The invention of “Khorasan” as a faction in Syria was meant to disguise that the US attacks in Syria were targeting not just ISIS, but also Jabhat al-Nusra, the local al-Qaeda affiliate whose members were attacked under the guise of targeting Khorasan.
The attacks were unpopular among the “moderate” rebels the US is always talking up, who noted Nusra is a close ally of theirs. Or at least, they were a close ally.
With the US attacking Nusra, the pro-US rebels are now facing retaliation from Nusra fighters, and it’s yet another enemy they can’t actually beat, leading them to push the US for even more aid.
The US seems to have given up on the existing moderate rebels, and is preparing to create a new faction in the years to come, but the attacks are reflecting both the unsavory nature of the existing US allied rebels, and how little thought went into expanding the war against Nusra.
It's too bad that this strategy of jumping into an ongoing war and proceeding to fight both sides wasn't around in WWI. Imagine how easy it would've been to offer false homage to Britain and France to get a position in their trenches only to turn on them and roll up their positions from the flank. Then we could have turned on Germany and beaten them too. Before long we would have been in Vladivostok ready to turn south for the march on Shanghai.
They're all terrorist skumbags – trying to make a difference where there is none is a fool's errand / Israeli strategy at this point. The US should have tried harder to keep out the Saudi-Qatar-Israeli backed terrorist – headchopper liver-eating criminal lowlives and then MAYBE less confusion would have resulted.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4…
United States should stay home more .have been supporting the wrong side more often than not for last 5 or six administrations . no wonder we are going broke