Move Over ISIS, The Khorasan Are Waiting in the Wings

The Associated Press today reports that ISIS is not a danger to America, but another Islamic extremist group, Khorasan (aka Khurasan), which is affiliated with al Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan and the Taliban, is working with Yemeni bomb-makers from AQAP to launch an attack inside the U.S.

At the center is a cell known as the Khorasan group, a cadre of veteran al-Qaida fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan who traveled to Syria to link up with the al-Qaida affiliate there, the Nusra Front.

But the Khorasan militants did not go to Syria principally to fight the government of President Bashar Assad, U.S. officials say. Instead, they were sent by al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to recruit Europeans and Americans whose passports allow them to board a U.S.-bound airliner with less scrutiny from security officials.

There are so many Khorasan groups I'm not sure yet which branch this is. [More...]

There was this one. A few weeks ago, a splinter group formed named Jamaat-ul-Ahrar TTP (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, or Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan). On 9/11, according to a news article, Tehrik-e-Taliban Jamaat ul Ahrar sent out a notice saying it was going to fulfill Osama bin Laden's promise. In 2013, the Taliban said a group of Pakistani and Afghan jihadists went to Syria to "monitor Jihad." Then there's this article, which says the Pakistani contingent went to train ISIS fighters. AndReuters says the new group supports ISIS.

In any event, the takeaway is that it's not ISIS that is threatening attacks in the U.S., but groups aligned with Al Qaida.

< Where is ISIS Headed Next? | Congress and White House One Step Behind on Syria Rebels >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Imho, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 03:38:31 AM EST
    our government is putting a target on our backs.


    It certainly gives them a rationale to have complete control over our lives. To pry. To spy. And to pretend that they are protecting us when in fact they are placing us in danger.

    It is the protection racket updated to horrendous proportions.

    It completes the transition from democracy to dictatorship.

    The emasculation of Congress is complete.

    The domination by self-interested corporations is complete.

    And they don't have to deal with problems that they don't want to deal with. The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few.
    The destruction of the middle class.

    No solutions necessary.

    We got us perpetual war.

    Not doing anything (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Politalkix on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 07:45:38 AM EST
    also does not remove the "target from your back". link

    India and many other countries have not joined the war against ISIS. So why are these countries being identified as targets?

    However much one tries to compartmentalize these lunatic Islamic fighters into ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc, it is clear that such compartmentalization does not really exist on the ground. These Islamists move from one group to the other and will target people and countries all over the globe.

    These groups are not like the Hezbollah that for decades have limited their actions to only a single geographical region in the world-the Middle East.

    Question of a "target" on the back (none / 0) (#3)
    by christinep on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 05:59:12 PM EST
    Whatever it is called--and whatever morphing terrorist groups/gangs/thugs call themselves from month to month--to cover one's ears or cover one's eyes, to sit in a Mr. Nowhereman attitude of academic paralysis would be much worse than the target-on-the-back imagery.  We would be little more than "sitting ducks" for ISIS and its spin-offs.

    Oh that we could all just negotiate and strive for some form of interest-based result.  And, there may well come an opening and time for that ... but, when someone(s) is trying to hack you to death or otherwise brutally annihilate you, wishing that it weren't happening doesn't prevent it.  I agree with you here, politalkix.


    If an adversary attacks (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by NYShooter on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 06:19:12 PM EST
    for economic gain there is, at least, a chance for negotiation, and, compromise.

    However, when an attack occurs at the behest of one's God, the only plausible response is to send him back to his God to seek eternal re-education.


    Survival is an important reality. (none / 0) (#5)
    by christinep on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 07:06:02 PM EST
    Wow, what a brave rhetorical stance ;-) (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 10:12:16 AM EST
    Come on, we're not arguing NOTHING should be done, we're arguing about WHAT should be done, and how, and in what context, and with what knowledge of the true complexity of the situation. With our pitiful track record of inexcusable ignorance and failure regarding that region of the world, I'd simply suggest anyone's faith in the powers that be here is, in short, unsupported by any factual evidence that it will succeed.

    Until we can own OUR psychopathy, and use that mature ownership to assert our "superiority," we are going to be doomed if we bomb as we usually do. Our history is clear and foreboding. Keep doing what we've been doing and we will destroy ourselves.


    The problem for me (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Slado on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    is it's getting harder for me to distinguish between the "radicals" and the "moderates".

    In Saudi Arabia Christians were arrested for praying.

    Saudi Arabia beheads criminals.

    This is the center of the Muslim faith.   The protectors of Mecca if you will.

    So we are supposed to partner with these people to attack the "radicals"?

    We just need to leave.   To me none of these countries are worth fighting for.  

    On this we agree (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 06:19:29 PM EST
    Problem is the Saudis don't need protecting since IMO they are probably financing a large part of the problem.   IMO we should be done with them.  You only have to follow the money to understand why most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis and there was never a suggestion from anyone that it is there our collective anger should be focused.  Politics says Bush would bite someone but not the hand that feeds him.

    Which are Included in "these countries"? (none / 0) (#10)
    by RickyJim on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:06:41 AM EST
    Nobody can deny that the support of Israel has been a mainstay of US policy for the past half century, even though that country is universally despised in the region outside its borders (including by Christians!) as has been shown by Pew polling.  Letting go of our involvement with the ME has to take into consideration what Israel might do with its atomic arsenal if it is forced to rely on its own devices without US diplomatic and military cover.  Google "Samson Option" for some chilling end of word scenarios.

    New Al Qaeda Branch Attacks Wrong Ship (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:44:19 PM EST
    "The first ever attack by the newly-announced Indian Subcontinent branch of Al Qaeda went really, really poorly. The attack launched last Saturday in Pakistan seems to have targeted the wrong ship.

    Fighters of the Islamic terror group branch that was unveiled two weeks ago had planned to storm an American aircraft carrier at a Karachi port, but found a Pakistani Navy ship in its place, The Telegraph reports. The attackers suffered heavy casualties as the Pakistani Navy easily overpowered their attempt."