Khorasan Group a made-up name for Al Qaeda in Syria

So says Andrew McCarthy, a formidable expert on jihad groups, having served as lead federal prosecutor of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. “We’re being had. Again,” he warns in National Review Online, today’s must-read article. There are two principal fictions being peddled by the Obama administration that required the invention of a new name. The first, and biggest, lie is that Koranic jihad is not the enemy we face. The second is that Al Qaeda was decimated when Obama brought about the killing of Osama bin Laden, so that any threats we face now are from “different” groups. Some key points of McCarthy follow, but this is one piece you should read in its entirety:

The “Khorosan Group” is al-Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror network’s Syrian franchise, “Jabhat al-Nusra.” Its leader, Mushin al-Fadhli (believed to have been killed in this week’s U.S.-led air strikes), was an intimate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of al-Qaeda who dispatched him to the jihad in Syria. Except that if you listen to administration officials long enough, you come away thinking that Zawahiri is not really al-Qaeda, either. Instead, he’s something the administration is at pains to call “core al-Qaeda.”

“Core al-Qaeda,” you are to understand, is different from “Jabhat al-Nusra,” which in turn is distinct from “al-Qaeda in Iraq” (formerly “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia,” now the “Islamic State” al-Qaeda spin-off that is, itself, formerly “al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Sham” or “al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant”). That al-Qaeda, don’t you know, is a different outfit from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula . . . which, of course, should never be mistaken for “al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” “Boko Haram,” “Ansar al-Sharia,” or the latest entry, “al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent.” (snip)

…there is a purpose behind this dizzying proliferation of names assigned to what, in reality, is a global network with multiple tentacles and occasional internecine rivalries. (snip)

Obama has not quelled our enemies; he has miniaturized them. The jihad and the sharia supremacism that fuels it form the glue that unites the parts into a whole — a worldwide, ideologically connected movement rooted in Islamic scripture that can project power on the scale of a nation-state and that seeks to conquer the West. The president does not want us to see the threat this way.

For a product of the radical Left like Obama, terrorism is a regrettable but understandable consequence of American arrogance. That it happens to involve Muslims is just the coincidental fallout of Western imperialism in the Middle East, not the doctrinal command of a belief system that perceives itself as engaged in an inter-civilizational conflict. 

McCarthy points out something that has been obscured in what he calls the “smiley face” reporting on our Arab so-called coalition partners in the attacks. The Arab forces that went into air combat focused solely on ISIS in Iraq. They did not touch AQ in Syria, aka the Khorasan Group.

it turns out that our moderate Islamist partners have no interest in fighting Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate. Yes, they reluctantly, and to a very limited extent, joined U.S. forces in the strikes against the Islamic State renegades. But that’s not because the Islamic State is jihadist while they are moderate. It is because the Islamic State has made mincemeat of Iraq’s forces, is a realistic threat to topple Assad, and has our partners fretting that they are next on the menu.

Meantime, though, the Saudis and Qatar want no trouble with the rest of al-Qaeda, particularly with al-Nusra. After all, al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch is tightly allied with the “moderate opposition” that these “moderate” Gulf states have been funding, arming, and training for the jihad against Assad.

Oh, and what about those other “moderates” Obama has spent his presidency courting, the Muslim Brotherhood? It turns out they are not only all for al-Qaeda, they even condemn what one of their top sharia jurists, Wagdy Ghoneim, haslabeled “the Crusader war against the Islamic State.”

We cannot defeat an enemy we cannot bring ourselves to name. Admitting that historically well-grounded interpretations of Islam’s orthodoxy call for the destruction of nonbelievers through either conversion or beheading and the establishment of a universal sharia state (the global caliphate) make it difficult to do business with not just the Saudis but with the billion-plus Muslims in the world, even the ones personally disinterested in beheadings, or forcible jihad. Snd by doing business, I mean share the planet with. Or as the bumper sticker puts it: “coexist.”

This awful truth is so terrible that almost nobody except a few brave souls that have given up on participating in the govenrmental, business, or media power establishment of the United States are willing to state it outright. Doing so is just so darn inconvenient. And saying that "one of the world's great religions" is doctrinally commited to conquering and forcing us into submission (Islam, after all, means "submission," not "peace") makes it difficult to maintain bases, do business with, or form alliances with countries, not to mention accomodate the millions of Muslims that we have decided to allow to immigrate to our country.

So we still pursue on ostrich strategy with regard to Islam. That didn't work out too well for the Byzantine Empire and I am not hopeful it will work any better for us.

So says Andrew McCarthy, a formidable expert on jihad groups, having served as lead federal prosecutor of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. “We’re being had. Again,” he warns in National Review Online, today’s must-read article. There are two principal fictions being peddled by the Obama administration that required the invention of a new name. The first, and biggest, lie is that Koranic jihad is not the enemy we face. The second is that Al Qaeda was decimated when Obama brought about the killing of Osama bin Laden, so that any threats we face now are from “different” groups. Some key points of McCarthy follow, but this is one piece you should read in its entirety:

The “Khorosan Group” is al-Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror network’s Syrian franchise, “Jabhat al-Nusra.” Its leader, Mushin al-Fadhli (believed to have been killed in this week’s U.S.-led air strikes), was an intimate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of al-Qaeda who dispatched him to the jihad in Syria. Except that if you listen to administration officials long enough, you come away thinking that Zawahiri is not really al-Qaeda, either. Instead, he’s something the administration is at pains to call “core al-Qaeda.”

“Core al-Qaeda,” you are to understand, is different from “Jabhat al-Nusra,” which in turn is distinct from “al-Qaeda in Iraq” (formerly “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia,” now the “Islamic State” al-Qaeda spin-off that is, itself, formerly “al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Sham” or “al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant”). That al-Qaeda, don’t you know, is a different outfit from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula . . . which, of course, should never be mistaken for “al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” “Boko Haram,” “Ansar al-Sharia,” or the latest entry, “al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent.” (snip)

…there is a purpose behind this dizzying proliferation of names assigned to what, in reality, is a global network with multiple tentacles and occasional internecine rivalries. (snip)

Obama has not quelled our enemies; he has miniaturized them. The jihad and the sharia supremacism that fuels it form the glue that unites the parts into a whole — a worldwide, ideologically connected movement rooted in Islamic scripture that can project power on the scale of a nation-state and that seeks to conquer the West. The president does not want us to see the threat this way.

For a product of the radical Left like Obama, terrorism is a regrettable but understandable consequence of American arrogance. That it happens to involve Muslims is just the coincidental fallout of Western imperialism in the Middle East, not the doctrinal command of a belief system that perceives itself as engaged in an inter-civilizational conflict. 

McCarthy points out something that has been obscured in what he calls the “smiley face” reporting on our Arab so-called coalition partners in the attacks. The Arab forces that went into air combat focused solely on ISIS in Iraq. They did not touch AQ in Syria, aka the Khorasan Group.

it turns out that our moderate Islamist partners have no interest in fighting Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate. Yes, they reluctantly, and to a very limited extent, joined U.S. forces in the strikes against the Islamic State renegades. But that’s not because the Islamic State is jihadist while they are moderate. It is because the Islamic State has made mincemeat of Iraq’s forces, is a realistic threat to topple Assad, and has our partners fretting that they are next on the menu.

Meantime, though, the Saudis and Qatar want no trouble with the rest of al-Qaeda, particularly with al-Nusra. After all, al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch is tightly allied with the “moderate opposition” that these “moderate” Gulf states have been funding, arming, and training for the jihad against Assad.

Oh, and what about those other “moderates” Obama has spent his presidency courting, the Muslim Brotherhood? It turns out they are not only all for al-Qaeda, they even condemn what one of their top sharia jurists, Wagdy Ghoneim, haslabeled “the Crusader war against the Islamic State.”

We cannot defeat an enemy we cannot bring ourselves to name. Admitting that historically well-grounded interpretations of Islam’s orthodoxy call for the destruction of nonbelievers through either conversion or beheading and the establishment of a universal sharia state (the global caliphate) make it difficult to do business with not just the Saudis but with the billion-plus Muslims in the world, even the ones personally disinterested in beheadings, or forcible jihad. Snd by doing business, I mean share the planet with. Or as the bumper sticker puts it: “coexist.”

This awful truth is so terrible that almost nobody except a few brave souls that have given up on participating in the govenrmental, business, or media power establishment of the United States are willing to state it outright. Doing so is just so darn inconvenient. And saying that "one of the world's great religions" is doctrinally commited to conquering and forcing us into submission (Islam, after all, means "submission," not "peace") makes it difficult to maintain bases, do business with, or form alliances with countries, not to mention accomodate the millions of Muslims that we have decided to allow to immigrate to our country.

So we still pursue on ostrich strategy with regard to Islam. That didn't work out too well for the Byzantine Empire and I am not hopeful it will work any better for us.