September 28, 2014

"The Khorosan Group Does Not Exist/It’s a fictitious name the Obama administration invented to deceive us."

Writes Andrew C. McCarthy (at National Review):
The “Khorosan Group” is al-Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror network’s Syrian franchise, “Jabhat al-Nusra.” Its leader, Mushin al-Fadhli (believed to have been killed in this week’s U.S.-led air strikes), was an intimate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of al-Qaeda who dispatched him to the jihad in Syria. Except that if you listen to administration officials long enough, you come away thinking that Zawahiri is not really al-Qaeda, either. Instead, he’s something the administration is at pains to call “core al-Qaeda.”

“Core al-Qaeda,” you are to understand, is different from “Jabhat al-Nusra,” which in turn is distinct from “al-Qaeda in Iraq” (formerly “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia,” now the “Islamic State” al-Qaeda spin-off that is, itself, formerly “al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Sham” or “al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant”). That al-Qaeda, don’t you know, is a different outfit from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula . . . which, of course, should never be mistaken for “al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” “Boko Haram,” “Ansar al-Sharia,” or the latest entry, “al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent.”

Coming soon, “al-Qaeda on Hollywood and Vine.” In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if, come 2015, Obama issued an executive order decreeing twelve new jihad jayvees stretching from al-Qaeda in January through al-Qaeda in December.
McCarthy looks at the big picture and criticizes Obama for using terminology that obscures it, but there could be reasons — other than to deceive us. It could be to demoralize the enemy. (If that's the idea, though, we should avoid "Islamic State.") It could be some notion of breaking a seemingly impossible big project down into doable chunks. (Which sounds like an idea from a business self-help book. Stuff like this: "Chunk!")

75 comments:

Bruce Hayden said...

To maybe clarify, the President made it clear that we had completely defeated al Quada. He was emphatic about this, and so got reelected. But they weren't, even in Iraq, where we pulled out, and shouldn't have. So, his people just came up with another name for al Quaeda in Iraq. Essentially, the same people we fought and beat in western Iraq under Bush, just with a new, Administration created, name. The only people calling them this are the Administration and its lackeys.

Rusty said...

The President is a liar?


Get out.

Tank said...

Con man gonna con.

Doh !

MayBee said...

Bruce has it right. At the same time, Obama wants to use the AUMF for alQaeda to bomb ISIS in Syria, rather than ask Congress for specific authority.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Andrew McCarthy is a complete pussy. When I challenged him on NRO he blocked me from posting. Fucking coward.

exhelodrvr1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
exhelodrvr1 said...

Obama does have a nice smile, though. I think I'll vote for him!!

Hagar said...

When you set out to deceive others, the first person to get fooled is often yourself.

And al Zarqawi's bunch was not an "offshoot" of al Qaeda. Al Zarqawi just asked bin Laden if he and his gang could use the al Qaeda name for for fund-raising purposes since bin Laden himself was not using it for much of anything by then. Which bin Laden was against, since he felt al Zarqawi was too brutally violent and was giving Islam a bad name, but he let himself be talked into it. Or they just did it anyway, and there was not much bin Laden could do to stop them. Who knows.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Here is my comment on your blog when the Khorosan bombing was discussed:

"I never heard of this group and I am beginning to think our govt is just making shit up. OMG, I am sounding like Robert Cook.

9/23/14, 10:21 PM"

rehajm said...

With such a fractured leadership the Key to success is having the right intelligence and knowing where in these complex organizational charts to reduce headcount.

If only we'd elected the guy that's better at that than anyone else.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

rehajm said...
With such a fractured leadership the Key to success is having the right intelligence and knowing where in these complex organizational charts to reduce headcount.


He could have off-shored the operation to countries with lower operating costs like Yemen or Sudan.

RecChief said...

well, th administration can't say "Al-Qaeda did this" after telling everyone that Al-Qaeda was on the run, during the last election cycle.

But then, they are bold enough to do just that.

Also, what Rusty said

RecChief said...

AReasonableMan said...
Andrew McCarthy is a complete pussy."


ARM resorts to an Ad hominem attack. Always adding something insightful to the conversation, eh ARM? I mean, that was such well reasoned critique.

chillblaine said...

Bin Laden is dead and General Moters is alive!

We should ship them a bunch of Chevy Cruze's and wait for them to blow themselves up. Or have Jen and Marie devise spunky new hashtag campaigns.

I agree 100 percent that we should never call them, 'Islamic State.' We should refer to them as the Barbarians of the Levant.

RecChief said...

"AReasonableMan said...
rehajm said...
With such a fractured leadership the Key to success is having the right intelligence and knowing where in these complex organizational charts to reduce headcount.

He could have off-shored the operation to countries with lower operating costs like Yemen or Sudan.
"

Tom Steyer was running for president?

Bob Boyd said...

Maybe it has to do with the legality of the air strikes.
The US can strike a direct threat to an ally that requests our help, so we could hit ISIS in Iraq, but not Syria.
The US can strike an enemy that is a direct threat to itself. ISIS in Syria wasn't such a threat, but the Khorosan Group had announced active plans to attack the US on our own soil so we could strike them in Syria.
I could be wrong about this.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

RecChief said...
ARM resorts to an Ad hominem attack. Always adding something insightful to the conversation, eh ARM? I mean, that was such well reasoned critique.


I'm sorry. I should have said Andrew McCarthy is a war-mongering privacy-invading opponent of a free society.

jacksonjay said...

Swaggy Smiles lies to us for our own good, dontcha know. He always knows what he's doing and we are just chumps. Who knew that his "keep you policy" lie was really intended to deliver better health insurance to the dumbass public? "Turns out there is no such thing as shovel-ready jobs" was a lie to deliver us from the Bush Depression. "Don't cross that Red Line" was intended to turn Assad over to Vlad. I think the Lady Prof is onto something.

He dreams-up these Spock-like deceptions on the golf course.

Lady Parts love is forever.

cubanbob said...

All these groups are like Mob families. Yes to a degree they are independent of each other and even sometimes fight against each other but in the end they are all part of a whole.

ARM is pissed of that McCarthy at the NRO didn't want to waste his time arguing with a fool.

jacksonjay said...

Reporter: Hey Chuck, who's the leader of the boots on the ground gang? You know the ones we're gonna train.

Chuck: Uhhhhhh, I don't know.

We've got em right where we want em, demoralized!

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

AReasonableMan said...
Andrew McCarthy is a complete pussy. When I challenged him on NRO he blocked me from posting. Fucking coward.


But you have a home here now, don't ya.

Hell, Ann won't even block thread-destroying insufferable trolls like The Crack Emcee.

So I'd say there will always be at least one place for your nonsense. So count your blessings.

And reflect on the sublime irony of crudely calling an actual identifiable person a 'coward', while yourself hiding behind an anonymous handle.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

cubanbob said...
ARM is pissed of that McCarthy at the NRO didn't want to waste his time arguing with a fool.


Yes, Andrew McCarthy has a stellar record. He has run NR into the ground, their ads are now the most pathetic and irritating of any of the online magazines. He has constantly attacked Rand Paul, one of the few bright spots in the Repub Party and he is wrong about everything.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
And reflect on the sublime irony of crudely calling an actual identifiable person a 'coward',


It is his job to defend what he believes in open forums. He is an opinion journalist. If he can't even cross that low threshold what use is he other than a propagandist for our war machine?

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

AReasonableMan said...
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
And reflect on the sublime irony of crudely calling an actual identifiable person a 'coward',

It is his job to defend what he believes in open forums. He is an opinion journalist. If he can't even cross that low threshold what use is he other than a propagandist for our war machine


Hey! When you quoted back my text, you cut off the part that made you look especially bad. Why?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
Why?


Nothing you could say would make me look bad. That is just an illusion in your head.

pm317 said...

Yeah, what a surprise, Khorosan group does not exist -- typical Obama shenanigans..I saw through it, did you?

Birkel said...

AReasonableMan was totes making substantive points. All he asks is that Andrew McCarthty respond to the reasonable claims that McCarthy is a murderous, vile subhuman piece of excrement who deserves contempt. With arguments that solid how could anybody deny the seriousness of the charges?

Totes.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
AReasonableMan was ??? making substantive points.


Exactly. I merely asked, given how wrong he had been about everything in the past, what basis was there to believe that his current views had any validity.

What could be more reasonable?

pm317 said...

Another blog is alleging that Khorosan name is from Iran and Obama and his cronies (read Saudis) are trying to smear Iran. Why is Obama on the side of Saudis, Qataris and Turks if they were also the reason for promoting and funding ISIS? A recent UK article was asking the same question of Cameron.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

AReasonableMan said...
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
Why?

Nothing you could say would make me look bad. That is just an illusion in your head.


You would be wise to keep telling yourself things like that.

Otherwise, you're down to just a high tolerance for self-beclowning, and that can't last forever.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

(If that's the idea, though, we should avoid "Islamic State.")

But the administration already avoids "Islamic State," you notice. It's always "ISIL" to administration spokespeople. Even if their interlocutors are themselves saying "Islamic State" or "ISIS." Odd.

Michael said...

With exquisite timing the administration is promulgating rules prohibiting law enforcement from any, they mean any, religious or racial profiling.

You really can't make it up

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Speaking of ISIL, Maureen Dowd has an uncharacteristically thoughtful column on the president's options.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
You would be wise to keep telling yourself things like that.


Or you could just be a complete hypocrite and complain about someone questioning a public figure anonymously and then use anonymous ad hominen attacks yourself.

Achilles said...

AReasonableMan said...
"RecChief said...
ARM resorts to an Ad hominem attack. Always adding something insightful to the conversation, eh ARM? I mean, that was such well reasoned critique.

I'm sorry. I should have said Andrew McCarthy is a war-mongering privacy-invading opponent of a free society."

Is that like calling you a statist supporter of tyranny around the world including here? Let's go through the list of things ARM supports :

Saddam hussein
Hezbola
IRS targeting of people who disagree with him
The taliban
Taking my guns and right of self defense away from me
Obama's abuse of NSA power
Obama's jailing of a US citizen to support his lie about the cause of Benghazi
Obamacare
Anything that undermined my mission in Iraq or Afghanistan, usually for cheap partisan purposes.

This is the short list. Everything you support is antithetical to a free society. You are an enemy of freedom at every opportunity.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Achilles said...
Obama's abuse of NSA power


McCarthy is an ardent defender of our surveillance state. I have opposed it from well before Snowden was a household name.


SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

AReasonableMan said...
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
You would be wise to keep telling yourself things like that.

Or you could just be a complete hypocrite and complain about someone questioning a public figure anonymously and then use anonymous ad hominen attacks yourself.


An actual reasonable man, as opposed to one who laughably chooses that handle for his decidedly unreasonable posts, would know that here is a huge difference between my alleged transgression - a handle busing the chops of another handle, and yours - a handle calling a fully transparent blogger and TV personality, a coward.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

McCarthy was unquestionably a coward. His organization runs an open web forum, he posts on the forum and then he won't deal with any dissent.

No one made him post on what was previously an open forum.

Let's just say, not a profile in courage. And, he got rid of Derbyshire, the only person who had anything interesting to say over there. He might have been a self-admitted racist but he could rub two sticks together to create a spark every now and then.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"I'm sorry. I should have said Andrew McCarthy is a war-mongering privacy-invading opponent of a free society."

He's a Democrat? Because that's who they are these days.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

broomhandle said...
He's a Democrat? Because that's who they are these days.


The actual war-mongers have complained for months that Obama has had to be dragged into this war.

You can't have it both ways.

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...

AQI=ISIS. Same people! I'm glad someone is finally pushing back on this. We left, and they came back. It's Obama's fault.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Obama has bombed nine countries. I think that meets the "actual war-monger" threshold.

Michael said...

Our survellaince state was constructed around the same genius idea that the TSA operates on and that is that anybody, anybody, can be a terrorist. By pretending this it is only logical that everybody's emails and phone calls be scooped up.

This is as utterly stupid as calling Islam the religion of peace.

We get the leaders and the laws we deserve.

Elisa Berg said...

"It could be to demoralize the enemy." Way too complicated; these guys don't care about BHO---they think he's a wimp. They may even think he's an apostate, which would seem to me to be worse than a plain nonbeliever.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

You can call Obama a lot of things but implying that he is enthusiastic for more war stretches credibility. I think he is mistaken in this new enterprise but he clearly got dragged into this one. Even Maureen Dowd and Rand Paul are on board.

It is depressing.

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...

Hey, look who was right.

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...

ARM-

I don't care if he's enthusiastic. Woodrow Wilson wasn't enthusiastic.

What matters is what happens, not what the President thinks of feels. We have a completely avoidable war against an enemy we'd beaten.

n.n said...

Only people (i.e. Americans) who are subjected to the power of the federal government (e.g. DOJ, IRS) will give the narrative a second thought. The narrative being weaved is for the benefit of Americans, not for people who benefited from the so-called "Arab Spring" (e.g. left-wing or Caliphate Muslims, terrorists).

Crimso said...

'“Core al-Qaeda,” you are to understand, is different from “Jabhat al-Nusra,” which in turn is distinct from “al-Qaeda in Iraq” (formerly “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia,” now the “Islamic State” al-Qaeda spin-off that is, itself, formerly “al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Sham” or “al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant”). That al-Qaeda, don’t you know, is a different outfit from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula . . . which, of course, should never be mistaken for “al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” “Boko Haram,” “Ansar al-Sharia,” or the latest entry, “al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent.”'


"Splitters!"

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

John Lynch said...
What matters is what happens, not what the President thinks of feels. We have a completely avoidable war against an enemy we'd beaten.


Militarily yes. But it was not a stable state. The Sunnis were clearly not going to put up with Shia majoritarian rule indefinitely, not entirely unreasonably. Their response may be unreasonable but the underlying grievance is real enough.

Michael K said...

" When I challenged him on NRO he blocked me from posting. "

How interesting that, as I scrolled down through your comments, I saw how someone might very reasonable block you.

I don't like NRO's comments section as it is infested with trolls from both sides.

I am also very unhappy that NRO caved to the PC types by firing John Derbyshire for this column which is absolutely true albeit a bit non-PC.

McCarthy has had more experience than most of us with Islam's radicals and murderers. I am always interested in what he writes.

Maybe you just fit in Amy Alkon's definition of "Nice people who sometimes say fuck." NRO does ban some epithets.

jr565 said...

AReasonable man wrote:
Militarily yes. But it was not a stable state. The Sunnis were clearly not going to put up with Shia majoritarian rule indefinitely, not entirely unreasonably. Their response may be unreasonable but the underlying grievance is real enough.

But democracy hast he ability to correct said grievances. Had we left troops in Iraq it would have been less likely that Maliki would have gone authoritarian so quickly.
But what happened? They had elections. Malaki lost and now had to step down. And there was a peaceful change in positions of power. That would NEVER have happened under Sadaam Hussein. So, give Bush props for setting up the nascent democracy that allows for transfers of power not at the ppoint of a gun.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Malaki was forced out by the withdrawal of Iranian support. Hard to view that as a victory for democracy.



Michael K said...

"The Sunnis were clearly not going to put up with Shia majoritarian rule indefinitely, not entirely unreasonably. Their response may be unreasonable but the underlying grievance is real enough."

The US troops, had they been allowed to remain, would have been functioning as police rather than an invading army. We have groups in this country who are perfectly cabal of killing each other in the absence of a law enforcement function. Ferguson MO is an example that will become more obvious as the police retreat from the scene.

The Sunnis and Shia hate each other for reasons that I finally understood after I read The Persian Night which is about Iran but includes a nice explanation of the difference between the branches of Islam.

Now, I doubt anyone can stop the slaughter until, as in the 30 years war, exhaustion from the killing intervenes. I anticipate about 20 million deaths before that happens. Congratulations Barak !

Michael K said...

"Capable" not "Cabal." Damn autocorrect !

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
Congratulations Barak !


Why don't we wait until it actually happens before congratulating him?

Bad Lieutenant said...

That's a good one. Why didn't the Nobel people wait till Obama did something before giving him the Peace Prize? That's a better one.

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...

ARM-

Sure, I agree. The only way the Sunnis were going to stay in Iraq is if the US protected their rights.

And we didn't, because we left, which was stupid. And now instead of working with the Sunnis we are bombing them. The total opposite of what Obama wanted, but what his actions guaranteed would happen.

There's an underlying assumption that none of this is our problem, which is continually disproven by events. We can't walk away, even when we have a President that desperately wants to. Walking away makes it worse.

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...

Now the President is blaming the intel people instead of taking responsibility for what happened.

He didn't know, you see. How could he?

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...

Off topic, watch Taiwan. That's the next crisis.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

I come back a few days later and another troll is dominating. Whatevs...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

The only person acting like a troll is you MLL. Fuck off.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

John Lynch said...
There's an underlying assumption that none of this is our problem, which is continually disproven by events. We can't walk away, even when we have a President that desperately wants to. Walking away makes it worse.


And so we return to the original sin, starting a war in a country where our vital interests were not at stake.

I think we are polishing a turd at this point but it is not an argument I am anxious to make to someone who served in Iraq and probably knows people who will serve there again.

tim in vermont said...

"Nothing you could say would make me look bad." - ARM

Umm, ARM, I am pretty sure the delusion is in your head.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Do you have anything to say Tim or are you just trolling?

tim in vermont said...

You're the expert on trolling ARM. Surely you are as certain of my motives as you are of everything else.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

I don't troll Tim. I have a point of view that I advance. That this point of view is at odds with the majority here does not automatically make me a troll.

Anonymous said...

Once again everyone gets it wrong. Which is understandable.

Obama isn't lying here. He doesn't care. How many times do I have to say it?

He knows nothing about terrorists or terrorism. Whether it's The Islamic State, or some other organization, he doesn't care.

Everything he says is based off of what someone else told him and he accepted as true.

But that pretty face and that stern look and that emphasis on those words, he seems so serious! He must know. Just look in his eyes and he seems so important, and educated.

But the truth is, he doesn't know a damn thing, nor does he care to know. It's too much trouble. Who can know anyway? Don't bother him with the details.

Once you understand this about Obama, everything makes sense. Everything he says and does, all his apparent contradictions and lies, make perfect sense.

He's lazy. Intellectually lazy. He wants to have parties, go golfing, give speeches, be popular and on TV. He's our first reality TV President. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Ashton Kutcher met him some years back while doing "Punked" on MTV and thought it'd be funny to sell this unknown guy as a politician, and then it all got out of hand.

I know this probably hurts the world view of a lot of people. This isn't possible of the U.S. President! He must care. He must be an ideologue! He must!

But the truth is, he's a completely empty suit. He's got nothing to offer but a steady, deep, voice for the ladies to appreciate and a look that says, "I'm serious."

His head is empty and he doesn't care.

Kirk Parker said...

chillblaine,

"We should refer to them as the Barbarians of the Levant. "

Ummm, that's "The Pig-eating, Dog-petting, Alcohol-swilling, M*th*rf*ck*ng, Secretly Jewish, Secretly Informants-to-the-Great-Satan Barbarians of the Levant" to you, if you please.




ARM,

"Why don't we wait until it actually happens before congratulating him?"

We're just following in the lead of the Nobel Peace Prize committee. '

Fen said...

ARM: ...is a war-mongering privacy-invading opponent of a free society.

Noteworthy remark. In a thread re barbarian religious radicals who decapitate civilians, ARM is all worked up about some rightwing opinion guy.

This is the Democrat party.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Fen said...
Noteworthy remark. In a thread re barbarian religious radicals who decapitate civilians,


No. What is at issue is McCarthy's credibility as a critic of anyone or anything.

tim in vermont said...

" I have a point of view that I advance. "

Through a lot of name-calling and other ad homs.


The term "coward" comes up a lot.

The fact that you always are so certain that you are correct makes you unpersuasive. You project a kind of Manichean certainty while pretending to have considered all sides.

Even Obama has admitted that he didn't try hard enough to keep forces in Iraq, for example, but you keep to the line that his hands were tied, despite all evidence to the contrary.

That is just one example of your reject first, ask rhetorical questions later style of argument.

If you are not a troll, you are not here honestly to engage ideas either. You are pushing a point of view that you have decided in advance and will not change.

Russell said...

"but there could be reasons — other than to deceive us". I agree, this could be just the by-product of bureaucrats doing what bureaucrats do.

On a side note, the usage of 'The Islamic State' may be elevating them, but I also think it creates enemies in region. My understanding of muslim governance (I don't want to pretend I truly UNDERSTAND it), there can be only ONE caliphate. Period.

So, if you got these guys saying they are THE caliphate, it seems like the other countries in the region (not inclined to cede their own power to some upstart self-declared caliphate, because they are, you know, power hungry themselves) would be happy to help destroy these guys either by overtly or covertly helping the US efforts.

Drago said...

tim in vermont (to AReasonableMeltdown): "The fact that you always are so certain that you are correct makes you unpersuasive. You project a kind of Manichean certainty while pretending to have considered all sides."

Until the inevitable meltdown.

Followed by furious deleting of his own comments.

Followed usually by some faux intellectual quoting in an hilarious attempt to regain a veneer of respectability.