“Blind Sheikh” Prosecutor Not Seeing 9/11 Muslim Terrorist Connection in Criticizing Obama for Blaming the ‘Khorasan Group’

By Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

While an understandably frustrated Andrew McCarthy has been focused on the political word games of the Obama administration when it comes to the so-called ‘Khorasan Group’, he might do better to play along. McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted the “Blind Sheikh” for the latter’s role in the first World Trade Center attack may be partially blinded by his own frustration.

Omar Abdel-Rahman: The Blind Sheikh.

Omar Abdel-Rahman: The Blind Sheikh.

You see, ‘Khorasan’ describes territory in Iran and while McCarthy rightly identifies the ‘Khorasan Group’ as just another term for al-Qaeda, he misses completely the admission on the part of the Obama administration that al-Qaeda is operating out of Iran, which is exactly what it did when it introduced that term to the public. At no point does the word “Iran” even appear in McCarthy’s piece.

Why not cede the point and give the administration more rope? McCarthy writes:

The Obama administration portrayed the abruptly emergent “Khorasan Group” as if it were a standalone terrorist organization — a jihadist-combat entity targeting the United States. In reality, the threat the administration was talking about was from al-Qaeda. The administration does not like to admit that al-Qaeda is still a formidable enemy because President Obama has made a habit of falsely claiming to have defeated it. That is why we are hearing about the “Khorasan Group.”

To the extent such an entity exists, however, it is merely a small group of experienced and trusted al-Qaeda operatives who advise the terror network’s emir, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and carry out his directives. In this instance, Zawahiri sent some of these top terrorists to Syria, to work with the Syrian franchise, al-Nusra.

Note what McCarthy says. “Khorasan Group” operatives are simply members of al-Qaeda that carry out the “directives” of “Ayman al-Zawahiri” who “sent these top terrorists to Syria”. That’s true but what McCarthy does not acknowledge is FROM WHERE these terrorists were sent and what that would mean.

As Shoebat.com has reported, on December 22, 2011 a Federal District Judge named George B. Daniels signed a 53-page document containing 276 ‘Findings of Fact’ (FoF) and and an Order of Judgment in Havlish v. Iran, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, et. al., filed by Fiona Havlish on behalf of her husband Donald, who was murdered in the 9/11 attacks.

The case largely hinged on the testimony of a practically unimpeachable witness based on prior testimony and the vouching of very credible intelligence sources. A smoking gun came in the form of a May 14, 2001 memorandum from the intelligence spokesman for Iran’s Supreme leader that referenced al-Qaeda’s al-Zawahiri and Hezbollah senior operative Imad Mughniyeh. Hezbollah is the terrorist arm of the Iranian government.

The 2001 memo said, in part:

“While (the Supreme Leader) is aware of expanding the collaboration with the fighters of al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, he emphasizes that, with regard to cooperation with al-Qaeda, no traces must be left that might have negative and irreversible consequences, and that [the activity] must be limited to the existing contacts with Mughniyeh and Ayman al-Zawahiri.”

Did you catch that? Al-Zawahiri was the point of contact for Hezbollah when the two groups were conspiring to carry out the 9/11 attacks! That would be the same al-Zawahiri who is directing al-Qaeda terrorists to leave Iran and go to Syria (using Obama’s ‘Khorasan Group’ identifier of course).

Imad Mughniyeh (L) and Ayma al-Zawahiri (R). Federal Judge ruled 9/11 collaborators.

Imad Mughniyeh (L) and Ayman al-Zawahiri (R). Federal Judge ruled 9/11 collaborators.

By conceding the Obama administration’s point that the ‘Khorasan Group’ was preparing an imminent attack on the U.S., the administration would then have to explain Iran’s role. McCarthy is right to say that the ‘Khorasan Group’ is al-Qaeda but he completely misses the fact that it’s an al-Qaeda group based in Iran that is operating in Syria. If, as the Obama administration says, the threat against the U.S. was imminent, Iran would thereby be implicated.

There’s already a federal judge who ruled Iran was complicit in the worst terror attack on U.S. soil.

Sometimes the best course is to call the administration’s bluff and see where it leads. The ‘Khorasan Group’ isn’t the first such example.

Case for Calling Obama’s Bluff on Benghazi Video
As Shoebat.com has demonstrated, there is a strong case to be made that the Obama administration was involved in the production of the “Innocence of Muslims” video it ultimately attempted to blame for the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack. There is definitely sufficient probable cause.

That case largely involves an attempt to create a climate globally that would frown upon – or outright criminalize – criticism of Islam. Go HERE for the repository.

The decision to blame the video actually got the administration’s political opponents doing what the administration didn’t have to do – insist that the video had nothing to do with the attacks.

It would constitute a stroke of counter-intuitive genius. By blaming the video, the administration was able to exploit a conditioned response from its opponents. That response was that the video had NOTHING to do with the protests, thereby providing a wall of political insulation for the administration.

Consider that all across the Middle East, protests in response to the video took place at dozens of embassies. The only installation where the video was NOT responsible was in Benghazi. In reality, the video was pointed to by protesters as the reason for their protests in every instance except one – Benghazi.

Locations of all protests in response to "Innocence of Muslims" (was Benghazi the only one that wasn't about video?)

Locations of all protests in response to “Innocence of Muslims” (was Benghazi the only one that wasn’t about video?)

If there is a lesson to be learned about how the Obama administration operates, it’s that it often puts forth assertions that are meant to be seen as ridiculous so that the assertions themselves become the point of focus instead of something much larger.

Often, the best course of action is to concede the point, call Obama’s bluff and see where it leads.


, , , , , , , , , , ,