So what about this? Khorasan fake?

[Blue_In_AK]

And before you go all "But it's Glenn Greenwald" on me, note that Richard Engel basically agrees.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/28/u-s-officials-invented-terror-group-justify-bombing-syria/

As the Obama Administration prepared to bomb Syria without congressional or U.N. authorization, it faced two problems. The first was the difficulty of sustaining public support for a new years-long war against ISIS, a group that clearly posed no imminent threat to the “homeland.” A second was the lack of legal justification for launching a new bombing campaign with no viable claim of self-defense or U.N. approval.

The solution to both problems was found in the wholesale concoction of a brand new terror threat that was branded “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 posted a direct and immediate threat to the American Homeland. Seemingly out of nowhere, a new terror group was created in media lore.

<snip>

Indeed, a Nexis search for the group found almost no mentions of its name prior to the September 13 AP article based on anonymous officials. There was one oblique reference to it in a July 31 CNN op-ed by Peter Bergen. The other mention was an article in the LA Times from two weeks earlier about Pakistan which mentioned the group’s name as something quite different than how it’s being used now: as “the intelligence wing of the powerful Pakistani Taliban faction led by Hafiz Gul Bahadur.” Tim Shorrock noted that the name appears in a 2011 hacked Stratfor email published by WikiLeaks, referencing a Dawn article that depicts them as a Pakistan-based group which was fighting against and “expelled by” (not “led by”) Bahadur.

There are serious questions about whether the Khorasan Group even exists in any meaningful or identifiable manner. Aki Peritz, a CIA counterterrorism official until 2009, told Time: “I’d certainly never heard of this group while working at the agency,” while Obama’s former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford said: ”We used the term [Khorasan] inside the government, we don’t know where it came from….All I know is that they don’t call themselves that.” As The Intercept was finalizing this article, former terrorism federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review that the group was a scam: “You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan … had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.”

<snip>

[Electric Monk]

1. This has been discussed a few times already. It usually turns into 6-8 people attacking Greenwald.

edit: This seems like as good a place as any to start catching up on previous discussions: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5605572

and then there have been some spinoff threads, such as http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025609853#post36

[Bobbie Jo]

2. and here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025602072


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025605685

[Electric Monk]

3. That 2nd link is some truly epic fail. I'm surprised you'd want to bring attention to it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025605685#post72

[Bobbie Jo]

5. Hardly

However, I posted the links without editorial comment, and without the snotty remarks.

Just putting it out there. Folks can draw their own conclusions, don't you think?

[Electric Monk]

6. Careful reading will make it clear who is making shit up and taking things out of context.

What I'm surprised about (but maybe I shouldn't be) is that you didn't get that from it, and chose to post it here anyway.

[Bobbie Jo]

10. .

again, people can draw their own conclusions without your help or PA snark.

[truedelphi]

14. Here's to you and your notion of people making up

Their own damn minds:

[Blue_In_AK]

20. Oh, sorry.

My husband's cousin has been here, and we've been running the roads the past three days. This is the first I saw this.

[Feral Child]

4. The Veiled Profit is *REAL*

I saw him myself!

(Very obscure joke that few other than St. Louisans will get.)

[GeorgeGist]

7. at the fair?

[Feral Child]

9. I don't know if they still do it.

There used to be an annual event, somehow linked to the concept of Carnival or Mardi Gras.

St. Louis is a very Catholic city.

They had a parade, the Veiled Profit Parade, for the peasants, and a Veiled Profit Ball for the richies to debutante their daughters. The full title was the "Veiled Profit of Khorasan" and it was played by a different community "leader" (rich asshole) every year.

Up till the late 50s at least it was a big deal.

I haven't been back there in many years.

[GeorgeGist]

8. Waiting for Richard Engel link.

[lamp_shade]

16. Me too. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

19. its comments on his Twitter feed

https://mobile.twitter.com/RichardEngel/status/514829810015547392

The Syrians battling on the ground have never heard of the Khorasan group.

[pkdu]

34. Holy shit

Syrian Rebels have never heard of a name US intelligence say they made up! We forgot to tell the rebels this group has a name we created for them? I'm stunned.

[MohRokTah]

11. .

[Blue_In_AK]

21. Well, yes, it is.

I didn't see it anywhere on the front page, which is all the further I ever go.

[99th_Monkey]

12. US Citizenry is being dumbed-down & massively manipulated by M$M

Scare the bejesus out of folks so they want to KILL, KILL, KILL the latest ME BoogieMan of the week.

How pathetic.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. You do realize that Richard Engle ...

the reason we should believe the other journalist, is a journalist, i.e., a member of/participant in the M$M, right?

[99th_Monkey]

32. There are -- nearly always -- a few exceptions to the rule,

right?

[Octafish]

13. It's another Franchisee for War Inc.

What is Khorasan?

By Stephen Gowans
what's left, September 24, 2014

EXCERPT...

To give its violation of Syrian sovereignty legal cover, the United States declared that it was acting at the request of the Iraqi government in connection with Iraq’s right of self-defense against aggression by ISIS, and that its actions were therefore consistent with the UN Charter. The airstrikes were also congruent with international law, insisted Washington, as a matter of self-defense against the Khorasan Group, which it said was plotting against the United States. [3] Neither defense is cogent since Washington rejected coordination with the Syrian government and refused to seek its assent to carry out air strikes on its territory.

Despite Washington pointing to Khorasan as a group with an independent existence apart from the Nusra Front, it appears to be indistinguishable from the latter. The alleged leader of the group, Muhsin al Fadhli, is a longtime al Qaeda operative. Since the Nusra Front is al-Qaeda’s official franchise in Syria, it follows that Fadhli is working with Jabhat al-Nusra. Moreover, US officials acknowledge that Khorasan and Nusra Front “are intertwined.” [4]

SNIP...

If the Khorasan Group is a part of the Nusra Front, and not a separate organization, the apparent contradiction in the United States excluding the al-Qaeda franchise in Syria as an official target of its war on ISIS, while at the same time attacking it, goes away. It also explains why rebels have never heard of the organization. [7]

SNIP...

That the Nusra Front is a loyal partner of US-backed rebels means that the alleged Khorasan leader Muhsin al Fadhli has been an important part of Washington’s war on Assad. Fadhli was close to Osama bin Laden. According to the Wall Street Journal, he “is a senior al Qaeda facilitator and financier” who “has an extensive network of Kuwaiti jihadist donors who have sent money to Syria through Turkey.” [11]

CONTINUED w/links to source mats:

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/what-is-khorasan/

"Money trumps peace." -- pretzeldent George W Bush

[truedelphi]

18. Damn you, Octafish.

Last edited Fri Oct 3, 2014, 04:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Now that I have been properly informed on the subject of Khorasan, I fall into that group of "doubters" and "non-believers" that both David Cameron and Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar, have spoken out against. After all, what Adminstration, here in the USA or there in the UK, would want people to think outside the box? (Apparently on those days when their tin foil hats do not prevent the obtaining of new ideas.) Those people who get their ideas from "alternative media" need to be dealt with, presumably from some State Apparatus like the McCarthy hearings. Although Homeland Security has been spending money like it owns the printing presses, I imagine some tens of millions could be found to re-crete a "Committee on un-American Thought Waves," or some such.

Sunstein is now gone, off to academia, but not before mentioning that there should be thorough investigation of "conspiracy minded" individuals.

[woo me with science]

57. Very interesting.

Thank you.

[RoccoR5955]

15. Khorasan has been around for a while.

They started in 1929 as Karastan. They specialized in carpet bombs. They do have a website under their old name, which is http://www.karastan.com . Check it out, I am sure you will find it quite amusing!

[Blue_In_AK]

22. Probably Koch-related

like Stainmaster.

[countryjake]

36. That's it!

I, myself, had it confused with Corian...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5601311

[JEB]

37. I don't know if it's safe to admit, but

I have a Karastan in my house.

[pscot]

46. Homeland security is keeping an eye on it

[jeff47]

17. The problem is your first paragraph is utterly false.

As the Obama Administration prepared to bomb Syria without congressional or U.N. authorization, it faced two problems. The first was the difficulty of sustaining public support for a new years-long war against ISIS, a group that clearly posed no imminent threat to the “homeland.” A second was the lack of legal justification for launching a new bombing campaign with no viable claim of self-defense or U.N. approval.

The AUMF Congress passed after 9/11 covers ISIS too. ISIS used to be al Qaeda in Iraq, and supported al Qaeda, placing them under the AUMF.

Yes, ISIS is currently a rival to al Qaeda, but the AUMF doesn't say the targets have to currently be friends with al Qaeda.

As for the UN, ISIS invaded Iraq. That now makes them a valid target per the UN charter.

The huge problem with Greenwald and company claiming that Khorasan was made up is they are claiming it was made up to solve a problem that does not exist.

[FlatStanley]

23. Leaning on the AUMF should cause a problem for you.

Unless you supported that fecal specimen of legislation when Duh-bya used it.

Tell me, did you support the AUMF at its excretion, or only now, to sooth your soul.

Just curious.

[leftstreet]

24. LOL I'm sure it's a Democratic AUMF

Not that GOP one.

No, couldn't be. Blue Team was all over Red Team about this back in the day

[FlatStanley]

29. That's my recollection. But sometimes I find myself in Bizzarro World.

[woo me with science]

25. Ah, but this is ObamAUMF!

That makes it all better.

[FlatStanley]

30. Nice!

[jeff47]

28. The AUMF is a horrific piece of shit. But it still exists.

Horrific pieces of shit legislation continue to remain in effect until repealed.

[FlatStanley]

31. Indeed. But it could be ignored.

[jeff47]

35. Why? Ignoring it makes the problem go away, but only temporarily.

The AUMF is a problem. Pretending it doesn't exist makes the problem temporarily disappear. And then it re-appears to be abused in some future conflict.

Not to mention Congress has demonstrated it is utterly incapable of legislating, so there's exactly zero chance of good legislation for handling ISIS passing.

[FlatStanley]

45. The President can't write his own legislation.

He generally can't ignore it, either. But this legislation doesn't require him to use it as an excuse for war. Indeed, if he sought new authorization it might render the AUMF irrelevant, or at least weaken it.

[SidDithers]

38. Wow. Seriously?...nt

Sid

[FlatStanley]

43. I don't understand what that means, but you've said it twice.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. Amazingly, the American public ...

is being asked to trust intelligence analysis from the same media that we distrusted (loudly) a few years ago.

[FlatStanley]

33. We don't have access to all the intelligence that others do. (TM)

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. I don't know whether you are being sarcastic or what ...

but that is a true statement.

[FlatStanley]

47. I thought the (TM) for Trademark would reveal my sarcasm.

I'm sorry, but if that "explanation" wasn't good enough for Bush, it's hypocritical to accept it for Obama, don't you think?

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. No, I don't ...

Because bush and company lied about the intelligence doesn't mean they don't have access to better intelligence than you, me and/or journalists. To argue otherwise is either arrogant or ignorant.

[FlatStanley]

50. Bam, one exchange and I'm arrogant and ignorant.

No need to discuss further. Bye.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. whatever ...

Reading for comprehension remains fundamental.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. douche bag? ...

And you're whining about me?

And about your "argument" ... come on, man! Does that even make sense to you? We know that Bush lied because of the information that was subsequently disclosed.

[FlatStanley]

54. I thought I'd lower myself to your level.

And, again, please put your thinking cap on. Since we DON'T HAVE ACCESS to what Bush had we can't judge his decision making.

Now, nowhere in the statement above does it say that Bush had access to facts. But it doesn't matter what Bush had access to. Since WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS, we cannot no pass judgement. That is YOUR ARGUMENT.

And it is an argument from ignorance.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. Please ...

How is calling me names anything like I have conversed with you?

Now ... maybe you should put on your thinking cap. Don't we judge the veracity of statements, after the fact, all the time?

But don't bother answering ... I'm done with you.

[FlatStanley]

56. Thank God!

[JEB]

39. K&R

Thanks for posting.

[JEB]

40. Khorosan Group is a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin.

[FlatStanley]

48. I suspected as much.

[SoCalDem]

41. Whew.. Thank goodness we chose slab granite

The name reminded me of counter top material.

[Kalidurga]

44. All I know is that they don’t call themselves that.

So the group is real but the name fake? I really don't care what they call themselves if they are terrorists. I just hope they can be dealt with or not, with the least amount of damage.