Skip to main content

Bin Laden remembered: the rise of the Jihadi Spring

by Ghassan Kadi

Political analysis is often based on speculations in an attempt to explain the news; past, present and future.

Future analyses are not meant to be predictive per se, but sometimes indicative of a worst case scenario, certain plausible and even far-fetched agendas. Likewise, digging into the past does not provide answers, but it rather enables us to look at the past with different binoculars.

The “killing” of Bin Laden was a mysterious event; not only in the manner that Americans told the story and a total lack of footage to support it, but also in its timing.

Many, including Pakistan’s former PM Benazir Bhutto have argued that Bin Laden was actually killed in 2005. Many other speculators, conspiracy theorists and cynics have doubted largely the American version and asked for documented proof. After all Bin Laden was a huge bounty to hunt, and the fact that the Americans did not boast his dead photos is highly suspicious; especially that they paraded captured Saddam before him, and before Saddam was captured, the gory photos of his dead sons Udai and Kusai were all over the media; with the courtesy of the American occupier. Let us also not forget the shocking scenes of the capture and killing of Gaddafi and the gloating of Hillary Clinton that followed. So why was Bin Laden saved this humiliation? One has to wonder.

Moreover, rumour has it that Bin Laden was on dialysis. If true, no one is in a position to really know how effective was the medical attention he was receiving.

It is then quite possible that Bin Laden died or was killed earlier, and not formally declared dead until May 2011.

In any event, irrespective of when Bin Laden was killed, and even if he died of natural causes, the world accepted that his death happened on that day. Not even Al-Zawahiri his Al-Qaeda heir successor denied it.

Again, even if Sep 11 was an inside job as some insist, Bin Laden was seen as the man responsible. He even stated in an Al-Jazeera interview that it was indeed him who gave the orders for the operation. But again and again, even if he jumped on the band wagon of fame, or infamy for that matter, and claimed responsibility for something he did not do in order to glue stars and stripes on his shoulder, beyond any doubt, he was the man seen by the world as the architect of Sept 11 by both his adversaries and followers.

Love him or hate him therefore, he was a big fish; or at least perceived to be one. The most “serious” aspect of this perception perhaps is the fact that in the minds of young Jihadi recruits, Bin Laden came to symbolize Jihad; and whence seen as the ultimate spiritual leader; albeit he did not have a title, stature or “office” .

To understand what is the real formal story of announcing Bin Laden’s death, we need to rewind the clock and try to understand this very mysterious man.

To compare Bin Laden to ISIS leader Abou Bakir Al-Baghdadi is not exactly like comparing apples to apples; but it is not like comparing apples to oranges either.

Bin Laden rose to prominence when Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan -the then Saudi Ambassador in Washington- introduced him to the Americans as a very dedicated anti-Soviet devotee who would go to ends to fight the USSR in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden’s mandate in Afghanistan was to get the Russians out. His comradery of convenience with the Americans came to an end when the Saudis allowed the Americans (also “infidels” in Bin Laden’s eyes) to lay foot on the Holy Land itself. If Afghanistan was a redline for the atheist Communists, Saudi Arabia that houses the holiest of holy Muslims sites of Mecca and Medina were a much bigger redline for the “Western Crusaders”; as Bin Laden often reiterated.

When Bin Laden eventually declared divorce with his American and Saudi partners, the world ended up in the position outlaid above; the man who orchestrated Sep 11, the most wanted man on earth, and the man who represented and led the Jihadi mentality.

What is most interesting is what the rest of the world, the West specifically, missed out by not listening to Bin Laden’s speeches between his rise to infamy following Sep 11 and his eventual disappearance.

Soon after Sep 11, on an interview on Al-Jazeera, Bin Laden stated that the West will not know the bliss of peace until the bliss of peace becomes a reality in Palestine.

In all of his later speeches, he said again and again that for Al-Qaeda to stop its attacks on the West, the West will first have to stop its attacks on the Muslim World.

In March 2004, a series of explosions rocked train stations in Madrid killing nearly 200 innocent civilians. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. Almost a year later, Spain had an election and the newly elected Prime Minister Zapatero withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq. Bin Laden was quick to respond. In an interview on Al-Jazeera, he declared that because Spain was leaving Iraq, it is no longer an enemy of Islam and should not be targeted any more.

None of those statements reached the West in their entirety. All the Western viewers saw on their TV screens were edited snippets of long speeches that were cherry-picked to portray that Bin Laden was a determined indiscriminate enemy of the West.

In retrospect, the West created in the minds of Westerners a character out of Bin Laden that was much more akin to Al-Baghdadi than Bin Laden himself. If this was of any consequence at all, it helped create Al-Baghdadi, both directly and inadvertently.

Bin Laden spoke with the most profound mastery of Arabic language; something that very few people in the Arab-speaking world master. He had the specific objective to get the “infidels” out of Muslim lands. He never once advocated ramping up troops to go and kill Westerners indiscriminately. His story with Spain speaks volumes.

In early 2011 there was a new change in the air; the infamous Arab Spring that was destined to soon turn into a “Jihadi Spring”.

For the architects of the “Jihadi Spring” to give their plan to come to fruition, they needed a shift.

Major architect Bandar Bin Sultan thought he had all of his aspirations under control. With succession to the Saudi Throne in mind (given that his father Sultan Bin-Abdul Aziz was the then Crown Prince), he planned a swift victory in Syria to help him bolster his position as not only as the rightful heir to the throne, but also as a tactical, strategic and regional ally of America.

The so-called Arab Spring used Libya as a ground for practice; getting rid of Gaddafi along the way; but the big fish to fry was Syria. The fall of Gaddafi gave all of the enemies of Syria the green light they wanted to see in order to go full steam ahead to destroy Syria; and Bandar was the master planner.

Bandar had a bottomless pocket and endless funds. And just like Israel runs on the myth that if a certain amount of force does not solve a problem then more force will, the Saudis believe that if a certain amount of money does not solve a problem, then more money will. And given that Saudi financial resources were virtually endless, they felt that their plan was fool-proof.

But there was an obstacle in the way of Bandar’s plan in his attempts to rise to Muslim leadership, and that obstacle was Bin Laden. This is how the Arab-Spring-turned-Jihadi-Spring brings us back to Bin Laden.

Bandar knew well two prominent facts about Bin Laden. He knew that Bin Laden was the undisputed leader and inspirer of all acts of Jihad, and most prominently he also knew that Bin Laden would not endorse a Jihad war version that was not aimed at ousting “infidels” from Muslim soil.

For Bandar’s plan to work and succeed, Jihadism had to be decapitated. Bin Laden had to be removed from the scene.

In retrospect, it is highly unlikely that Bin Laden would have “authorized” the Jihadi war on Syria.

Is it therefore an accident that his official death was announced virtually on the eve of that infamous war on Syria?

One has to wonder.

Source:


Read also:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

New York Times accidentally destroys the Western propaganda on Venezuela

globinfo freexchange
In another rare 'real journalism' short crisis, the New York Times decided to reveal the truth about the trucks with 'humanitarian aid' on the Colombia-Venezuela border, that were set on fire.
As The Interceptreported:
On February 24, CNN told the world what we all now know is an absolute lie: that “a CNN team saw incendiary devices from police on the Venezuelan side of the border ignite the trucks,” though it generously added that “the network’s journalists are unsure if the trucks were burned on purpose.
Other media outlets endorsed the lie while at least avoiding what CNN did by personally vouching for it. “Humanitarian aid destined for Venezuela was set on fire, seemingly by troops loyal to Mr Maduro,The Telegraph claimed. The BBC uncritically printed: “There have also been reports of several aid trucks being burned – something Mr Guaidó said was a violation of the Geneva Convention.
That lie – supported by…

The underground war between Venezuela and the US big oil cartel confirmed through WikiLeaks

The WIKILEAKS Public Library of US Diplomacy (PlusD) holds the world's largest searchable collection of United States confidential, or formerly confidential, diplomatic communications. As of April 8, 2013 it holds 2 million records comprising approximately 1 billion words. The collection covers US involvements in, and diplomatic or intelligence reporting on, every country on earth. It is the single most significant body of geopolitical material ever published. The PlusD collection, built and curated by WikiLeaks, is updated from a variety of sources, including leaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and documents released by the US State Department systematic declassification review.
globinfo freexchange
A document under the title VENEZUELA: AMERICAN OIL AND SERVICE COMPANIES ENGAGE AMBASSADOR, from July, 2009, depicts the agony of the US oil corporations to stay in Venezuela, as they had already lost control over country's rich reserves.
The summary…

Neoliberal fascists attempt to regain control over the European continent to prevent a Leftist revival

While the neoliberal regime is pushing Jeremy Corbyn for a second Brexit referendum, Brussels bureaufascists visit Greece to make sure that the country will remain on the path of neoliberal destruction.
globinfo freexchange
UK's neoliberal regime is now pushing Jeremy Corbyn to promise a second Brexit referendum, hoping to reverse current Brexit vote. As the Independentreported:
Jeremy Corbyn is under new pressure to fully back giving the public a Final Say on Brexit after his own version of EU withdrawal was emphatically rejected in the Commons. His vision of the UK leaving Europe was defeated by a margin of 240 votes to 323, meaning the leader will now be expected to fulfil a promise to bring forward or support a vote to approve a new referendum. The 83-vote defeat comes after Mr Corbyn told Labour MPs on Monday that he was ready to support moves to demand a public vote, having lost a string of MPs who resigned in part over his Brexit strategy.
It appears that the blackmail worked …

Fraudulent neoliberalism was born when it was assumed that the banking parasites produce real value

Democracy At Work
Adam Smith looked on bankers as if they were unproductive. Essentially said they're parasites who kind of live off the value created by others. Bankers - if you have a labor theory of value - it's hard to see how bankers can be producing value.
Before the 1970s, financial services were not included in the calculation of gross domestic product (GDP). In other words, they were considered as adding nothing to the total value of gross domestic product. Only after 1970 did they get included, and now, of course, they're considered to be great value producers. So, do financiers produce value? This starts to become a very important kind of question.

UK's panicked neoliberal regime desperate to build a third loyal party to halt Corbyn's progressive counterattack

globinfo freexchange
Right after the seven neoliberal Blairites left the Labour party towards the formation of a new "independent" party, three Tories decided to join them.
As the Guardianreported: “Three Conservatives have quit their party to join the new Independent Group of MPs, declaring that hard Brexiters have taken over and that the modernising wing of the party has been 'destroyed'. Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen explained their decision to join the new group, founded this week by seven Labour MPs, who also left their party.
It all happened too fast and someone would be rather naive to believe that these moves were not pre-agreed and fully coordinated.
All the picks appear to be carefully selected. The establishment takes back those who has raised carefully with the 'principles' of the neoliberal ideology in order to save them from the collapsing conservative party and the Corbynism-'contaminated' Labour. Next step, a third 'ind…

To save Labour from the wreckers, Corbyn needs big balls (and a willie)

In 2015, anti-war socialist Jeremy Corbyn caused a stunning shock when, as a 500-1 shot, he became elected as Labour Party leader. Corbyn’s campaign engendered great enthusiasm among those desperate for Labour to make a clean break with elite-friendly pro-war neoliberal Blairism.
by Neil Clark
In the 2017 general election Corbyn defied the odds, and the smug inside the tent pundits again, with Labour achieving its biggest increase in its share of the vote since 1945.
Corbyn seemed to be on an unstoppable path to Number 10. But since then momentum has been lost. Literally.
Let’s call out the elephant in the room. The pro-Israel lobby in Labour and outside of it has never been reconciled to having a pro-Palestinian peace activist as party leader and potential Prime Minister.
They have done everything possible to destroy Corbyn personally and professionally, with charges of ’anti-Semitism’ the weapon of choice. But Corbyn hasn’t done himself any favours by failing to fight back forcefully ag…

As mainstream journalists acknowledge Douma attacks were “staged,” the “humanitarian” Syria regime-change network tries to save a sinking ship

There is increasing desperation on the part of the “humanitarian” regime-change network to protect its influence and the power of its narratives, not just in Syria but in future conflicts.
by Whitney Webb and Vanessa Beeley
Part 3 - Global Public Policy Institute’s place in regime-change network
Beyond Schneider’s conflicts of interests by virtue of his work history and current associations, the organization that employs him — the Global Public Policy Institute — is directly connected to an oligarch-directed and oligarch-funded regime-change network that specializes in manufacturing “humanitarian” justifications for Western military adventurism abroad. The main oligarchs who drive this network, as detailed in a recent articles series at MintPress, include Jeffrey Skoll, George Soros, Pierre Omidyar, and Ted Turner — philanthrocapitalists aligned with the neoliberal, globalist agendas of the U.S/U.K alliance.
In addition to its stated mission of “improving global governance,” in line with…

Βενεζουέλα: Διαβολική επανάληψη της ιστορίας 120 χρόνια μετά

Ως «αδιόρθωτο» και «απαίσιο» περιγράφουν οι New York Times, η New York Herald και το Associated Press τον ηγέτη της Βενεζουέλας. Ο τελευταίος «απεχθάνεται τις πιο ιερές αξίες των πολιτισμένων εθνών», γράφουν τα δυτικά ΜΜΕ που υποστηρίζουν τον φιλελεύθερο «επαναστάτη», ο οποίος προσπαθεί να εξουδετερώσει τον «τύραννο». Ο τελευταίος είναι ο πλέον μισητός στον δυτικό κόσμο, το κράτος του, αν και πλούσιο σε πόρους, είναι υπερχρεωμένο, η διακυβέρνηση της χώρας διεκδικείται από έναν επαναστάτη που έχει συγκεντρώσει έναν στρατό και βαδίζει προς το Καράκας.
Βαγγέλης Γεωργίου
Μέρος 3ο - Η «κατασκευή» υποχρεώσεων
Οπωσδήποτε η Βενεζουέλα είχε νομικές και οικονομικές υποχρεώσεις απέναντι σε ξένα κράτη. Ωστόσο, αυτές δημιουργήθηκαν και χρησιμοποιήθηκαν με τέτοιο τρόπο από τις Μεγάλες Δυνάμεις που οδηγούσαν ουσιαστικά στην πλήρη υποταγή του αδύναμου λατινοαμερικανικού κράτους.
Ο ίδιος ο Βρετανός επιτετραμμένος στο Καράκας Richard Edwardes είχε ανακαλύψει από τη δεκαετία του 1860 τον μηχανισμό απάτης πο…

The war criminal Elliott Abrams and the liberals who love him

Elliott Abrams, who is steering Trump’s Venezuela policy, has a long track record of war crimes. Yet a number of liberal commentators are rushing to his defense.
by Paul Heideman
Part 1
Practically the entire American political establishment and corporate press are repeating the Trump administration’s claims to have humanitarian motives in Venezuela. As that administration inches closer to full-blown military invasion, whether direct or by proxy, it behooves us to look into the track record of the officials steering this so-called “humanitarian policy.” None other are more deserving of scrutiny than Elliott Abrams, whose crimes have spanned the globe, from El Salvador to Nicaragua to Iraq.
Before this month, Elliott Abrams was likely glad to have been largely forgotten by the U.S. public. When the Trump administration announced Abrams’ appointment as U.S. Special Representative in Venezuela in late January, the news caused some ripples on the Left, but across mainstream media outlets, the…

Βενεζουέλα: Διαβολική επανάληψη της ιστορίας 120 χρόνια μετά

Ως «αδιόρθωτο» και «απαίσιο» περιγράφουν οι New York Times, η New York Herald και το Associated Press τον ηγέτη της Βενεζουέλας. Ο τελευταίος «απεχθάνεται τις πιο ιερές αξίες των πολιτισμένων εθνών», γράφουν τα δυτικά ΜΜΕ που υποστηρίζουν τον φιλελεύθερο «επαναστάτη», ο οποίος προσπαθεί να εξουδετερώσει τον «τύραννο». Ο τελευταίος είναι ο πλέον μισητός στον δυτικό κόσμο, το κράτος του, αν και πλούσιο σε πόρους, είναι υπερχρεωμένο, η διακυβέρνηση της χώρας διεκδικείται από έναν επαναστάτη που έχει συγκεντρώσει έναν στρατό και βαδίζει προς το Καράκας.
Βαγγέλης Γεωργίου
Μέρος 1ο
Θα μπορούσαν όλα αυτά να συμβαίνουν το 2019, αλλά συνέβαιναν στη Βενεζουέλα του 1899, όταν η Δύση έπρεπε να τακτοποιήσει πάλι έναν μισητό δικτάτορα κάπου στην Καραϊβική.
Οι ομοιότητες διαβολικές. Η κατάληξη ίδια;
Πράγματι, η Βενεζουέλα την τελευταία δεκαετία του 19ου αιώνα είχε βυθιστεί σε εμφυλίους οι οποίοι ακύρωναν τις όποιες προσπάθειες είχαν γίνει από τις κυβερνήσεις των φιλελεύθερων των προηγούμενων δεκαετιών.