Comments on: Interview with Umarov, North Caucasus Amir

By: War in Georgia Good for Jihadis — jihadica

War in Georgia Good for Jihadis — jihadica — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:54:13 +0000

[…] consensus on the forums is that Russia’s war with Georgia in South Ossetia is a boon for the Caucasus Emirate, a Jihadi group that seeks rule over the North Caucasus. According to its founder and […]

By: admin

admin — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:22:20 +0000

Stephen, like you, I don’t focus on the Caucasus, so I can’t speak to your interesting “purification” observation. When Umarov declared the emirate and its transnational agenda, I assumed he was doing it to attract more Gulf money to his cause. But that certainly doesn’t invalidate other reasons, like low morale.

Mike, thank you for your translation and the link to the other interview. By discouraging his supporters from declaring a virtual state, Umarov seems to be explicitly criticizing the Islamic State of Iraq, which a lot of Jihadis chastise for rushing to declare a dawla.

By: Mike Honcho

Mike Honcho — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:41:12 +0000

I believe he says “виртуальнoe государство” (virtual state) at 14:48 in the video.

Also a newer interview with Doku and Shaykh Said Bur’atskiy (http://www.kavkazcenter.com/russ/content/2008/06/19/58973.shtml.

Only made it through Doku’s interview in which he mainly complains about people leaving the jihad to live among the kafirs and traitors. He does say that it really doesn’t matter and that they are stronger than ever.

His buddy Bur’atskiy also says that now all Muslims are obliged to fight in the jihad after Doku’s early declaration and to help support the jihad “in word and possessions”

By: stephentankel

stephentankel — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:32:04 +0000

Will, ekhlaas really seemed to be highlighting his comments about the current ‘purification of the ranks.’ It makes one wonder if he is a) laying out a justification for a intercinine violence, b) providing an excuse for fissures caused by the decision to align with al-Qaeda, or c) offering a genuinely honest assessment of disunity that has existed for some time within the movement there? My research doesn’t focus on the Caucuses so I’m not familiar enough with the movement there to know how long this “purification” has been going on or what that looks like on the ground. I am curious as to whether last year’s decision to “go global” might not have been motivated by a need to reinvigorate a movement that is losing support and has dropped off the radar screen a bit (its glory days on Azzam.com seem almost quaint now).