Wayne Madsen Report - The Killing of Osama bin Laden hoax By Moeen Raoof

Wayne Madsen Report
 The Killing of Osama bin Laden hoax

By Moeen Raoof

One of the greatest deceptions in recent US history was the biggest hoax of them all, the killing of Osama bin Laden, the head of the Al Qaeda terror group, on the night of May 2, 2011 by U.S. Navy SEAL Team Six of the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU).

We are led to believe that the most wanted man in the world was hold-up in a compound in the Pakistani cantonment city of Abbottabad, one of the largest military cantonment areas in the country. Bin Laden's compound was allegedly opposite a major military complex and right under the noses of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the equivalent to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The astounding story really boggles the mind.

As the story goes, SEAL Team Six entered Pakistani airspace during the night of May 2, 2011, at 1 am local time, on board two Sikosky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters. The aircraft are said to have taken off from the city of Jalalabad, in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan, heading for the city of Abbottabad in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province (formerly known as the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP)), located in a neighbouring sovereign nation and covering a distance of approximately 158 miles.


Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk

Furthermore, the two Black Hawk helos are said to have been in the Abbottabad OBL compound area for approximately 40 minutes, with engines running. One Black Hawk was hovering in the air near the compound, while the second helo hovered over the compound where the SEALs slid down ropes into the compound. Aboard the two helos we are told were 25 SEALs, an interpreter, and a tracking dog.

According to reports about the raid, one of the Black Hawks started to shudder uncontrollably in the thin air of the night heat in Pakistan, forcing the pilot to attempt landing the craft. After the tail and rotor hit a wall in the compound, the helo crashed, nose down in the dirt. Luckily, all personnel, including the two pilots, evacuated into the outer courtyard of the building.

The two helos were carrying a full load of personnel with weapons, ammunition, night vision goggles, and full kit, including bulletproof vests, boots, helmets, and extra magazines. The equipment required a minimized strain on the two helos, resulting in the absence of external fuel tanks with their extra fuel loads. Special operations required that with weather factored in, cargo was calculated down to the ounce. In this case, the total distance the helos could cover was 368 miles. The helos were specifically manufactured by Sikorsky for special operations, with mufflers added to the tail rotor and engine sound minimized. Maximum weight load was 11 personnel, not including the pilots.

Taking into account the distance covered from Jalalabad to Abbottabad, 158 miles, and hovering for 40 minutes, or so, equates to a distance of 231 miles from Abbottabad. Total distance, not including hovering period of 40 minutes, would have been 389 miles, with no mention of refueling stop either in Pakistan or Afghanistan. According to the Sikorsky UH-60's performance statistics, the helo has a combat radius of 368 miles.

One of the greatest mysteries regarding the OBL Raid of May 2, 2011, is that Bin Laden was not even wanted for the 9/11 attacks.  The FBI Most Wanted Fugitive poster does not mention the attacks at all.

The “official” White House press release stated the following regarding the OBL raid and killing:

Nineteen SEALs would enter the compound, and three of them would find bin Laden, one official said, providing the exact numbers for the first time. The second [helicopter] was to hover above the roof to drop SEALs there, then land more SEALs outside, plus an interpreter and the dog, who would track anyone who tried to escape and to alert SEALs to any approaching Pakistani security forces. If troops appeared, the plan was to hunker down in the compound, avoiding armed confrontation with the Pakistanis while officials in Washington negotiated their passage out. The two SEAL teams inside would work toward each other, in a simultaneous attack from above and below, their weapons silenced, guaranteeing surprise, one of the officials said. They would have stormed the building in a matter of minutes, as they'd done time and again in two training models of the compound. The other aircraft did not even attempt hovering, landing its SEALs outside the compound. Now, the raiders were outside, and they'd lost the element of surprise. They had trained for this, and started blowing their way in with explosives, through walls and doors, working their way up the three-level house from the bottom. They had to blow their way through barriers at each stair landing, firing back, as one of the men in the house fired at them. They shot three men as well as one woman, whom US officials have said lunged at the SEALs. Small knots of children were on every level, including the balcony of bin Laden's room. As three of the SEALs reached the top of the steps on the third floor, they saw bin Laden standing at the end of the hall. The Americans recognized him instantly, the officials said. Bin Laden also saw them, dimly outlined in the dark house, and ducked into his room.

The three SEALs assumed he was going for a weapon, and one by one they rushed after him through the door, one official described. Two women were in front of bin Laden — yelling and trying to protect him, two officials said. The first SEAL grabbed the two women and shoved them away, fearing they might be wearing suicide bomb vests, they said. The SEAL behind him opened fire at bin Laden, putting one bullet in his chest, and one in his head. It was over in a matter of seconds. Back at the White House Situation Room, word was relayed that bin Laden had been found, signaled by the code word "Geronimo."  That was not bin Laden's code name, but rather a representation of the letter "G."  Each step of the mission was labelled alphabetically, and "Geronimo" meant that the raiders had reached step "G," the killing or capture of bin Laden, two officials said. As the SEALs began photographing the body for identification, the raiders found an AK-47 rifle and a Russian-made Makarov pistol on a shelf by the door they'd just run through. Bin Laden hadn't touched them. They were among a handful of weapons that were removed to be inventoried. It took approximately 15 minutes to reach bin Laden, one official said. The next 23 or so were spent blowing up the broken chopper, after rounding up nine women and 18 children, to get them out of range of the blast. One of the waiting Chinooks flew in to pick up bin Laden's body, the raiders from the broken aircraft and the weapons, documents and other materials seized at the site.

The helicopters flew back to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, and the body was flown to a waiting U.S. Navy ship for bin Laden's burial at sea, ensuring no shrine would spring up around his grave.

White House Situation Room during the OBL compound raid.

Had a Boeing CH-47 Chinook twin-engine tandem rotor heavy-lift helo entered Pakistani airspace and landed or hovered over the OBL Compound in clear sight of one of the largest military bases in Pakistan, it would have been heard long before it would have been seen. Therefore, the scenario of being detained in the compound with Washington having to negotiate their safe passage would have taken place in real time, yet not one of these scenarios came into play. Those familiar with the Chinook helo would be familiar with its size and sound and would be astounded that this craft could enter a built-up area without being noticed.

Boeing CH-47 Chinook

Here is where the greatest raid story starts to unravel. According to witnesses on the ground, including Pakistani military personnel who saw the whole episode from arrival of the two helos, to the crash of one of them and the departure of the other, no other helos were seen approaching or landing near the OBL compound area. So this begs the question, how did 25 SEALs, one interpreter, one tracking dog, and two pilots from the crashed helo, as well as the body of OBL, fit into one UH-60 Black Hawk helo?

Witnesses in Abbottabad have provided first-hand accounts of the night the White House claimed a major triumph, yet not one person on the ground saw a third helo either in the air or approaching the compound to pick up personnel. This is the greatest hoax of our lifetime.

-------------

Moeen has in the past also undertaken an investigation of the President Bush Yellowcake/Iraq claim prior to the Iraq invasion by traveling to the Agadez region of Niger at the same time as Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s mission.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/mali-s-tuareg-uranium-conspiracy/30118 andBenghazi, Gold for Arms – Libya, Syria, South Sudan and East Africahttp://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20161017_2

George W. Bush: “My Dad Was Meeting with the Brother of Osama on September 11, 2001. Does That Make Him a Terror Suspect?”

George W. Bush: “My Dad Was Meeting with the Brother of Osama on September 11, 2001. Does That Make Him a Terror Suspect?”

Under the anti terrorist legislation adopted in Western countries, a person can be arrested for visiting an “anti-American” or “Islamist” website on the internet.  In the US, habeas corpus has been scrapped, the police can arrest a citizen on mere suspicion of “terror activities” without a warrant. Moreover, under Obama, the practice of “extrajudicial killing” applies to suspected US citizens.   

In Canada, under the clauses of  Canada’s proposed C-51 “Anti-terrorism” Bill, Canadian citizens can be arrested on a mere suspicion:

 Six Muslim young adults stand in front of a mosque late at night in heated discussion in some foreign language. … They may be talking about video games, or sports, or girls, or advocating the overthrow of the Harper government. Who knows? … But the new standard for arrest and detention—reason to suspect that they may commit an act—is so low that an officer may be inclined to arrest and detain them in order to investigate further. … They could act on mere suspicion that an arrest is likely to prevent any terrorist activity. Yesterday, the Muslim men were freely exercising constitutional rights to freedom of expression and assembly. Today they are to be arrested. (Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives,  February 15, 2015) 

Anti-Terrorism Double Standards

Ironically, the anti-terrorist legislation does not apply to politicians in high office, namely to the “State sponsors of terrorism”; nor does it apply to U.S. or Canadian diplomats, intelligence officials, who are routinely in liaison with terrorist organizations in the Middle East. 

Individuals can be arrested but presidents and prime ministers are allowed to mingle and socialize with family members of the World’s most renowned terrorist and alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks:Osama bin Laden. 

Lest we forget, one day before the 9/11 attacks, the dad of the sitting President of the United States of America, George Herbert Walker Bush was meeting none other than Shafig bin Laden, the brother of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden. It was a routine business meeting on September 10-11, no conflict of interest, no relationship to the 9/11 attacks which allegedly were carried out on the orders of Shafiq’s brother Osama.

Confirmed by the Washington Post, “fellow investors” of the Carlyle Group including Osama’s brother Shafig bin Laden and Dubya’s dad former President George H. W. Bush met in the plush surroundings of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on September 10-11, 2001. Their business encounter under the auspices of the Carlyle Group was unfortunately interrupted on September 11 by the 9/11 attacks.  (see image below):

It didn’t help that as the World Trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden [Shafiq bin Laden]. Former president Bush[senior, see image below], a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day. (Greg Schneider, Pairing the Powerful With the Rich, Washington Post, March 16, 2003)

Shafiq bin Laden, Osama’s  brother and member of the Carlyle Group meets George H. W. Bush at Ritz Carlton on September 10, 2001  (Source: Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 911)

A timely business meeting on September 10-11 at the Ritz Carlton with Osama’s brother disrupted by the 9/11 attacks: pure coincidence,  totally unrelated to the 9/11 attacks.

A day later, on the evening of September 11, 2001, president George W. Bush pronounced a historic speech in which he defined the relationship between “terrorists’ and “state sponsors of terrorism”:

The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I’ve directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

Also in attendance at the Ritz Carlton meetings were former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci, former secretary of state James Baker III, and other unnamed members of the bin Laden family.

The Carlyle Group is  embroiled  with the defense and intelligence establishment. “It is widely regarded as an extension of the US government, or at least the National Security Agency, the CIA, and the Pentagon.”

Double standards in anti-terrorism legislation? Double standards in police and law enforcement? No questions asked. No police investigation or interrogation of Osama’s brother Shafig.

Normally, under established rules of police investigation, both Shafig bin Laden and the president’s dad George Herbert Walker Bush should have been remanded in custody for police questioning and in all likelihood, Shafig bin Laden would have been arrested as a potential suspect. But that did not happen.

The presence of members of the bin Laden family meeting up with the father of the president of the United States was hushed up and 13 members of the bin Ladens including Shafig were flown out of the US on September 19, 2001 in a plane chartered by the White House. Meanwhile, suspected Muslims are arrested on a mere suspicion, –e.g. that they have an old school friend, who’s cousin’s 86 year old grandmother is an an alleged sympathizer of the “jihad”.

Timely departure of Shafig et al: On the day following the departure of the bin Ladens, President Bush delivered an address to a joint session of the House and the Senate (September 20, 2001), in which he stated unequivocally his administration’s intent to “pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism”, with no exceptions (e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan)

“We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make.

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.)

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime [state sponsor of terrorism].  President George W. Bush, 20 September 2001 (emphasis added)

Osama behind 9/11?

According to CIA Director George Tenet in a late morning statement on September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda under the helm of Osama bin Laden was “behind these evil acts”.

The alleged responsibility of Osama bin Laden in carrying out the 9/11 attacks was later confirmed by Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair in a statement to the the House of Commons on October 4, 2001.  This did not,  however,  prevent Tony Blair from socializing with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who prior to 9/11 had allegedly provided millions of dollars of financial assistance to the Al Qaeda terror network:

In testimony [accused hijacker] Moussawi said he created a database of al-Qaeda donors, including members of the royal family such as former intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who was Saudi ambassador to the United States for 22 years until 2005. Mint Press, February 14, 2015)

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, right receives Mideast envoy Tony Blair, the ex-prime minister of Britain after his arrival in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia.  Bandar bin Sultan, was accused of direct support for al-Qaeda before the 9/11 attacks (undated). (Mint Press, February 15, 2015)

Known and documented, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Pakistan have been harboring Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists for more than twenty years.

In accordance with George W. Bush’s September 2001 address to the House and the Senate, America’s staunchest allies –which routinely provide support to terrorists– should have been categorized as “hostile regimes”. Yet in practice, these “nations that provide a safe haven to terrorism” are acting on behalf of the US. They are in permanent and close liaison with Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

“You are either with us or with the terrorists”, said George W. in the wake of 9/11. In fact the US government is both “with us” and “with the terrorists”. The United States is the ultimate “state sponsor of terrorism” which has entrusted its allies (Saudi Arabia, et al) with the tasks of recruitment and training of terrorists. 

Flash Forward: NATO and The Islamic State (ISIS)

State sponsorship of terrorism prevails, with NATO playing a central role in the process of financing, training and recruitment of terrorists. According to Israeli intelligence sources,  NATO and the Turkish High Command have been involved in the recruitment of ISIS and Al Nusrah mercenaries from the outset of the Syrian insurgency in March 2011.

 “a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011.)

Similarly, Western Special Forces and Western intelligence operatives had integrated the ranks of the ISIS. British Special Forces and MI6 have been involved in training jihadist rebels in Syria. In turn, US, Canada embassy officials are in liaison with terrorist entities.

Update (March 18, 2015)

Concluding Remarks

What should be clear to Western public opinion is that “the war on terrorism” is a lie. The architects of terrorism are the Western governments and their intelligence services. The anti-terrorism legislation serves the following objectives: 

1. It conveys the illusion that Western society is threatened by Muslim terrorists and that Western governments are committed to the security of their citizens. This in itself constitutes the basis of the demonization campaign directed against Muslims;

2. It presents the “Global War on Terrorism” against an outside enemy as a legitimate undertaking, thereby providing a justification for US-NATO’s wars of aggression;

3. It protects the political and intelligence architects of terrorism. It upholds the legitimacy of the “State sponsors of terrorism” (State officials in high office) and their intelligence services involved in the covert financing, recruitment and training of terrorists on behalf of the Western military alliance;

4. “The Global War on Terrorism” is a criminal undertaking. Those who uphold the truth will be targeted. The Anti-terrorism legislation will be used against  those who question the  validity of the “Global War on Terrorism” consensus. That campaign has already commenced through the targeting of so-called “conspiracy theorists”.

These issues have been amply documented, see:

Canada, State Sponsor of Terrorism? Role of Canadian Embassy in Jordan in ISIS Recruitment?By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 15, 2015

The Ultimate War Crime: America’s “Global War on Terrorism”By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 08, 2015

Twenty-six Things About the Islamic State (ISIL) that Obama Does Not Want You to Know AboutBy Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 09, 2015

THE ROVING EYE Watch this caliph rip By Pepe Escobar

THE ROVING EYE Watch this caliph rip By Pepe Escobar So The Caliph is now a global superstar. Ever since Dr Ibrahim al-Badri of Samarra, a minor Sunni cleric who impersonates neo-medieval Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, showed up in the stone pulpit of a Mosul mosque at the start of Ramadan, he's been on a roll. He fully advertised his piece of transnational real estate - from the suburbs of Aleppo to Mosul (and promised more takeovers). He cut his own video - essentially his own, a monotone rap, dressed in trademark Men in Black regalia. He eliminated the competition, essentially by killing them all. He exalted the mujahid, inviting them to follow jihad in the name of Allah. He condemned miscreants and hypocrites, exalting the "victory of Muslims" from "the West to the East". Modestly sporting a US$7,000 watch (or Chinese replica) and asking for "corrections" in his behavior, The Caliph announced that his Islamic State (IS) business, former ISIS, is not only about the Levant. Want an IS passport? Just ask The Caliph. He firmly set his sights on conquering Rome (Saracens sacked St Peter's in 846); "You will conquer Rome and will be masters of the world." It won't happen before Sunday though, so Pope Francis can watch Argentina against Germany in peace without fear of decapitation. But first, The Caliph seems to be ready to ride his holy camel shouting "Allahu Akbar!" all the way to Baghdad and then Mecca. After all, he also proclaimed that the 1916 Sykes-Picot colonial racket, sorry, agreement between Britain and France is now null and void. No wonder the House of Saud, that pristine fountain of courage, has already massed 30,000 mercenaries, sorry, troops, on their border with Iraq (until six months ago the Saudis were facilitating an Air and Bus Jihad all the way to both Syria and Iraq; now they dread the boomerang effect.) Notorious French orientalist Olivier Roy is not impressed with all this thunder. He brands The Caliph as "delirious" without dismissing his cunning; "... as cautious and invisible as Mullah Omar, as ambitious and megalomaniac as Osama bin Laden". Which prompts the inevitable question; how come he's not on Double O Bama's license-to-kill list and has not been droned into Mesopotamian sand? The Caliph has remained mum on Operation Protect the Zionists, sorry, Protective Edge, the latest Israeli slow motion ethnic cleansing/collective punishment super-production currently starring in Gaza in over 400 targets and featuring substantial "collateral damage". That's a bum PR move by The Caliph, inviting double ridicule by the Arab Street for his dubious religious credentials coupled with his utter disregard for the Palestinian plight. No more nice jihadis Still, The Caliph is all over the place. His Salafi-jihadi Declaration of Independence - not only from historic al-Qaeda but mostly from those jaded/corrupt Arab monarchies and the Western intel apparatus which has nurtured International Jihad for decades - is indeed groundbreaking. Which explains the perplexity of the Empire of Chaos. That good ol' "strategy" of projecting imperial/NATO power by proxy - via jihadis for rent - now lies in shambles. The Caliph is the ultimate jihadi Frankenstein. No wonder the Obama lame-duck dinner, sorry, administration, is contemplating, at least in Syria, the usual plan A, which is to weaponize both sides (let Arabs kill Arabs). In Iraq, the plan still being discussed in the Beltway might be to drone IS convoys. It won't be a walk in the park because the IS military leadership is composed of battlefield-experienced former Iraqi guerrillas. And they are not foolish to start parading those gleaming white Toyotas in open desert all over again now they have become instant celebrities. On the political front, there are insistent rumors of an imminent military coup in Baghdad, planned by the city's military commander, Abdulamir al-Shumanni. The coup-in-the-wings' leaders claim they are supported by both Washington and Tehran (fabulous job; they should be summoned to help in the P5+1 nuclear negotiations). As for the Return of the Living (Neo-con) Dead brigade in the US, they bet on the only tainted horse they know: Ahmed Chalabi. No matter his raw ambition, The Caliph will have to get his act together. A lot of Syrian jihadi outfits have turned against IS. The same thing is happening in Iraq; Sunni militias are turning against them in Nineveh province. Enter tribal Sunni sheikhs - the ghosts in this infernal machine. The Caliph must have enough trusted moles to tell him that once the sheikhs have finished using IS as a tool to "destabilize" the al-Maliki administration in Baghdad, they will definitely advance to smash the caliphate. This is an extremely temporary alliance of interests - a sort of remix of the previous Islamic State in Iraq having its emirate smashed because of the American cash-propelled Anbar Awakening. The Caliph will also have to face Athel al-Nujaifi, the governor of Nineveh province; he wants a different Sunnistan with a high degree of autonomy (and lots of still unexplored oil) but still inside Iraq. Al-Nujaifi is the most influential Sunni politician in Iraq and head of the largest Sunni political party. For the moment, The Caliph seems to be taking no chances. IS operatives have arrested scores of former Iraqi army officers and Ba'athists around Mosul. So, once again, what is the Obama administration to do? Probably a remix of Bush II; shower the sheikhs with cash so they turn against The Caliph a.s.a.p. Tehran, meanwhile, is also active, via small Special Ops contingents - such as the one that saved the beautiful Shi'ite shrine in Samarra from being captured by IS. They are aiming for a repeat of their Syrian strategy: creating a parallel Iraqi army out of militias. The notion that The Caliph will soon attack "the West" or the US is bogus. IS terror incursions have happened so far in Irbil (in Iraq Kurdistan), Basra and Damascus. All of these cities are relatively close to IS's operational command. IS's reach does not extend to the West. Even attacking Baghdad is a major challenge. They are not competent enough to attack the Vatican-sized US embassy. Not to mention that Sadrists militias in Sadr City, for instance, would reduce them to dust. The most they can aspire to is to keep destroying Sunni, Sufi and Shi'ite shrines. In parallel, the really juicy story to be followed is that IS can develop as the ideal, proxy weapon of choice for the Empire of Chaos - and the House of Saud - to fight what could be described as the Iran-Hezbollah-Syria-Iraq alliance. Exactly the opposite peddled by this prodigy of wishful thinking. Realistically, in geopolitical terms, The Caliph's hypothetical journey to Rome is also a joke. IS is surrounded by hostile powers, from Iran and Turkey to Egypt. If the Men in Black decided to cross 300 kilometers of desert to attack King Playstation's realm, also known as Jordan, they would be all droned to death. So now that he's announced himself as the new Osama, The Caliph had better watch his back. Most probably he's a one-trick camel. He might realize he's got a better shot at stardom by branding himself as the second coming of Michael Jackson and start doing the Moonwalk (the jihadi remix). What he will certain realize is that Bashar al-Assad's Syrian Arab Army is the only game in town on the Syrian side in terms of attacking and inflicting serious pain on IS. And on the Iraq side there are even more options. All coup rumors notwithstanding, al-Maliki will most likely remain in power in Baghdad. And he will be fully weaponized not only by Tehran but also Moscow. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is already involved in helping to build what could be described as National Guard brigades. They will go after IS big time. In a pincer movement, attacks from Syria and from Iraq could destroy most of IS six months from now. The Caliph, apart from his mighty watch, may now hold a lot of weapons and make money by selling oil, but his Caliphate is a mirage. Only one thing is certain. Before it vanishes into the sands of time, there will be blood. A lot of blood. Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

THE ROVING EYE Arab Spring, Jihad Summer By Pepe Escobar

THE ROVING EYE
Arab Spring, Jihad Summer
By Pepe Escobar 

Welcome to IS. No typo; the final goal may be (indiscriminate) regime change, but for the moment name change will do. With PR flair, at the start of Ramadan, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS, or ISIL - the Islamic State of the Levant - to some) solemnly declared, from now on, it will be known as Islamic State (IS). 

"To be or not to be" is so … metaphysically outdated. IS is - and here it is - in full audio glory. And we're talking about the full package - Caliph included: "the slave of Allah, Ibrahim Ibn 'Awwad Ibn Ibrahim Ibn 'Ali Ibn Muhammad al-Badrial-Hashimi al-Husayni al-Qurashi by lineage, as-Samurra'i by birth and upbringing, al-Baghdadi by residence and scholarship". Or, to put it more simply, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. 

IS has virtually ordered "historic" al-Qaeda - yes, that 9/11-related (or not) plaything of one Osama bin Laden - as well as every other jihadi outfit on the planet, to pledge allegiance to the new imam, in theological theory the new lord over every Muslim. There's no evidence Osama's former sidekick, Ayman "the doctor" al-Zawahiri will obey, not to mention 1.5 billion Muslims across the world. Most probably al-Qaeda will say "we are the real deal" and a major theological catfight will be on. 

After all, in Syria, ISIL as well as Jabhat al-Nusra were initially fighting under the banner of al-Qaeda, until the brand - in spectacular fashion - decided to dump al-Baghdadi. He and ISIL went too far - with all those videos of decapitations and crucifixions and serial profanation of Shi'ite, Sufi and Christian sanctuaries. 

Al-Baghdadi, born Ibrahim al-Badri in Samarra, is an average Sunni Iraqi cleric with a degree in pedagogy from the University of Baghdad. His alter ago was born after Shock and Awe in 2003, and soon metamorphosed into a de facto serial killer - blowing up Shi'ite kids at ice-cream shops or scores of women at Shi'ite weddings. 

ISIL's track record in Syria includes banning every flag apart from its own; the destruction of any "polytheist" temple or sanctuary (except if it is Sunni); and strict imposition of Islamically correct women wear. Most of all, it is a track record of terror. This is not an army, rather a well-trained militia of professional mujahid, European passport holders included, with battlefield experience in Iraq, Afghanistan and, to a lesser degree, Chechnya. Heavy weaponizing is petrodollar-financed - the usual, wealthy "Gulf donors", which does not exclude official connections. 

Sources of income diversified mightily when ISIL captured the oilfields surrounding Deir Ezzor in Syria; and after the recent offensive across Niniveh province in Iraq, they were able to lay their hands on vast arsenals of heavy artillery, lots of cash and gold bullion and, why not, US Humvees left behind. Their trademark, of course, are those columns of brand new white Toyota Land cruisers - free off road advertising Toyota HQ in Japan may not find particularly welcome. 

Loaded with oil and profiting from tax revenue, IS is now firmly on its way to provide (minimal) services and support a (mighty) Jihadi Army - much like the Taliban from 1996 to 2001. One may be sure IS will continue its massive "social engagement" strategy; talk about a chatty Caliphate which loves YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. No wonder they are a hit among Google generation recruits - as well as becoming fund-raising aces via gruesome videos. In thesis, indoctrination progresses hand in hand with "charity work"; residents of Aleppo, for instance, can dwell on how ISIL (gruesomely) looks and feels on the ground. 

Mission forever unaccomplished
It's unclear how the new IS reality will play on the ground. The new Caliph has in fact declared a jihad on all that basket of corrupt and/or incompetent Middle East "leaders" - so some fierce "battle for survival" reaction from the Houses of Saud and Thani, for instance, is expected. It's not far-fetched to picture al-Baghdadi dreaming of lording over Saudi oilfields - after decapitating all Shi'ite workers, of course. 

And that's just a start; in one of their Tweeter accounts IS has published a map of all the domains they intend to conquer within the span of five years; Spain, Northern Africa, the Balkans, the whole Middle East and large swathes of Asia. Well, they are certainly more ambitious than NATO. 

Being such a courageous bunch, the House of Saud is now tempted to accept that imposing regime change on Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq is a bad idea. That puts them in direct conflict with the Obama administration, whose plan A, B and C is regime change. 

Turkey - the former seat of the Caliphate, by the way - remains mute. No wonder; Ankara - crucially - is the top logistical base of IS. Caliph Erdogan's got to be musing about his own future, now that he's facing competition. In theory, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan are all saying they're ready to fight what would be a "larger-scale war" than that gift that keeps on giving, the original, Cheney junta-coined GWOT (global war on terror). 

And then there's the future of the new $500 million Obama fund to "appropriately vetted" rebels in Syria, which in fact means the expansion of covert CIA "training facilities" in Jordan and Turkey heavily infiltrated/profited from by IS. Think of hordes of new IS recruits posing as "moderate rebels" getting ready for a piece of the action. 

It's easier for Brazil to win the World Cup with a team of crybabies with no tactical nous than having US Secretary of State John Kerry and his State Department ciphers understand that the Syrian "opposition" is controlled by jihadis. But then again, they do know - and that perfectly fits into the Empire of Chaos's not so hidden Global War on Terror (GWOT) agenda of an ever-expanding proxy war in both Syria and Iraq fueled by terror financing. 

So 13 years ago Washington crushed both al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then the Taliban were reborn. Then came Shock and Awe. Then came "Mission Accomplished". Then al-Qaeda was introduced in Iraq. Then al-Qaeda was dead because Osama bin Laden was dead. Then came ISIL. And now there's IS. And we start all over again, not in the Hindu Kush, but in the Levant. With a new Osama. 

What's not to like? If anyone thinks this whole racket is part of a new live Monty Python sketch ahead of their reunion gig this month in London, that's because it is. 

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com. 

Osama and the real Dalai Lama

By Peter Lee

LOS ANGELES - In reporting on remarks of the Dalai Lama during his visit to the University of California in Los Angeles on May 3, the LA Times ignited something of a media firestorm.

Under the headline, "Dalai Lama suggests Osama bin Laden's death was justified", Mitchell Landsberg wrote:

[I]n an appearance Tuesday at USC, [the Dalai Lama] appeared to suggest that the United States was justified in killing Osama bin Laden.

As a human being, Bin Laden may have deserved compassion and even forgiveness, the Dalai Lama said in answer to a question about the assassination of the al-Qaeda leader. But, he said, "Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened ... If something is serious and it is necessary to take

 

counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures." [1]

That started the ball rolling:

NPR: A Symbol Of Compassion, Dalai Lama Hints Bin Laden's Killing Was Justified. [2]

Stephen Jenkins at the Guardian: It's not so strange for a Buddhist to endorse killing; the Dalai Lama's attitude to Bin Laden's death should not be too surprising - Buddhism is not as pacifist as the West fantasizes [3]

AFP: Dalai Lama 'says bin Laden killing justified' [4]
Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic: Dalai Lama Suggests Approval for Bin Laden Killing. [5]

Michael Crowley at Time: Clearly, the precise legalities involved in killing bin Laden are murky ... But unless you are opposed to capital punishment in the absolute, or believe that we are compelled to put on trial any terrorist we are able to capture, the morality is less complicated. Heck, even the Dalai Lama isn't bothered. [6]

Jay Leno's monologue: This is my favorite thing; in an address at USC the other day, the Dalai Lama seemed to suggest that killing Bin Laden was okay. That's when you know you're a bad guy, when the Dalai Lama's going, "I didn't see nothing." [7]

Actually, the real story was less-than-stellar reportage.

Landsberg did get one thing right:

The audience, which included some 3,000 USC students, responded to his message respectfully, even adoringly. Afterward, however, some complained that they had trouble understanding him; the Dalai Lama often speaks about thorny concepts in accented English, sometimes relying on a translator to fill in gaps.

Include Landsberg as one of the audience with an understanding problem. I know, because I was there.

During the question and answer following his remarks at the Galen Center, the Dalai Lama responded to an submitted question as to whether "ensuring justice was more important than being compassionate" in the case of the death of Osama bin Laden. Specifically, was it OK to celebrate his death because, in the official US formulation, he had been "brought to justice"?

This was not a particularly difficult question for the Dalai Lama, and he responded:

Now here must make distinction between actor and action. His actions of course destructive ... they must bring him into justice way. But actor - as human being, as human brother, we must show compassion, sense of concern for his well-being.

In other words, something along the lines of "love the sinner but hate the sin".

The "justice way", in this context, looks like the working of the criminal justice system in dealing with Bin Laden's actions, not some kind of morally endorsed retribution on Bin Laden's person.

Once the "justice way" formalities were out of the way, the Dalai Lama was definitely not suggesting that shooting Bin Laden in the head was a suitable exercise of compassion.

The Dalai Lama continued on in this vein for a couple minutes, saying:

The basis of forgiveness does not mean forget what happened ... but because of that action, keep ill-feeling toward that person, wrong.

So, celebrating Bin Laden's death, definitely wrong.

Things then got somewhat more ambiguous, at least for some listeners.

The Dalai Lama moved on from the actor to his or her actions, to clarify that compassion for Bin Laden didn't mean doing nothing about his destructive actions:

So towards action - destructive action - we must take appropriate action to stop that...if something serious and necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take countermeasures.

It was clear that the Dalai Lama considers flying airplanes into buildings filled with thousands of people as the kind of "destructive actions" that should be stopped with "counter-measures" if possible. Presumably, if Bin Laden had taken up a weapon and the SEALS had shot him in self-defense and in a "more in sorrow than in anger" kind of way, the Dalai Lama would also have approved.

However, it can be stated with a high degree of confidence that the Dalai Lama did not consider the killing of Bin Laden to be "justified" - ie deserved and appropriate punishment for his crimes.
In fact, the Dalai Lama addressed the Bin Laden issue in 2006. In an interview in Dharamsala, India - home to his exiled Tibetan government, he told the Alice Thomson of the UK's Daily Telegraph that terrorists must be treated humanely:

"Otherwise, the problem will escalate. If there is one Bin Laden killed today, soon there will be 10 Bin Ladens. Awesome. Ten Bin Ladens killed, the hatred is spread; 100 bombed, and 1,000 lose members of their families." [8]

After the kerfuffle, the Tibetan government in exile issued a flash news item summarizing the Dalai Lama's remarks. Concerning the Bin Laden question, it stated:

The first question was on His Holiness' emphasis on compassion as a basis of ethics. It asked whether in some situation ensuring justice is more important than being compassionate to the perpetrator of a crime. It referred to the news of the death of Osama Bin Laden and the celebrations of it by some, and asked where compassion fit in with this and ethics. In his response, His Holiness emphasized the need to find a distinction between the action and the actor.

He said in the case of Bin Laden, his action was of course destructive and the September 11 events killed thousands of people. So his action must be brought to justice, His Holiness said. But with the actor we must have compassion and a sense of concern, he added. His Holiness said therefore the counter measure, no matter what form it takes, has to be compassionate action. His Holiness referred to the basis of the practice of forgiveness saying that it, however, did not mean that one should forget what has been done. [9]

Not good enough for the Margherita Stancati of the Wall Street Journal's Chinarealtime blog, who sniffed:

The question explicitly referred to Osama bin Laden, who was killed Sunday night during a US raid in Pakistan's town of Abbottabad.

This placed the Dalai Lama - a man who famously frowns at the idea of killing mosquitoes - in the position of either having to compromise his unflinching commitment to non-violence or publicly declaring his compassion for the world's most wanted terrorist. In a poorly-orchestrated PR move, he managed to do both. [10]

Actually, the Dalai Lama made a point of stating he squashed an occasional mosquito as a way of saying that human forbearance has its limits, even for living Buddhas. Violence is an inevitable element of human existence; the goal is to understand its roots, appreciate its karmic costs, and take measures to reduce it.

Depending on one's degree of pessimism, one can either view the affair as evidence of further decline in standards of stenography and reportage, America's alarming need for enthusiastic, universal validation of its killing of Bin Laden, or a demonstration of the admirable efficiency of the world's press in exploiting the Dalai Lama's global popularity to create a faux controversy and fill a news hole.

Fortunately, the University of Southern California has now posted the Youtube video of the Dalai Lama's remarks, so interested viewers can judge for themselves.

The Bin Laden question appears at around the 45:00 mark. [11]

Notes
1. Dalai Lama suggests Osama bin Laden's death was justified, LA Times, May 4, 2011.
2. A Symbol Of Compassion, Dalai Lama Hints Bin Laden's Killing Was Justified, NPR, May 4, 2011.
3. It's not so strange for a Buddhist to endorse killing, Guardian, May 11, 2011.
4. Dalai Lama 'says bin Laden killing justified', AFP, May 4, 2011.
5. Dalai Lama Suggests Approval for Bin Laden Killing; Human Rights Watch Condemns, The Atlantic, May 4, 2011.
6. Why Was Bin Laden Shot?, Time, May 4, 2011.
7. Steven Tyler interview on Leno, M&C, May 7, 2011.
8. 'Westerners are too self-absorbed', Telegraph, Apr 1, 2011.
9. His Holiness Talks About Secular Ethics and Human Development at University of Southern California, Central Tibetan Administration (in exile), May 4, 2011.
10. Dalai Lama in bin Laden Quandary, Wall Street Journal, May 5, 2011.
11. Secular Ethics, Human Values and Society: The Dalai Lama at the USC Galen Center, YouTube, May 5, 2011.


Peter Lee writes on East and South Asian affairs and their intersection with US foreign policy.