• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Obama Administration Knowingly Funded a Designated al-Qaeda Affiliate

cryptoadam

Banned
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/obama-administration-al-qaeda-affiliate-knowingly-funded/

The Middle East Forum has discovered that the Obama administration approved a grant of $200,000 of taxpayer money to an al-Qaeda affiliate in Sudan — a decade after the U.S. Treasury designated it as a terrorist-financing organization. More stunningly, government officials specifically authorized the release of at least $115,000 of this grant even after learning that it was a designated terror organization.


The story began in October 2004, when the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated the Khartoum-based Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA), also known as the Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA), as a terror-financing organization. It did so because of ISRA’s links to Osama bin Laden and his organization Maktab al-Khidamat (MK), the precursor of al-Qaeda.

Then, incredibly, on May 7, 2015 — after “close collaboration and consultations with the Department of State” — OFAC issued a license to a World Vision affiliate, World Vision International, authorizing “a one-time transfer of approximately $125,000 to ISRA,” of which “$115,000 was for services performed under the sub-award with USAID” and $10,000 was “for an unrelated funding arrangement between Irish Aid and World Vision.”





An unnamed World Vision official described the decision as a “great relief as ISRA had become restive and had threatened legal action, which would have damaged our reputation and standing in Sudan.” Senior USAID official Charles Wanjue wrote to colleagues: “Good news and a great relief, really!” In August 2015, USAID official Daniel Holmberg even told a State Department official that he had been approached by the executive director of ISRA, and requested guidance on helping ISRA remove itself from the U.S. government’s terror list.





Obama-administration officials knowingly approved the transfer of taxpayer dollars to an al-Qaeda affiliate, and not an obscure one but an enormous international network that was often in the headlines.

I won't quote the whole article but you can read it on your own.

Maybe he thought like ISIS all terrorist are just the Junior Varseity squad :)
 

Gander

Banned
The National Review, you might as well have said you got this from Fox News.
 
Last edited:

bucyou

Member
lol, its not like the readily available proof is made up.




Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
 
And the US funded Al-Qaeda itself in the 1980s. We wouldnt have Al-Qaeda without the US.

The US funded the mujahideen in Afghanistan to resist the Soviet invasion. Remnants of that group later morphed into al qaeda. You could see how at the time, it was in our national interest. But I can't understand this recent funding for al qaeda in Sudan.

Obama also shut down a DEA investigation into Hezbollah organized cocaine smuggling with Venezuela. They thought it would derail the Iran nuclear deal. I'm amazed by all of the shady things we've learned about his administration after he left office. The media was asleep for most of his 2nd term.
 
Ok? Foreign policy is always treated as something different due to the anarchic system, so it's largely driven by realpolitik, even if you'll see world leaders hypocritically refer to moral politics in the moments it suits their argument. Either you'd have to limit realpolitik and curtailing an administration's ability to pragmatically work towards american interests or you'd have to keep them responsible and run the risk of limiting your options in handling international relations. There's indeed a discussion to be had about that, but just as I despise reactive and overly aggressive "Trump did...." stuff, I also dislike the same if it's "Obama did...".
The more interesting would be either the debate on moral politics vs realpolitik, or a question whether such a decision was wise in regards to more pragmatic politics, or lastly more confirmation on this being true, of course.
 

Arkage

Banned
https://www.wvi.org/pressrelease/wo...r-past-engagement-islamic-relief-agency-sudan

World Vision released a statement. They're claiming they verified the humanitarian work of IRA/ISRA and felt it necessary to pay them for the humanitarian work performed. Who knows the validity of that claim, but there it is nonetheless. WV is an evangelical Christian humanitarian aid group and seems pretty legit. Though writing the headline "Obama Administration Knowingly Funded a Designated al-Qaeda Affiliate (for Humanitarian Work Requested and Verified by highly respected Evangelical Christian humanitarian aid organization)" doesn't quite produce the same bubbling outrage that the article is clearly searching for.

IMO the main problem is that whoever was OK-ing WV's initial funding wasn't paying attention to the details of the subcontractors, and probably thought WV were doing their own due diligence in determining who to subcontract to. But I really don't care if IRA was funded after the fact if, like WV claims, it was for humanitarian services that they themselves verified took place.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

Banned
https://www.wvi.org/pressrelease/wo...r-past-engagement-islamic-relief-agency-sudan

World Vision released a statement. They're claiming they verified the humanitarian work of IRA/ISRA and felt it necessary to pay them for the humanitarian work performed. Who knows the validity of that claim, but there it is nonetheless. WV is an evangelical Christian humanitarian aid group and seems pretty legit. Though writing the headline "Obama Administration Knowingly Funded a Designated al-Qaeda Affiliate (for Humanitarian Work Requested and Verified by highly respected Evangelical Christian humanitarian aid organization)" doesn't quite produce the same bubbling outrage that the article is clearly searching for.

IMO the main problem is that whoever was OK-ing WV's initial funding wasn't paying attention to the details of the subcontractors, and probably thought WV were doing their own due diligence in determining who to subcontract to. But I really don't care if IRA was funded after the fact if, like WV claims, it was for humanitarian services that they themselves verified took place.

Well not the first time World Vision was caught involved with terrorist.

World Vision's Gaza Manager Funneled Millions to Hamas

TEL AVIV, Israel — Israel has accused a manager working for U.S.-headquartered Christian charity World Vision of funneling millions of dollars to Islamist militant group Hamas.

According to Israel's Shin Bet security service, El Halabi diverted around $7.2 million of World Vision money to Hamas each year. That is the equivalent of 60 percent of the charity's total annual funding for Gaza.

Some 40 percent of the funds aimed at civilian projects — some $1.5 million a year — were "given in cash" to Hamas combat units, according to a statement issued by the Shin Bet.

Some of the money raised to support injured children in the enclave had been diverted to Hamas families by "fraudulently listing their children as wounded," according to the agency.


"Money designated for psychological support, education and health in Gaza ... was used to pay the families of Hamas terrorists," it added.
 

Grey Specter

Neo Member
If I search up the article, all publications that appear are ones I recognise as being strictly right leaning. The others I don't even recognise due to how obscure they seem to be. Makes me fairly suspicious.
 

cryptoadam

Banned
If I search up the article, all publications that appear are ones I recognise as being strictly right leaning. The others I don't even recognise due to how obscure they seem to be. Makes me fairly suspicious.

Check the post above where World Version confirms at least they did fund and then stopped funding them when OFAC informed them.

We can debate the rest of the story but that part is true at least.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
National Review... come on. I swear this place feels like it's months away from seriously discussing InfoWars articles.
 
Is National Review really that bad? I had always considered it a little less right than Mother Jones is left. Or did I just answer my own question?
 

Arkage

Banned
Is National Review really that bad? I had always considered it a little less right than Mother Jones is left. Or did I just answer my own question?

It's not horrible. This particular article cites a lot of sources, so it's legit, though it of course has an editorial framing designed to stoke outrage for what I think is a pretty underwhelming story.
 

Ke0

Member
evangelical Christian humanitarian aid group

So an aid group who vote Conservative in your country vetted these people and Obama Administration said okay?
 
Last edited:

Kataploom

Gold Member
I believe this is true... There's a lot of controversy in Twitter in Venezuela due to Obama letting Hamas and Hezbollah set bases in our country, so there must be something it started from... That's a big part of why Trump is so "obsessed" with a Venezuela, calling it a security risk for America and so on..
 

Super Mario

Banned
Is National Review really that bad? I had always considered it a little less right than Mother Jones is left. Or did I just answer my own question?

If it doesn't come down through the Liberal media hive mind, you know, the one where every site has a black man being shot in Chicago on the front page, then it doesn't count as a reliable source to Liberals
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

Banned
I guess the question comes down to is it ok for the government to release funds to a group on its terrorist list because of works already done?

I mean if you knew that Tony's construction was a front for the mob and committing money laundering, would it be ok to send them 125 K because they claim they built a house for you 3 months ago that you owe them money for?

WV isn't disputing the story so even if the source is questionable the facts within the story are valid. So it comes down to are you ok with paying known terrorist fronts for past works they allegedly rendered.
 

Grey Specter

Neo Member
Check the post above where World Version confirms at least they did fund and then stopped funding them when OFAC informed them.

We can debate the rest of the story but that part is true at least.

No, I'm not often one for debate so I'll take your word for it. My point is that when a story seems to exclusively catch the attention of partisan publications, it needs to be heavily scrutinised.
 

Grey Specter

Neo Member
If it doesn't come down through the Liberal media hive mind, you know, the one where every site has a black man being shot in Chicago on the front page, then it doesn't count as a reliable source to Liberals

A reliable source is a reliable source. You can see sensationalist stories a mile away. Places like Infowars and Brietbart, atop being consistently incorrect, use these headlines as provocation. They are evidently partisan and prone to falsifying statistics or facts.

On the other hand, when something like CNN, claimed to be the centre of liberal bias, has somebody claiming straight up that liberals are intolerant or immigrants thanking Trump, that's something to take note of.
 
The story began in October 2004, when the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated the Khartoum-based Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA), also known as the Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA), as a terror-financing organization. It did so because of ISRA’s links to Osama bin Laden and his organization Maktab al-Khidamat (MK), the precursor of al-Qaeda.

Fucking Obama and his time traveling machine.


e:

I swear this thread has happened before here on on era.
 
Last edited:

12Goblins

Lil’ Gobbie
If it doesn't come down through the Liberal media hive mind, you know, the one where every site has a black man being shot in Chicago on the front page, then it doesn't count as a reliable source to Liberals

Is that right? =[
 
Last edited:

lil puff

Member
I don't understand the obsession about discussing what the last presidents did.

I am trying to think about if this happens in sports with a new coach or manager. Like during the entire season people keep referring to what the last coach did. Keep blaming the last coach everytime something happens.
"We should not have lost, we missed too many shots, but the last coach did this and that! So this is not my fault..."
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
I don't understand the obsession about discussing what the last presidents did.

No see we HAVE to discuss what past presidents did otherwise we would be forced to talk about all the bad stuff the current President is doing and we can't do that! People might start thinking Trump is a bad president if we stop deflecting to Obama or Hillary! It would be a disaster!



(Its bullshit I know)
 

cryptoadam

Banned
No, I'm not often one for debate so I'll take your word for it. My point is that when a story seems to exclusively catch the attention of partisan publications, it needs to be heavily scrutinised.

I don't disagree.

Thats why WV coming out and confirming the details adds credibility to the article
 

cryptoadam

Banned
No see we HAVE to discuss what past presidents did otherwise we would be forced to talk about all the bad stuff the current President is doing and we can't do that! People might start thinking Trump is a bad president if we stop deflecting to Obama or Hillary! It would be a disaster!



(Its bullshit I know)

There are a ton of Trump threads. If we want to talk about Trump we can in like the 3 or 4 on the front page.

I guess then we shouldn't ever bring up anything that happened in the past then?

And the irony talking about deflection, when coming into a thread and instead of discussing the topic in the OP trying to sidetrack it by brining in Trump.

Its a thread about the Obama administration allowing the transfer of funds to a terrorist front group. Discuss or don't post. If you want to go discuss Trump then here you go

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/trump-derangement-syndrome-support-group.1463946/

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/trum...r-than-4-1-gdp-growth.1464133/#post-253359718

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/nyt-...sh-the-federal-deficit-to-1-trillion.1464152/

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/cohe...-at-trump-tower.1464119/page-2#post-253360600

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/trum...gainst-china-on-trade.1464104/#post-253358617

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/trum...n-to-putin-that-putin-never-accepted.1464090/
 
Top Bottom