate? I'll give you my take on that one. As long as it took to find political advantage in the situation no matter what the danger or the outcome! Naturally once the Senate got around to it the proposal would require the new definition of majority (60/40) before any action would be taken.

It is of little matter if you see this as every time the U.S gets involved in the ME it ends badly or if you see this as Bush broke it we bought it, the greater danger arises from GOP obstructionism.

Going to war is most often foolish. Going to war when your own government is broken is insanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:05 PM

36. The head of Khorasan was identified by the UN in 2005 as an AQterrorist. If what you are saying is

 

true, then the UN has been in on this for a decade.

Further, just a little googling will indicate to you that Khorasan was involved in several well-known terror plots--you remember the PETN bomb plot, or the BA one? The Cole? The Limburg?

These guys are not new--they've been around, and in fact, their head was close enough to OBL that he apparently knew about 9/11 before it happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #36)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 05:34 PM

47. It is just curious that they suddenly are in the spotlight. Probably their........

are reasons for that. Many groups and each having their own name. Some groups like ISIL/ISIS/whatever Europe now calls them change their name more often than bad garage bands. Naturally M$M only mentions them if they do something "news worthy" and thankfully our government has stopped declaring a fear color and naming names on a daily basis.
For my part it doesn't help as what ever they call themselves I file it away under "Bad guy_Other".

It isn't that I no longer trust M$M to report an accurate account of their actions. I no longer trust our ability to respond in a logical manner. I may have learned some civics lessons wrong but I think it should work like this.......

President goes in front of congress and says, "Look this group is becoming a threat, do we do something now or wait to see if they become a more spectacular threat". A decision is made.

Thanks to partison obstruction, we don't seem to work like that any more.
Obama takes action the right wing whines that he did it without approval.
Obama does not take action and the right wing whines that he is a do nothing wimp.

Do you not think that an origination like ISIS who have taken the time and studied out how to make chilling beheading horror moves have not taken our disorganization into account?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #36)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 05:51 PM

50. Huh. So Obama had 6 years to do something about them?

Wow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #50)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 07:44 PM

51. Obama used the last 6 years to drone strike the shit out of them in Yemen. You think

 

he did a bad job? You can't have it both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:10 PM

22. Excellent summary of the con job. Thank you.

I hope you are distributing this far beyond the echo chamber of DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:37 PM

26. Maybe the Mongols could lend a hand.

 

Of course, the Mongols were only doing it to protect their "vital national interests" and were very, very, sorry about any collateral damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Central_Asia

The Mongol invasion of Central Asia however would entail the utter destruction of the Khwarezmid Empire along with the massacre of much of the civilian population of the region. According to Juvaini, the Mongols ordered only one round of slaughter in Khwarezm and Transoxiana, but systematically exterminated a particularly large portion of the people of the cities of Khorasan. This earned the Mongols a reputation for bloodthirsty ferocity that would mark the remainder of their campaigns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:07 PM

37. Khorammanuel Goldstein

 

to get a true sense of the evil afoot, read 1984

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Man from Pickens (Reply #37)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 09:23 PM

59. Or watch the "Clanging Of The Swords Part IV"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 07:54 PM

52. Those beheadings were the New Pearl Harbor of the 20-teens. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #52)

Mon Sep 29, 2014, 10:46 PM

64. Yes, we forget that a new Generation of Kids who know nothing but War (over somewhere)

have now grown to fighting age while we've been here on DU and other sites that exposed the Lies of Saddam's WMD that were supposedly going to be used on American's here at home. The mainstream media in these 12 or more years after Stolen Election/9/11 and Iraq Invasion (based on trumped lies to to topple Saddam who had nothing to do with 9/11) has become much smaller (due to newspapers shutting down) and more muzzled by whistleblowers being harshly punished and indie reporters being thrown under the bus.

The young today don't have parents who went through Vietnam or Grandparents who remember WWII and some even the Great Depression. All they know is Media Circus broken up with Commericals that drown out thinking minds.

Fresh young Fodder for Wars when there's Student Dept or those who aren't students but have no hope of a job that will provide them a living wage for their future. The "Mercenary Contractors" pay well and the Military isn't so bad with some benefits unless you get shot up or witness horrors that cause trauma leading to PTSD. When one is very young they don't think about things like that. They think they will live forever and a job is a job.

Wall Street, the MIC, Military Brass bringing in huge salaries working for Think Tanks, Security Organizations and Foreign Governments know how to keep their Gig's Going....

BRING IT ON! Always the Old lead the Youn into wars.....and the Profits and Personal Rewards are just outstanding these days if one is in the "IN CROWD."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 08:14 PM

54. 94% approve?

 

Damn, back in 2001, we were the 10%. Now we are down to being the 6%?

Not making progress, are we?

It sure is tempting to throw in with the bloodthirsty warmongers. Especially since there are so few of us peaceable folks left. But in the end, for me, it comes down to this: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", so I guess I'll just keep hanging with the good folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 10:19 PM

61. Here you go ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 10:31 PM

63. I ain't buying it either...

How can 94% of Americans be this stupid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Mon Sep 29, 2014, 11:01 PM

65. Excellent post. Kick and rec + $312,500 per hour

That's according to what http://costofwar.com has documented is being [strike]spent[/strike] wasted on a "new war"

You can get audited if the IRS thinks you might be off a few hundred on your taxes, and if you lose you might go to jail. At very least, you can help fund the New War for a few SECONDS.



Posts like yours keep hope alive. Thank you.

I'm beginning to understand why "May You Live In Interesting Times" was a curse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread