Bin Ladenites Jerking Trump’s Chain

Just like when he fell for the Khan Sheikhoun and Douma chemical attack hoaxes in Syria in 2017 and 2018, President Trump let the bin Ladenites (by way of his Zionists) tell him what to think and who to bomb after the attack on the U.S. base in Iraq on December 27, 2019. This time it was “Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah.”

His revenge attacks on Iraqi Shi’ite militias and then Iranian General Qassem Soleimani could have started a real war.

But the Shi’ites didn’t do it.

We tried to tell you…

Gareth Porter:

The provenance of the event that triggered the fateful decisions that followed is shrouded in ambiguity. As the New York Times reported on Dec. 27, “It wasn’t clear who was responsible for the attack,” adding that the base had been threatened previously by both Iranian-backed militias and Islamic State forces.

The IS forces in the area of Kirkuk where the K1 base was located had become increasingly active in 2018 and 2019, with a rapidly growing pace of attacks, operating freely out of the rugged mountainous north and south of the city. In fact there had been more attacks by IS on government targets in Kirkuk in 2018 than anywhere else in Iraq, and it had the highest rate of growth as well.

Scott Ritter:

The U.S. blamed Iranian-backed Khaitab Hezbollah (no relation to the Lebanese Hezbollah group), for the attacks.

There are several problems with this narrative, first and foremost being that the bases bombed were reportedly more than 500 kilometers removed from the military base where the civilian contractor had been killed. The Iraqi units housed at the bombed facilities, including Khaitab Hezbollah, were engaged, reportedly, in active combat operations against ISIS remnants operating in both Iraq and Syria. This calls into question whether they would be involved in an attack against an American target. In fact, given the recent resurgence of ISIS, it is entirely possible that ISIS was responsible for the attack on the U.S. base, creating a scenario where the U.S. served as the de facto air force for ISIS by striking Iraqi forces engaged in anti-ISIS combat operations.


No doubt, the only person in the world who wants to see regime change in Iran as much as Benjamin Netanyahu is Ayman al Zawahiri.

Now here’s a follow-up by Alissa J. Rubin in the Times. There’s no solid proof, but also no reason whatsoever to believe any Shi’ite militia was responsible:

Was US Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran?

American officials insist that they have solid evidence that Khataib Hezbollah carried out the attack, though they have not made it public.

Iraqi officials say their doubts are based on circumstantial evidence and long experience in the area where the attack took place.

The rockets were launched from a Sunni Muslim part of Kirkuk Province notorious for attacks by the Islamic State, a Sunni terrorist group, which would have made the area hostile territory for a Shiite militia like Khataib Hezbollah.

Khataib Hezbollah has not had a presence in Kirkuk Province since 2014.

The Islamic State, however, had carried out three attacks relatively close to the base in the 10 days before the attack on K-1. Iraqi intelligence officials sent reports to the Americans in November and December warning that ISIS intended to target K-1, an Iraqi air base in Kirkuk Province that is also used by American forces. …

“All the indications are that it was Daesh,” said Brig. General Ahmed Adnan, the Iraqi chief of intelligence for the federal police at K-1, using the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State. “I told you about the three incidents in the days just before in the area — we know Daesh’s movements.

“We as Iraqi forces cannot even come to this area unless we have a large force because it is not secure. How could it be that someone who doesn’t know the area could come here and find that firing position and launch an attack?” …

Iraqi officials said the group had not had a presence in Kirkuk Province in years. The only time it was active there, they said, was in 2014 during the early days of the fight against the Islamic State.

Ignorant, illiterate Trump couldn’t tell you the difference between ISIS and the Ayatollah if Bloody Gina Haspel waterboarded him.

The disgusting spawn of Zarqawi probably had no intention of launching a false-flag attack here. They were just firing off some rockets at their enemies — Shi’ite army-embedded American troops. Imagine their surprise and delight to see the U.S. exploit their violence to turn against their enemies this way. They sure seemed pretty happy about it at the time. See here:

ISIS welcomes the death of Iran’s Qaseem Soleimani and declare it an act of ‘divine intervention’ that will let them regroup in Iraq

And here:

Qasem Soleimani: Why his killing is good news for IS jihadists

Remember your history.

They Lied Us Into War, All of Them

Cross-posted at the Institute.

Update: On Friday morning I interviewed Iraqi journalist Suadad al-Salhy. She says that actually Shi’ite militias such as Kataib Hezbollah are close enough to have also had the opportunity, and that Rubin is over-simplifying.

The point stands that nobody really knows. And the U.S. has proven nothing.

Author: Scott Horton

Scott Horton is editorial director of, director of the Libertarian Institute, host of Antiwar Radio on Pacifica, 90.7 FM KPFK in Los Angeles, California and podcasts the Scott Horton Show from He’s the author of the 2017 book, Fool’s Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan and editor of The Great Ron Paul: The Scott Horton Show Interviews 2004–2019. He’s conducted more than 5,000 interviews since 2003. Scott lives in Austin, Texas with his wife, investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna Horton. He is a fan of, but no relation to the lawyer from Harper’s. Scott’s Twitter, YouTube, Patreon.

7 thoughts on “Bin Ladenites Jerking Trump’s Chain”

  1. Meanwhile, the most you see in this and other media, “Shiff and the dems want to attack Russia”…..criminy

    1. The land mine thing has got me sick, most recently.

      It’s especially frustrating, because he’s significantly better on domestic policies now. I don’t want war horrors associated with pro-American ideas. I wanted to be on the good side…

      1. And what makes you think that those that jerk his chain CARE about America having a positive image in the world?

        If America’s leadership changes to the one of positive global force, the one that has friends and collaborates constructively with all global powers — would that suit to the likes of Adam Shiff? Of course not. The Bin Ladenites want America tarnished, Americans portrayed globally as bumbling idiots and cruel barbarians.

        They WANT the world to hate us. They do not care who is the agent of hate. Pay Al-Qaeda to fight against Damascus, get them look angelic in Oscar movies, so that the hate against Shia would be inflamed, while simultaneously making Saudis pay through their nose to fund ISIS caliphate just to have it vanquished in our pursuit of other villains. There is no sensible person on this planet that is not aware of American sick foreign policy — except of course our pets primed for future slaughter, and our media fantasies.

        I always thought that the WHOLE objective of impeachment was to get their hands on the handful of Republican senators, those that may have dark secrets, and who would persuade Trump to do crazy things — or else they were going to vote to impeach him.

        He may have agreed to some other previously unthought off monstrosities. And when he does do not expect democrat or republican objections.

        They are all defeated now. Media is crowing. Now they have the ultimate happiness — crazy president doing crazy things, loving to hate the person, while approving the nastiest of nasty he will do.

        We are defeated as well. The sooner we face it, the better. Money, bribes, blackmail and extortion rule our universe. If anybody thinks otherwise — just look at what is going on. The system of corruption we call lobbying is out of hand — they are fighting among themselves, we the people are not even a footnote.

        Except as flag waving morons, expected to be wiped out one of those days when their addiction to wars backfires.

        1. Little people have some power. But, often it’s not worth getting involved over.

          As soon as the economic bubble bursts, and perhaps the dollar-as-reserve-currency with it, a battle will arise between foreign policy and domestic spending. That is the great opportunity, politically speaking.

          A bankrupt US could not do what the US does today.

          The core flaw might well be our system of government, however. As you say, bribery, blackmail, etc. rule in the US and everywhere else. Lately it has seemed the US entered the Cold War to battle against Communism, and those tools are now used against the US itself.

          What we really battled against were globalism, secularism, tyranny, and elite rule. These things have become the US, so the US has largely become the communism is sought to defeat, in a new managerial state.

        2. I guess I’ll stop saying the US is like communism; I guess that’s getting old. That’s what I grew up reading though, about why communism was bad.

          1. I am convinced that we misunderstand what communism really is — to our peril. Communism has nothing to do with economy, state management, political systems.

            It has everything to do with mind control, preferably self censorship and when necessary use power of state to enforce rules.

            Communism — or mind control — cannot exist without ideology.

            America has applied brutality overseas for a ling, long time. But only rarely oppressed populace at home using ideology as a bat. It happened in McCarthy era, but did not last. Americans were never asked to recite political slogans. They were never forced to believe into one set of values.

            That is — until quite recently. US always used ideology for demonizing enemies. So, freedom, democracy and free markets became ideological buzzwords in post Cold War era.

            But when Trump concluded that Emperor has no clothes, that we need to deal with the world as is, without ideological glasses, this sent shock waves throughout neocon universe. Neocon ideological principles became shoved down body politics. Loss of ideology means loss of control, loss of controllers, gatekeepers.

            So a new phase of ideological universe has been kicked in with force — identity based ideology that embraces particular identity causes, and makes sure others are complying. Using media and especially social media, such political mind control is galloping apace. We will cross the Rubicon once it becomes dangerous to one’s career to disagree with the sacred cows of protected identities. Ideology is a powerful mind control mechanism, where there is no more place for an individual.

            There is a temptation to fight this monster with cleverness and political tools of battle. A mistake. The only way to win is with high moral principles, humanity, justice.

            One can never win against those that have in reality no values, where the only value is staying in power in order to avoid retribution by those that were harmed.

            Trotsky was a genius of ideology application, of ruthlessness against the only power that could confront him ideologically —the church. And against anyone that could retain independence economically. And in Russia at that time were not only the landowning aristocratic classes, but also all small, independent farmers.

            We are in a situation where economic power and independence of an individual is very low, and that cuts across income scales. And religious institutions that do not bow to the identity ideologies, are always in danger of being labeled and outcast. We are sliding into communism when measured by some of its original Trotskyite criteria.
            However, we tend to attack the aspects of communism which may have been successful. All these just adds to the deliberate use and abuse of the terminology, divorced from its sociological aspects. Making it harder to notice the Borg-like creatures that inhabit neocon politics.

          2. Communism has nothing to do with “mind control”, it 1st addresses (1) social evolution and (2) present social reality and 2d the “social tension” predicament of the masses – i.e., that their only means to subsist is to exchange it for their labor. I can only speak in re the USA where there is one party, composed of two factions – viz., Liberals and conservatives; the latter’s approach to “social tension” is Calvinist – i.e., that’s life too bad, live with it or kill yourself now. The Liberal approach is to use government to ensure (a) that the masses have “a living wage” to purchase subsistence from the company store and (b) enough credit to buy luxury items to keep them from revolting. In essence both are conservative. The main issue with Communism is that it’s based on social evolution that social arrangements become obsolete and inevitably morph into something new and Leninism which is that we don’t have 100s of years we have 20 or 30 so bring this about now by revolution.

Comments are closed.