ISIS vs. the Taliban

ISIS accuses the Taliban of heroin trafficking in Issue 13 of Dabiq Magazine, released today. The following quote is from an interview with Shaykh Hāfidh Sa’īd Khān (hafidhahullāh), ISIS' Wali (governor) of the Wilayat (Wilāyah) Khurāsān:

Dābiq: Does the nationalist Taliban movement continue to allow farmers to sell opium? How is the Wilāyah dealing with this serious phenomenon?

The Wālī: There’s no doubt that the nationalist Taliban movement has permitted farmers and merchants to grow and sell opium. Rather, the matter has reached the point that the movement itself harvests opium, and even worse than that is that the Taliban themselves transport opium and heroin in their personal vehicles, charging a fee to the sellers and the addicts! They also take a 10% cut as well as taxes from them. Akhtar Mansour himself is considered as being from the major dealers of these narcotics



The Wali also accuses the Taliban's new leader of working with Pakistani intelligence.
Akhtar Mansour and his associates have strong and deep ties with Pakistani intelligence, and they live in the most important cities of “Pakistan,” such as Islamabad, Peshawar, and Quetta. Rather, even Akhtar Mansour’s advisory council contains members from the Pakistani intelligence!

On top of that, Pakistani intelligence aids him in everything he does. His ties to the Pakistani intelligence agency “ISI” became clear when its former head, the murtadd retired general Hamid Gul passed away several months ago – that general who Pakistani intelligence hired to manage the “Islamic” organizations so that they would be submissive to the interests of the local and global tawāghīt

ISIS is at war with the Taliban but says it's winning. More from the Wali:
Dābiq: What is the war situation between the Islamic State and the Taliban, and between the Islamic State and the governments and armies of the murtaddīn in “Pakistan” and “Afghanistan” that are allied with the crusaders?

The Wālī: The war between us and the Taliban carries on. The nationalist Taliban movement initiated the combat by attacking the muwahhidīn. But the Wilāyah repelled their aggression and the Taliban then fled many of their strategic areas. Thus victory – by Allah’s grace – was for the Wilāyah.

Will the real Taliban please stand up?

Dābiq: What is the difference between Taliban “Afghanistan” and Taliban “Pakistan,” whether in methodology or in terms of their relationships with the tawāghīt and intelligence agencies? Are there Taliban factions allied to the Afghan government and others allied to the Pakistani government? What is their role on the ground in regards to treachery? And are Taliban “Pakistan” a part of Taliban “Afghanistan”?

The Wālī: There used to be a difference between the two Talibans, but now there’s no longer any difference other than in their names and in other superficial issues. Both of the Talibans now don’t implement the Sharī’ah. Rather, they both follow the desires of the people and both fight while taking and obeying orders from others. There were many sincere individuals in the Taliban “Pakistan” movement waging jihād in order to raise high the word of Allah, in order to implement His pure Sharī’ah. But after the establishment of the Khilāfah, all the truthful mujāhidīn in the movement joined the Khilāfah and gave bay’ah to the Khalīfah, and therefore there is no one left in Taliban “Pakistan” except for corrupters. Because of that, the two Talibans aren’t different from each other except that Taliban “Afghanistan” fights against Wilāyat Khurāsān while taking orders directly from Pakistani intelligence.

Furthermore, there are now various factions in Taliban “Pakistan.” For example, the Taliban “Pakistan” branch that follows Fadlullāh has given bay’ah to Akhtar Mansour. In other words, they’ve given bay’ah to the Pakistani intelligence!

< R.I.P. Glenn Frey | ISIS Eulogizes Jihadi John, Says Joined al-Nusra Before ISIS >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ain't it marvelous? (none / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 08:30:25 PM EST
    ISIS is at war with the Taliban.

    And we're fighting both of them.

    A triumph!

    Seems like the US should (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 08:54:51 AM EST
    follow Bill Maher's advice and just get out and get out of the way. Let them sort it out amongst themselves. It's a centuries old conflict we'll never understand.

    This is corporate welfare... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 02:14:17 PM EST
    and we're saps.

    Maybe century (singular) (2.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CST on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 11:49:48 AM EST
    One of the things that bugged me most about the State of the Union was Obama saying that this has been going on for millenia.

    No it hasn't, and that line just perpetuates the idea that the whole region is hopeless.

    Most of the areas facing problems in the middle east today are part of the old Ottoman Empire which was dissolved after World War 1 - when new countries were created that didn't necessarily represent or want all of the people living there.

    Not saying the Ottoman Empire was perfect - far from it, but the conflicts we are seeing today didn't really exist while they were running the show.


    Well The Strife... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 05:17:26 PM EST
    ...was going on long before the Ottoman Empire and it was declining long before WWI.

    I remember reading somewhere that Constantinople was the city that changed hands more than any other on the planet, by a significant amount.  Beyond being a hub for ancient trade and routes, it was/is the epicenter of three major religions, and it was the border connection between almost all major cultures.  Put that combination anywhere on the planet and there will be endless conflict IMO.

    No sure what exactly Obama meant, but I don't think what he said was inaccurate, and if you look deep enough, a millennia is a gross understatement.  Yeah the Romans, the Greeks, and the Byzantines, all had the area under control, but it never lasted.

    It is by all definition hopeless, today, maybe that will change, but history does not fall on that side of the argument.


    I agree, (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 06:53:47 PM EST
    The Ottoman Empire did not have (mostly) the conflicts we are seeing now, but that was because of their history of, basically, stomping on everyone.  I could go on and on about this, and it is not something to be admired.
    When you have a government that is in total control of their populations, you will not see much in the way of overt strife.
    I could say, for instance, that the Shi'ites and Sunnis were not killing each other (for the most part) under Sadam Hussein's Iraq, nor were they killing/pushing out Iraqi Christians.
    But I don't think that anyone would argue that the "conflicts we are seeing today didn't really exist" when Sadam was in charge.  They existed, they were just suppressed.

    Agreed... (none / 0) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 11:51:49 AM EST
    ...what is the end goal here, to rid the ME of extremists ?  Just seem like it's the modern day Hydra, we chop the head off and only for more to regenerate.

    That being said, this is interesting:
    ISIS cuts its fighters' salaries by 50%

    ISIS might seem like a ragtag group of terrorists, but in reality, it operates as a government over parts of Iraq and Syria. And it hands out biweekly paychecks to its jihadist army.

    ISIS soldiers earn between $400 and $1,200 a month, plus a $50 stipend for their wives and $25 for each child, according to the Congressional Research Service.

    But running a state at war is expensive. And recent victories for the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS mean that the Islamic State can't afford to pay its soldiers quite as much as it used to.

    "On account of the exceptional circumstances the Islamic State is facing, it has been decided to reduce the salaries that are paid to all mujahideen by half, and it is not allowed for anyone to be exempted from this decision, whatever his position," the ISIS' government wrote in a memorandum.

    The article doesn't mention if that is before or after the cut.

    ISIS makes most of its money by taxing its population. But one major source of pressure on ISIS' finances is the U.S.-led coalition's bombing runs. Airstrikes are taking aim at the ISIS oil business: blowing up oil trucks, storage tanks, mobile refineries and other oil field equipment.

    The result? ISIS was making $40 million a month on oil alone in early 2015, according to the U.S. Treasury. Now, it's making only a fraction of that, according to the State Department.