Al Qaida Announces Formation of New Branch in Indian Subcontinent

As if the West doesn't have enough headaches with ISIS, here comes al Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to announce the formation of a new branch in the Indian subcontinent, including Burma, Kashmir, Gujarat, Bangladesh, Ahmedabad and Assam. al-Zawahiri says the Indian subcontinent was part of the Muslim world before it was invaded, and they want to restore Islam to it. He also reaffirms the group's loyalty to Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

No mention is made of ISIS, and al-Zawahiri has yet to issue a statement about the group. But ISIS won't be pleased to learn that one of the six goals of the new group is to establish a Caliphate state through Jihad.

al-Zawahiri says this has been in the works for two years. It is a unification effort to unite all the Muslims in the region into one group. This is consistent with Osama bin Laden's strategy. [More...]

There are three Statements:

  • Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri announces the establishment of a new branch of al Qaida in the Indian subcontinent. He wants Islam to return to the Indian subcontinent which was part of the Muslim world before it was invaded.
  • Statement of six goals by Osama Mahmoud, the Official Spokesman for the new group in the Indian subcontinent
  • Statement of Asim Sheikh Omar, the Emir

The Six Goals

  • First, Jihad against America and the infidel regimes that grew up under its auspices, and strive to uproot this system from the roots
  • Second: Apply Sharia law
  • Third: Liberate the occupied land of the Muslims in the Indian subcontinent.
  • Fourth: Revival of the Caliphate on a platform of prophecy through Jihad
  • Fifth, the victory of the Islamic Emirate in Afghanistan
  • Sixth, the establishment of an Islamic committee to encourage good deeds and prevent wrongdoings in society.

A copy of all three statements is here, just use google translate to read in English. The video (in Arabic) is here.

Two articles to read today: Who's Winning, AQ or ISIS? in Foreign Policy and Brutal Efficiency, the Secret to ISIS Success in the Wall St. Journal (free copy).

U.S. counter-terrorism officials said earlier today (before this announcement) that ISIS is not as evolved as Al Qaida and Al Qaida poses a bigger threat. According to Matthew Olsen, the departing director of the National Counterterrorism Center:

He said it viewed itself as “the new leader in the global jihadist movement” although US intelligence officials maintain al-Qaida currently poses a more serious adversary.

... “As dire as all of this (ISIS) sounds, from my vantage point it is important that we keep this threat in perspective and we take a moment to consider it in the context of the overall terrorist landscape.” He added that the core al-Qaida remained the dominant group in the global jihadist movement, even if though it has recently been outpaced by Isis’s sophisticated propaganda machine.

I agree that ISIS is not a threat to America. Lone wolf attacks are a danger with any group, and certainly not a reason to go to war. Also, while ISIS is not really a new kid on the block as it's been around for years under various names, its neighborhood is in the Middle East. That said, I also think al Qaida is past its prime and al-Zawahiri is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Final thought: Joe Biden has been watching too many movies -- or else he's channeling John Mcain. In a statement today, he said the U.S. will chase ISIS "to the gates of Hell." What a worn-out phrase. John McCain in 2007 during a primary debate, referring to Bin Laden:
“We will track him down. We will catch him. We will bring him to justice and I’ll follow him to the gates of hell.”
Despite criticism that his comments would serve as a recruiting tool for al Qaida, he said it again in 2008:
If I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice…
As Cato's Jim Harper wrote:
McCain’s “gates of hell” talk is leadership malpractice, and he should stop using it immediately. Calling the threat of terrorism “transcendent” is equal parts incoherent and false. Terrorism stands no chance of defeating the United States or the West unless we ourselves collapse the society. Speaking this way about terrorism thrills our terrorist enemies and draws recruits and support to them. ...Exalting terrorism - as John McCain does with his “gates of hell” talk - is precisely the wrong thing for a national leader to do. The country will be made more secure by deflating the world image of Osama bin Laden and making his movement less attractive. Our leaders must withdraw rhetorical power from terrorists by controlling their tongues.
< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Saudi Arabia Beheads Four Drug Traffickers But Complains About ISIS >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 05:03:56 PM EST
    Jeralyn for this informative piece.

    Caliphate: It is All The Rage (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 06:00:16 PM EST
    But ISIS won't be pleased to learn that one of the six goals of the new group is to establish a Caliphate state through Jihad.

    Another contender is Boko Haram...

    Remember the Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping last spring?

    The leader of Boko Haram, Abubaker Shekau, has proclaimed an Islamic caliphate in the north eastern Nigerian town of Gwoza, which was seized by the Islamic militants earlier this month....
    Boko Haram is also believed to be in control of other areas of north eastern Nigeria including the southern part of Borno state as well as much of the territory of northern Borno and one town in neighboring Yobe state.

    Experts have said the gains made by the Islamic group in recent weeks are unprecedented and they are close to creating an Islamic caliphate in northern Nigeria, mirroring what IS, the Islamic State, has done in Iraq and Syria.


    Hardline Islamist radicalism, nurtured by Saudi Arabia's vast oil wealth, is spreading through Africa at a rapid pace. Radical Salafist and Wahhabist groups with names like Boko Haram, Seleka, and Uamsho, unheard of a decade ago, are massacring Christians during church assemblies, razing Christian villages, and assassinating moderate Islamic clerics.

    Of course, this Saudi-made mayhem is a godsend for the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), which can point to the spread of Al Qaeda-linked terrorism to Africa as a reason to increase America's military presence on the continent and add armed muscle behind Uncle Sam's quest for Africa's oil, natural gas, and mineral resources...

    Wayne Madsen

    Until last year, the Central African Republic had no history of religious conflict. Unlike in nearby Nigeria or Mali, where jihadist insurgencies have brought to a boil already-simmering religious tensions, or in its neighbor Sudan, where Muslims and Christians have long been at odds, Central Africans of different faiths have lived together peaceably for centuries. Its population was devastated by the Arab slave trade, but, unlike other sub-Saharan Africans, Central Africans don't seem to hold a grudge.

    And then came Séléka:

    The havoc they initiated has not stopped since. One hundred twenty thousand Central Africans have fled the country in the last two years, according to the U.N., and 400,000 remain displaced within it. The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project estimates that 3,062 Central Africans have been killed in the conflict since 2013.

    Close Your Heart
    The Central African Republic's sectarian civil war has divided a once peaceful nation, and pitted brother against brother.

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 04:34:42 PM EST
    Batsh!t crazy jihadis upping the ante on a centuries old dispute with a somewhat flaky government with nukes.

    What could go wrong?

    Where was it said that ISIS was not a threat (none / 0) (#3)
    by Green26 on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 05:16:27 PM EST
    to America? I'm talking about the quotes in the lead-in part of the thread.

    And, yes, I read the linked article. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Green26 on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 05:23:09 PM EST
    It says that ISIS probably can't, and isn't planning, a major attack on the US, and that there isn't credible evidence that ISIS is currently planning to attack the US.

    To me, that doesn't translate into thinking ISIS isn't a threat to the US. Multiple US officials have said that things to the contrary.

    If ISIS is left unchecked, it's only a matter of time before the US is directly threatened, in my view. Also, I'm concerned about possible smaller attacks, like suicide bombers, eventually by people associated with or supported by ISIS.


    Maybe it's just me (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 05:33:25 PM EST
    But your position on this seems pretty clear.

    I do like that you answer your own question in the first paragraph and then plow right through it.


    I hit post, before finishing my post. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Green26 on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 05:52:04 PM EST
    There was a tv ad about people like me. One line was: "Dad, I know you're not Mr. Technology." I'm going to continue answering my question too.

    Here's another article involving US intel views an (none / 0) (#7)
    by Green26 on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 05:57:48 PM EST

    "If the militants are able to hold their territorial gains in the long term, officials said the greatest concern is that the de facto extremist state would provide a base for plotting outside the region, including against the U.S."

    "Securing an extremist state in the Middle East would provide "footholds to attack every apostate government in sight," a U.S. intelligence official said."

    "U.S. officials assessing the Islamic State have begun considering the implications posed by a breakaway extremist state in the Middle East, a reflection of the gravity with which intelligence experts now view [ISIS]."


    Sen. Warren wants to eliminate ISIS. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Green26 on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 10:35:21 PM EST
    "... Warren went further than President Barack Obama on the question of how to deal with the barbaric terrorist organization known as ISIL or ISIS. Obama has largely pursued a strategy of containment; Warren, in contrast, argued that America needs to "close ISIS down. To end ISIS. To eliminate ISIS."

    Yahoo article.

    Yadda yadda yadda (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:39:54 AM EST
    ISIS militants vow to de-throne Putin over Syria (none / 0) (#10)
    by Green26 on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 11:04:26 PM EST
    support. Yahoo article.

    "Islamic State militants have issued a threat to President Vladimir Putin, vowing to oust him and "liberate" the volatile North Caucasus over his support of the Syrian regime."

    Interesting short article.

    Tomorrow they vow to reverse global warming (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:41:19 AM EST
    The day after tomorrow they vow to cure cancer with veils.



    Can we wait... (none / 0) (#19)
    by unitron on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 06:03:44 PM EST
    ...until after they get rid of Putin for us before we get rid of them?

    WA Post Editorial: Critical of Obama on ISIS. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Green26 on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 11:17:13 PM EST
    The title is: "There are big holes in Obama Mideast strategy".

    "Perhaps most importantly, Mr. Obama should stop attempting to minimize the threats in the Middle East or the U.S. role needed to combat them. Without American leadership in forging political solutions and assaulting the Islamic State's strongholds, any strategy is doomed to fail."

    "Mr. Obama finally acknowledged that the Islamic State is "a very serious threat not just to Iraq but to the region and to U.S. interests." He said his objective is "to degrade and destroy" the terrorist entity "so that it's no longer a threat"...."

    Wingnut Garbage (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 11:28:02 PM EST
    So the WA Post is (none / 0) (#17)
    by Green26 on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 02:33:06 PM EST
    now a wingnut? Thanks, I never knew that.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 02:42:14 PM EST
    Editorial page is wingnut central.

    Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt:

    Several media commentators have expressed the view that The Post's editorial position under Hiatt has moved towards a neoconservative position on foreign policy issues. Human rights attorney Scott Horton in a blog post for Harper's Magazine, writes that Hiatt has presided over a "clear trend" towards neoconservative columnists.[17] Jamison Foser, a senior fellow at the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America, has said that The Post's editorial stance under Hiatt is now neoconservative on foreign affairs and is no longer liberal on many domestic issues.[18] News anchor and political commentator Chris Matthews stated on his program Hardball that The Post is "not the liberal newspaper it was", but has become a "neocon newspaper".[19]

    Oh, didn't know that neocons (none / 0) (#20)
    by Green26 on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 07:52:49 PM EST
    were wingnuts. Thx.

    Sometimes it seems that on TL almost everything written that most/certain posters don't agree with, turns out to be written by wingnuts, neocons, and Fox News. I wish there could be more discussion on certain things, instead of immediate dismissal by saying it comes from wingnuts, neocons and Fox News. I wonder if some of the posters doing this actually understand the issues well enough to actually refute or explain why they disagree.


    Seriously (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:23:04 PM EST
    I wonder if some of the posters doing this actually understand the issues well enough to actually refute or explain why they disagree.

    Have you actually read the hundreds of replies to your comments explaining why they disagree?  Over and over and over.  
    They understand.  Well some do.  We won't be naming names.
    But you should by now know who they are.


    Do you not realize that (none / 0) (#22)
    by Green26 on Fri Sep 05, 2014 at 06:43:59 AM EST
    I'm talking about the ones who don't respond with any substantive comments other than "wingnut, neocon and Fox News". Jeez, can you not even read my several short posts above and what sparked my comment. My comment line started with a response to squeaky's post no. 12. Where did squeaky ever make a substantive response to WA Post editorial? Answer: squeaky didn't. Just responded wingnut and neocon.

    Response (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 05, 2014 at 08:27:34 AM EST
    Post something worth a substantive response and you have a better chance of getting it. So far you have been posting the same warmongering comment over and over.

    If it walks like a duck (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 05, 2014 at 08:45:24 AM EST
    And quacks like a duck sometimes you just have to, you know, say it's a duck.

    According to James (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Sep 05, 2014 at 08:47:31 AM EST
    if it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's really a social liberal telling us that Obama is taking America down the tubes.  



    If it's all the same (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 05, 2014 at 08:51:26 AM EST
    I would rather you did respond to me by responding to him.  God knows there are enough responses to him.

    Quack, quack. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Sep 05, 2014 at 09:19:16 AM EST
    Define NeoCon (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 05, 2014 at 08:18:17 AM EST
    It's (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 08, 2014 at 05:15:57 AM EST
    humorous but also tiresome that folks will come to TalkLeft, post Rightwing war mongering views, and react in dismay when they are not greeted as brilliant.

    Tedious already... (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by desertswine on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 11:28:13 PM EST
    Johnny One-note.  Now you're just shilling.

    Nice (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:12:46 AM EST
    Never knew Jonny one note was a song...  

    Four Indian family members arrested for (none / 0) (#29)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Sep 06, 2014 at 08:39:16 AM EST
    converting to Islam without Indian government approval.

    "In India, under the ironically named Freedom of Religion Act, you must get state approval before changing religions."