U.S. Administration Claims Iraqn Allied With AlQaeda

October 20, 2012

Can anyone make sense of this State Department announcement of new entries in its reward for justice headhunter program?

The Department’s Rewards for Justice program is offering rewards for information on two key Iran-based facilitators and financiers of the al-Qaida terrorist organization.

The U.S. Department of State has authorized a reward of up to $7 million for information leading to the location of Iran-based senior facilitator and financier Muhsin al-Fadhli and up to $5 million for information leading to the location of his deputy, Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi.

So the State Department will pay a reward to locate these people. Thus it is obviously the department does not know where they are. Why then does it claim that these are "Iran-based" people?

Al-Fadhli and al-Harbi facilitate the movement of funds and operatives through Iran on behalf of the al-Qaida terrorist network.
…
Al-Qaida elements in Iran, led by al-Fadhli, are working to move fighters and money through Turkey to support al-Qaida-affiliated elements in Syria. Al-Fadhli also is leveraging his extensive network of Kuwaiti jihadist donors to send money to Syria via Turkey.

So these people sit in Iran and provide people and money to the fighters that try to overthrow the Iran allied Syrian government? Why would Iran allow for that?

Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi is an Iran-based al-Qaida facilitator and deputy to al-Fadhli. In this role, al-Harbi facilitates the travel of extremists to Afghanistan or Iraq via Iran on behalf of al-Qaida and is believed to have sought funds to support al-Qaida attacks.

Again are we to believe that there is some organisation in Iran that lets Al Qaeda fighters travel to Iraq to fight the Iran allied Iraqi government?

Does anyone really believe that the Shia Iran government is supporting the activities of Wahabbi Sunni extremists against Shia governments it is allied with? That claim defies all logic. Why supposedly would Iran do that?

What we obviously have here is a false claim by the Obama administration that is similar to the false claims the Bush administrations made about Iraq. As was later admitted Saddam Hussein was never allied with Al Qaeda. He was indeed as staunch opponent of radical Sunni extremists.

Now another administration is making the same stupid Al-Qaeda claims about Iran.

The Obama administration also makes ominous claims that Iran wants weapon of mass destruction which Iran says it does not want and for which there is not even one bit of evidence. It arranges "devastating" sanctions on Iran just like former U.S. governments put such sanctions on Iraq.It threatens the use of force against Iran. Is there then any real difference between the Bush and Obama regime?

Posted by b on October 20, 2012 at 11:46 UTC | Permalink

Comments

“Is there then any real difference between the Bush and Obama regime?”
Yes there is: Obama’s thuggery and crude propaganda enjoys the enthusiastic support of most American liberals, who will regard his defeat as being a terrible shift of power to warmongers and liars, on the Republican ticket.

Posted by: bevin | Oct 20 2012 13:34 utc | 1

Posted by: par4 | Oct 20 2012 13:36 utc | 2

Well, Obomber has accelerated drone wars, spent more on warfare and still managed to convince “folks” that he is the great liberal hope.

Posted by: billyboy | Oct 20 2012 13:50 utc | 3

“Is there then any real difference between the Bush and Obama regime?”
On foreign policy, NO!

Posted by: ben | Oct 20 2012 14:04 utc | 4

Maybe some moron in the State Department felt they needed to counteract a recent bit of good publicity for Iran in the NY Times:
The West’s Stalwart Ally in the War on Drugs: Iran (Yes, That Iran)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/world/middleeast/iran-fights-drug-smuggling-at-borders.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Posted by: blowback | Oct 20 2012 14:25 utc | 5

same as it ever was – part projection / part misdirection… e.g., from obamanian idol ronnie raygun’s 1986 cold war-era security directive NSDD 238:

“The survival of the Soviet system depends to a significant extent upon the persistent and exaggerated representation of foreign threats, through which it seeks to justify both the subjugation of its own people and the expansion of Soviet military capabilities well beyond those required for self-defense”

Posted by: b real | Oct 20 2012 15:18 utc | 6

If Obama eases up one iota against Iran right now, it could cost him the election. Then we will have Paul Bolton making policy on Iran and a war on our hands within the year.
Sometimes we have to settle for the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 20 2012 15:47 utc | 7

Obama seems worse than Bush in many ways. A colder killer.
Hope he is voted out before he sets off WW III.

Posted by: revenire | Oct 20 2012 16:10 utc | 8

ralphieboy 7
*Sometimes we have to settle for the lesser of two evils.*
good cop, bad cop
head they win, tail u loose.

Posted by: denk | Oct 20 2012 16:26 utc | 9

I am afraid that Obama will set off WWIII too.

Posted by: Susan | Oct 20 2012 19:06 utc | 10

Perhaps those wily Persians are just using the US to find these Iran enemies? just kidding
Kidding aside, the US has to continue to promote the idea that Iran is the “foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world” and since there is no evidence of this* the US has to come up with stuff that most people, like the MSM stenographers, will absorb without thinking.
*There is no evidence that Iran ia the world’s prime sponsors of terrorism. The most recent National Counterterrorism Center’s annual report, for 2011, doesn’t even mention Iran.
Report highlights follow:

Sunni extremists accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third
consecutive year. More than 5,700 incidents were attributed to Sunni extremists, accounting for nearly
56 percent of all attacks and about 70 percent of all fatalities. Among this perpetrator group, al-Qa‘ida
(AQ) and its affiliates were responsible for at least 688 attacks that resulted in almost 2,000 deaths, while the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan conducted over 800 attacks that resulted in nearly 1,900 deaths.
Secular, political, and anarchist groups were the next largest category of perpetrators, conducting 2,283
attacks with 1,926 fatalities, a drop of 5 percent and 9 percent, respectively, from 2010.
• Attacks by AQ and its affiliates increased by 8 percent from 2010 to 2011. A significant increase in attacks by al-Shabaab, from 401 in 2010 to 544 in 2011, offset a sharp decline in attacks by al-Qa‘ida in Iraq (AQI) and a smaller decline in attacks by al-Qa‘ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and al-Qa‘ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).
• The most active of the secular, political, and anarchist groups in 2011 included the FARC (377 attacks), the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) (351 attacks), the New People’s Army/Communist Party of the Philippines (NPA-CPP) (102 attacks), and the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) in Turkey (48 attacks).

So — they tie together AQ and Iran which will, they hope, fool most of the people some of the time.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 20 2012 20:43 utc | 11

ralphieboy
Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 20, 2012 11:47:23 AM
John Bolton. But I don’t agree. Vote Stein. Vote Johnson. But don’t vote in a manner which bloodies your hands.

Posted by: Ken Hoop | Oct 20 2012 21:41 utc | 12

State acted on input from the Treasury, so maybe it’s directed at further cutting off Iran’s banking system from the rest of the world
accusations of the Treasury go back to 2005
apparently, it’s an issue that is being kept on the back burner until occasion arrives for the blackmailing of some financial entity that deals with Iran
it reminds me when the Treasury accused North Korea of printing counterfeit dollars, and used this excuse for clamping on Macau-based Banco Delta Asia that had relations with North Korea

Posted by: claudio | Oct 20 2012 21:50 utc | 13

@claudio
Treasury concerns, according to some analysts, are what led to the attacks on Iraq and Libya. Both wanted to get off the dollar and the US wouldn’t stand for it. Iran has been saying the same, and it is happening. So with Iran it’s not nuclear, it’s banking. But this time it won’t work. Iran is in Asia, where the world economic growth is. Western sanctions are both making Iran more independent and moving her closer to the Asian growth countries which need Iran petroleum. That’s South Korea, Malaysia, China and India, which also needs Iran as a corridor to Central Asia.
The US depends upon a strong dollar (petrodollar) and debt. Weakening the dollar with zero economic growth is going to hurt. Asia, with China leading, is setting up “currency swap” agreements. It’ll be interesting.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 20 2012 22:39 utc | 14

Obambi got lost in the Bush?

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Oct 21 2012 5:32 utc | 15

” Vote Stein”
yeah vote for the Jew
that’s what the US needs right now – a Jewish president that refuses to back her own party’s stance on the IP conflict. Since everything else is controlled by them, might as well have one in the oval office

Posted by: FtJ | Oct 21 2012 11:56 utc | 16

There is also the attack in Bengahzi that the US is desperately trying to spin, & keep the public from focusing on what Stevens role was there & that the accused militias were part of the the groups that they helped unleash in the first place.
If they can blame Iran as the hidden hand behind it – to a US populace, most of which seem to swallow almost any kind bull the administration puts out about Iran no matter how farcical…

Posted by: KenM | Oct 21 2012 20:13 utc | 17

I wonder: Is this announcement the equivalent of “push-polling”, where pollsters ask questions not for the sake of soliciting answers but instead to shape the perceptions of the audience?

Posted by: anon | Oct 21 2012 22:10 utc | 18

>> “Is there then any real difference between the Bush and Obama regime?”
A velvet glove just fits better.
…
Just read Machiavelli’s The Prince. I bet this board’s community already has. But, if you haven’t, it’s worth reading.

Posted by: anon | Oct 21 2012 22:14 utc | 19

no 19 anon as a rule – there is always a way it can get worse.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 21 2012 22:32 utc | 20

vote obama or else………..
http://space4peace.blogspot.sg/2012/10/truth.html

Posted by: denk | Oct 22 2012 5:06 utc | 21

Back to Main