Obama: America’s ‘First Jewish President’?


Obama is the “the first Jewish President”. That’s the title of New York magazine’s lead article, written by John Heilemann and quoting a major Obama fundraiser.

Listening to Obama speak at the United Nations on Wednesday many would nod in agreement, not less in Palestine and the Arab world. 

The US president has embraced the rejectionist Israeli position on the question of international recognition of an independent Palestinian state.

But that’s not a Jewish position. It’s a radical Zionist position. Many Jews, including US and Israeli Jews, do not embrace such extremist views.

But the fact that Obama surpassed his predecessor George W Bush, the most radical supporter of Israel among all US Presidents, has left everyone in Israel dumbstruck. The latest Zionist US president sounded like Israel’s own founding fathers.

Never have they heard a US president read straight from the papers of the Israeli government.

Propaganda passes for history

You would think after six decades of dispossession, four decades of occupation and two decades of peace processes that President Obama would recognise a political and moral discrepancy that needs fixing.

That he would underline, not undermine, his own words uttered in Cairo a year and a half ago about the need for Israel to stop its illegal settlements in Palestine.

That he would underline, not undermine his own projection – read promise – from the same podium last September of a Palestinian state within a year, meaning this week.

That he would underline, not undermine, his own rhetoric about freedom in the Arab region.

Or that he would underline, not undermine, his own opening emphasis about a peace based on withdrawal, not more of the same logic of war.

Alas, President Obama undermined his entire “change we can believe in” slogan.

His narrative is inspired by the worst of Israel’s official propaganda. Indeed, much of it is cut and pasted from their playbook.

He spoke of historical “facts” that have long been repudiated by Israeli historians, and of truths that are nothing more than one sided interpretations of a political situation.

Obama claimed that the Arabs launched wars against Israel. But, in actual fact, Israel is the aggressor, launching or instigating wars in: 1956, 1967, 1982, 2006 and 2008. Only the 1973 war was launched by Arabs, but only to recuperate occupied territories after the US and Israel rejected Anwar Sadat’s peace overtures.

He underlined the work of Israelis in forging a successful state in their “historic homeland”. But most of the world, and certainly the Arab world, saw Israel’s inception as a colonial project with theological pretexts.

Serbia also believes that Kosovo is the birth place of its nation; should they be allowed to forge a successful state of their own, an exclusively Serbian state in that territory?

Should each and every occupied people search from accommodation with their occupiers without interference from the international community? Is that how African and Middle Eastern nations gained their independence from European colonial powers?

Should a whole people go on living under occupation until their occupier is satisfied with the conditions for surrender?

It’s politics, stupid

Every other commentator in town would like to remind you not to expect much action from a US president on Israel during an election year.

As Heilemann illustrates in his article, Obama’s career was built on his relationships with generous Jewish contributors in Chicago.

Indeed, the guy who brought the most money to the Democratic party over the last several decades became Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel. Today, he’s the mayor of Chicago.

But it’s not only about money. It’s also about crucial support in Congress over urgent domestic issues that could make or break the Obama presidency. And the Israeli lobby, AIPAC, can make the president’s life miserable over the course of the next year.

Now, I understand all of that. But what I don’t understand is why it is accepted as a fait accompli! As the nature of politics! Take it or leave it!

If this is the case, then let’s at least call a spade a spade; and out the US administration(s) for being what so many seem to say it is: Not Jewish or Zionist, rather hypocritical.

It speaks of justice but pursues unfair policies; speaks of repression, but promotes its own interests at any cost. It preaches freedom but supports occupation; speaks of human rights but insists on entrusting the wolf, and only the wolf, with the hen house.

The joke is on everyone

Why should the Palestinians be held victims to US politics while being held hostage to Israeli politics for the last six decades. Why should most Israelis continue to live in a garrison state incapable of normalising relations with their neighbors?

Why should Americans watch as their politicians are held hostage to a foreign power and its influential supporters?

The pro-Israeli Jewish lobby, J Street, commented on the alarming pandering to Israel not only among Democrats but also Republicans, saying: “There’s no limit, it seems, to how far American politicians will go these days in pandering on Israel for political gain.”

While there has been strategic logic for the US support for Israel in the past, Washington’s current pandering makes little sense.

Washington has long used its influence with Israel as strategic leverage to reign in Arab leaders. Only Washington can restrain Israel in war and wring concessions in diplomacy, Arab leaders once reckoned. 

But the dictators who either exploited Palestine to garner popular support at home, or bartered it in return for Western favours, belong to the past.

Today’s Arabs are bitter and angry at US-Israeli complicity in Palestine and they won’t be as easily bounded or bribed as their fallen dictatorships. 

Marwan Bishara is Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst. He was previously a professor of International Relations at the American University of Paris. An author who writes extensively on global politics, he is widely regarded as a leading authority on the Middle East and international affairs.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Pyramidion’s editorial policy.

Ground Zero Mosque Opens Without Much Controversy


 

park51 Islamic community center

New York – The Islamic Community Center located blocks away from where the Twin Towers once stood, and commonly referred to as the ground zero mosque, has officially opened, celebrating the day with an art exhibit that features children representing 171 ethnicities.

The ‘NYChildren Photography Exhibition’ brought visitors instead of protesters to the opening at the controversial Park51 Community Center location.

Organizers said they hoped the exhibit would inspire diversity in the community and would be a catalyst to encourage New York residents “to meet and get to know their neighbors to build trust and friendship.”

The ‘Ground Zero’ mosque ignited a political firestorm when construction began last year. Blogger’s were divided on how to describe the project. Was it a mosque or a community center, and is it located ‘at ground zero’ or near it, on Park Avenue, over two blocks away.

The project drew harsh criticism from opponents who said they didn’t want a mosque anywhere near the site of the terrorist attack that claimed the lives of thousands of victims. Protesters lined the street in front of Park51 each day for weeks, verbally attacking Islam, Muslims and anyone that appeared to be of the Muslim faith. Islamaphobia was rampant at the loosely organized events that pitted supporters against opponents of the center.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg entered the heated debate on the ‘ground zero mosque’ by coming out in support of the Islamic Community Center, and said the city would not interfere with the construction of the controversial project.

President Barack Obama defended the Islamic Community Center at a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan saying, “I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. But this is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”

Eventually the protests and the media storm died down and the officially opening came off without a hitch.

Developer Sharif El-Gamal told The Associated Press, “We made incredible mistakes. The biggest mistake we made was not to include 9/11 families. We didn’t understand that we had a responsibility to discuss our private project with family members that lost loved ones.” El-Gamal said they “never really connected with community leaders and activists.”

Today the vision of the completed project has changed, according to El-Gamal. He said, “the center is open to all faiths and will include a 9/11 memorial. It’s an Islamic community center serving all of New York, and based on pluralism and diversity. Any opposition to the center today would be part of a ‘campaign against Muslims.'”

Special thanks to Digital Journal

We Are All Neo-Cons Now


 “If Obama is pursuing policies similar to those taken by George W. Bush, why do we not see any giant protests against him from the Left, of the kind regularly seen during the Bush years?”

Ron RadoshPAJAMAS MEDIA

Recently, some of our most able pundits have been arguing that neoconservatism is dead. As usual, The Daily Beast’s Peter Beinart leads the pack. He could not have stated his case more clearly than here: “the ideology that 9/11 made famous — neoconservatism — has died.” Beinart is certain of this. His evidence? Al-Qaeda is finished; not only Osama bin Laden is dead, but now his second in command, Abd al-Rahman, has been killed by the U.S. No longer is jihadism a major threat, “a threat on par with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union,” he argues. It is “sliding into irrelevance,” leaving the U.S. with quite a different challenge — that of China’s authoritarian capitalism. What killed al-Qaeda, he says, is “exactly the narrow targeted policies that neoconservatives derided.”

Obama has gained his ends through intelligence and drone strikes, Beinart argues, and any resulting democracy in the Middle East comes not from the United States, but from the local rebellion of young Muslims. He also argues that Republican candidates are not attacking the president along neoconservative lines; instead, they largely avoid the issue, since they “have little appetite for the neconservative agenda of continued war in the Middle East.”

He implies that we should get out of Afghanistan, because it is not worth the cost of American lives, and because we can’t afford it. Right or wrong, the money is not there, something he says neoconservatives never paid attention to. America, he says — sounding like a conservative — must pay attention to limits, and we must hold in our grandiose ambitions.

Is Beinart right? First, let us point to a factor he pays little attention to: that despite a confused and ambivalent doctrine in foreign policy, President Obama is pursuing much of the same “neo-con” policies advocated by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in their administration. No one has made a stronger case for this than Walter Russell Mead. Obama’s defenders, he writes,

must also squirm; in general, President Obama succeeds where he adopts or modifies the policies of the Bush administration. Where (as on Israel) he has tried to deviate, his troubles begin.

He writes the following:

The most irritating argument anyone could make in American politics is that President Obama, precisely because he seems so liberal, so vacillating, so nice, is a more effective neoconservative than President Bush. As is often the case, the argument is so irritating partly because it is so true.

President Obama is pushing a democracy agenda in the Middle East that is as aggressive as President Bush’s; he adopts regime change by violence if necessary as a core component of his regional approach and, to put it mildly, he is not afraid to bomb.

And finally, the heart of Mead’s case:

In many ways we are living through George W. Bush’s third term in the Middle East, and neither President Obama’s friends nor his enemies want to admit it. President Obama, in his own way and with his own twists, continues to follow the core Bush policy of nudging and sometimes pushing nasty regimes out of power, aligning the US with the wave of popular discontent in the region even as that popular sentiment continues to dislike, suspect and reject many aspects of American power and society. And that policy continues to achieve ambivalent successes: replacing old and crustily anti-American regimes, rooted deeply in the culture of terror and violence within and beyond their borders, with weaker, more open and — on some issues at least — more accommodating ones.

In Libya, as we have seen, a humanitarian effort became, in reality, a use of force to promote regime change. True, he moved too slowly, and casualties may have been avoided had he promoted his real aim from the start. And in Syria, he began by proclaiming Assad a “reformer,” only to finally, in the past few weeks, call for the Syrian dictator to step down. Yet, as Mead concludes, “half way through President Obama’s tenure in office, we can see that regime change and democracy promotion remain the basis of American strategy in the Middle East — and that force is not excluded when it comes to achieving American aims.”  So Mead writes — somewhat I think with tongue in cheek — “the Bush-Obama agenda marches on.”

Writing in the Washington Post Reuel Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz present more arguments similar to those invoked by Mead. As they put it:

President Obama used American power to liberate a Muslim people. Like George W. Bush, Obama came into office with a narrower, “humbler” conception of America’s interests abroad. In his first visit to the region, he confused the majesty of Islam with the dignity of Muslim potentates. Sept. 11, 2001, transformed Bush. We must wait to see whether the Great Arab Revolt has permanently changed Obama.

The final answer is not yet in, but these authors argue that the reasons for supporting the Syrian opponents of Assad are as great as those used by Obama for wanting to save the people of Benghazi, whom Qadaffi had threatened. Aligned with Iran, and headquarters for Hezbollah, Syria is a greater threat to the U.S. and the region than was Libya. Forcing the end of the Assad regime may be easier. Rather than use military resources, it can be done with tougher sanctions, along with arm twisting of European allies. And, they point out, the U.S. can now give funds to the united Syrian opposition, which includes striking auto workers. It can also provide communications hardware, including wi-fi equipment.

The authors conclude:

Barack Obama is the son of an African Muslim and an American woman who dedicated her life to the Third World. He is tailor-made to lead the United States in expanding democracy to the most unstable, autocratic and religiously militant region of the globe. The president obviously hasn’t seen himself as that kind of “friend of Islam.” But the Great Arab Revolt is transforming the way Arab Muslims see themselves. It may do the same for Barack Obama.

This means, as Michael Ledeen points out on his PJMedia blog today, the Syrian regime is the main danger to our interests, along with Iran, and as he writes, “if it’s right to intervene in Libya to stop the carnage, is there not even more reason to stop the greater carnage in Syria and Iran?” And the means to help them is the same taken by the Reagan administration, of which Ledeen was a part, when it gave overt aid to the anti-Communists Solidarity members in Poland. It does not have to be via bombing or troops, but through the kind of support and aid that Ledeen has long advocated.

Finally, I offer some thoughts on an obvious problem. If Obama is pursuing policies similar to those taken by George W. Bush, why do we not see any giant protests against him from the Left, of the kind regularly seen during the Bush years? Where are Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, the anti-war marches on Washington, the condemnation of Obama for killing civilians in drone attacks, for keeping Guantanamo open, for using rendition, and for giving up on civilian trials of terrorists and proceeding with military tribunals?

All of these were brought up day in and day out against the Bush administration, and now we have nothing but silence. Does the Left really think that all they screamed about is now good, because this time it is being carried out by an African-American president whom they supported?

Of course, the Left was always wrong when it condemned Bush and Cheney. While the president may himself reevaluate his position and move from where he started out, as Gerecht and Dubowitz hope he will, the organized left wing will not. I think that their quiet is motivated only by one thing alone — to attack President Obama is to, in essence, attack their own cadres, whom they pushed to do the hard work in 2008 to get Obama elected. To reevaluate openly is to harm their own credibility, so they prefer to remain silent and hope that no one will notice.

At least we know one thing now. At our present historical moment, contrary to Beinart, Jacob Heilbrunn of The National Interest, and others, we are now all neocons.

Ronald Radosh is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at The Hudson Institute, and a Prof. Emeritus of History at the City University of New York. He is the author or co-author of 14 books.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Pyramidion’s editorial policy.

In Obama –Netanyahu Meeting, Who Is Who?


“The old game is over fellows, this is a whole new game now and it is going to be Israel once again, and like it or not, who will set the new rules. And as the United States had annexed Texas back in 1845 Israel simply followed in her footsteps and annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem, big deal.” says Benjamin Netanyahu.
 

 “At this point and as the ticking seconds seemed like ages for Obama, it was clear that Mr. Netanyahu was slapping Obama in the face in public and for the whole world to see.”

 

Dr. Ashraf Ezzat

 

Obama and Bibi

 

 Carried away by his, on the rise, presidential approval rating following his legendary triumph over Osama Bin Laden, the prince of darkness whose image and recorded video-tapes have been made to haunt the American collective psyche as the destroyer of America president Obama thought it was time to indulge himself with some rhetoric about the Middle East’s chronic crisis and it’s so called peace process.

I cannot blame the man for obviously he was basking in the ecstasy of his political victories. I mean with the monstrous Gulf oil spill overcome and now behind him as history, the health care legislation passed and hailed as a big victory, the boys are out of the Iraqi swamp and soon out of the Afghani poppy fields and with the notorious Bin Laden shot in his bed room and given the most dignified burial ceremony before he was dumped in the bottom of the sea, one thing that would make Obama worthy of his controversial Nobel peace prize remained missing and unaddressed, namely the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, The only hot issue on the US foreign policy that defied any sort of promising outlook.

And since he was all geared up for his second term in office, especially after he had easily shoved away that showy billionaire, Trump by exhibiting a small piece of paper and since Sara Palin has been politically self-decaying by the virtue of her God- given clueless mentality Obama thought that with the presidential elections, a process made to believe controlled by the Zionist lobbies, coming next year why not while rolling out the red carpet for Netanyahu, try and appease the pro-Israeli lobbies in America like, AIPAC, J Street, AFSI, ..etc, and announce that the United States stands firm behind ironclad Israeli security alongside a non-militarized and feeble Palestinian state as an acceptable prerequisite for any negotiations with the Palestinians.

Jewish activists in New York denounce Obama's call for a return to Israel's pre-1967 borders. But the US president declared his 'unshakeable support' of Israel and did not condemn its illegal settlement building

In his Middle East speech Obama carefully refrained from mentioning the Palestinian refugee Issue nor did he mention how the East Jerusalem file would be tackled but he came out explicitly and without a flicker of hesitation and declared to the whole world that the United States strongly believes that the future state of Palestine should be based on the pre-1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps with Israel,… and this is where his luck ran out on him.

With The United States being a member of the diplomatic quartet on the Middle East the Obama statement subsequently meant that this is where also the United Nations, European Union and Russia probably stood on this thorny matter of the Palestinian borders.

Obama’s speech created a buzz on the mainstream media and on the web and certainly made him go to sleep that Thursday night feeling good about himself and thinking what a splendid speech he gave that surely made everyone happy in North Africa and the Middle east. … Well, maybe not the whole Middle East.

Obama thought, may be the Norwegian Nobel prize committee that granted him the Nobel peace prize had been right all along, a committee of that caliber could not be mistaken, they are all men of good judgment and great expertise and he must be that world peace maker they all agreed he is. He must be the one who could get the job done in the Middle East conflict.

That Thursday must have been one of Obama’s lucky days and it could have stayed so hadn’t it been for the following day visit of Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime minister of the state of the chosen people of Israel.

Bibi’s knock out

 

Receiving his esteemed guest in the oval office and after showing cordiality before the cameras and world press Netanyahu put on his iron gloves and began to punch, the unprepared and still ecstatic from last night, Obama where it really hurts.

Netanyahu with his monotonous and metallic voice and with the aid of his body language began to grab every statement Obama has made on the hoped for Israeli-Palestinian agreement and literally tore it apart and threw it into some shredder machine right in front of Obama’s eyes.

Netanyahu declared that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, only he didn’t say what those compromises would be, it cannot go back to the 1967 borders because those borders are indefensible.”

Indefensible, a new word in the vocabulary the Zionist machine is bound to utilize in the coming years and may be decades and to be added to the dictionary of Israel’s most popular words such as anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, Israel-hater, Israel’s right to exist, Israel’s right to defend itself, chosen people and of course the promised land.

Netanyahu looked Obama in the eyes; and referring to his worldwide admired Middle East speech told him “A peace based on illusions will crash upon the rocks of Middle Eastern reality” in other words Netanyahu was saying that Obama, the diplomatic Quartet, the Arab league and the Palestinians they all have been deluded and living in a world of fantasy land and it was he who would take upon himself the arduous task of waking them up to the world of reality.

In a blunt display of arrogance, Netanyahu even went so far as to address, audaciously, unexpectedly and publicly, the highly delicate issue of the Palestinian refugees and their long deliberated upon right to return and declared “It’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen, and I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly it’s not going to happen.”

At this point and as the ticking seconds seemed like ages for Obama, it was clear that Mr. Netanyahu was slapping Obama in the face in public and for the whole world to see.

Obama with a look in his eyes that reflected mixed feelings of amazement, bewilderment and subjugation listened intently, his hands cupping his chin and part of his cheek as if he was feeling the pain and the humiliation and at the same time dodging any more slaps across his face.

New game, new rules

 

It's not going to happen

Now the whole discourse was taking a dramatic change, as Mr. Netanyahu was lecturing Obama and the United States about the new Israeli geo-political realities on the ground, the Palestinian ground that is, or rather the used to be.

“The old game is over fellows, this is a whole new game now and it is going to be Israel once again, and like it or not, who will set the new rules. And as the United States had annexed Texas back in 1845 Israel simply followed in her footsteps and annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem, big deal. It’s all part of this new game of demographic changes and if America got away with it I can see no reason why we cannot” that was the message Netanyahu was giving and impudently declaring between the lines.

Also between the lines there was a lot more to read than just this slap in the face, UN  resolution 242 and the different interpretation of the Israeli-Palestinian borders issue; there was a clear indication as to who was really pulling the strings in the white house.

This historically awkward moment revealed beyond doubt the true influence Israel and its brigades of Zionist lobbies wield over the white house and the American policy. An old story but this time aired live in a new world edition that will cover, beside the oval office spectacle, the finale scene as Netanyahu speaks triumphantly at the annual policy meeting of AIPAC.

As Obama was hosting Netanyahu In the oval office, the holy of the holies of the American diplomacy, and with the whole world watching, it was not clear which one of them was the real president of the United States and which one was the guest of honor, I mean with this eternal and unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel it has always been kind of hard to tell who is who and which is which.

Clearly that Israeli display of public defiance and contempt for the United States policy and its president raises a lot of comments and questions but on top of which the one question that has been long begging for an answer “is a second term in office, or the first for that matter, worth sacrificing the pride and the interests of the world superpower?”

This hard to die question really needs to be answered, not by Obama but the Americans themselves, for it is one burdening issue that could not be easily terminated, gotten rid of and dumped in the bottom of some sea.

Bin Laden Fictional Film Comes To An End


“The war on terrorism merchandise has been on the market for too long; but with more intellectuals debunking it, and as time went by, and profits went down this product of high tech-deception was approaching its shelf expiry date. In other words the Bin Laden version of fear/submission warfare had to be withdrawn from the market and declared over and done with, successfully that is”
 

“This bad movie that we have been watching for ten years now was losing on the top ranking and had to be pulled out from world political theatres”

 

Dr. Ashraf Ezzat

Wanted not alive but definitely dead, Bin Laden had to be declared finally captured and killed.

The end of a dreary fiction

Almost ten years since 9/11 has passed. A long decade through which the whole world have been following day to day main stream media-or mania, that is- coverage of the so called war on terrorism.

Unlike most declared and waged wars through history this war on terrorism obscured the perception of ordinary people for it specifically lacked one essential element of the definition of embattling namely, an obvious and tangible enemy.

The most sophisticated and devastating terrorist operation in history has been clumsily and conveniently nailed against one person alone.

To our disappointment it was not the joker, the comic book super villain; it was Osama Bin Laden, the frail and gloomy bearded renegade who along with a bunch of so called mujahideen dwelled in the caves of Afghanistan- a country that virtually never existed in the geographical memory of most Americans- formed a group of a handful of professional guerrilla fighters, close to Sylvester Stallone’s “the expendables”, said to be capable of destroying the west and ruling over the world.

There is no denying that 9/11 attacks are the most huge and ugliest terrorist operations ever and so are the conspiracy behind them.

The Expendables

Throughout the last ten years we have not been merely following the military operations of this futile and senseless war on terrorism, rather we were desperately trying to grasp some sort of purpose or any meaning for it altogether.

The United States and allies stumbling through a series of utter failures and embarrassments along this crusade against Bin Laden have realized that this farcical war has unbelievably dragged out to the point of endangering the very rationale and reasoning behind it, and why it started in the first place.

The war on terrorism merchandise has been on the market for too long; with more intellectuals debunking it, and as time went by, and profits went down this product of high tech- deception was approaching its shelf expiry date. In other words the Bin Laden version of fear/submission warfare had to be withdrawn from the market and declared over and done with, successfully that is.
The white house with its shrewd politicians realized that this Bin Laden saga was dwindling away and beginning to lose its grip on people.

Too many anti- 9/11 theses, too many solid conspiracy theories undermining the 9/11 official report in what seemed like a counter-attack by internet battalions of critical blogging and punditocracy began to sway people’s mindset about 9/11.

Playing back “war on terrorism” video picks

Playing backward the war on terrorism video we would probably discover that we are watching some sort of fiction- and not a very good one, I have to say.
Along this awfully long film, not based on a truly honest story, we could stop for moments of discernment as we hit the button and freeze on chosen shots like the following:

- The collapse of world trade center –WTC- buiding7 like a house of cards in 6.5 seconds long after the fall of the twin towers.
- Forensics and experts pointing the finger at missile attacks on the Pentagon.
- Invasion of Iraq 2003 instead of invading Saudi Arabia- Osama Bin Laden’s native country.
- The United States and allies failing to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but nonetheless managed to massively destroy Iraq for Israel’s sake.
- The American troops and allies in Afghanistan with a mission impossible of trying to drive their indigenous tribes – Taliban- out of the country, a silly mission but sold to the Americans as the reasonable tactic of this military crusade.
- Weapons and opium sales hit new world records as American troops, military contractors and war lords have become the new holders of the Afghani poppy fields’ franchise.
- General Stanley A. McChrystal – US former commander of American and allied troops in Afghanistan- getting high smoking poppy, and in a rare moment of naked truth, began to see the scene in Afghanistan as it really is and sarcastically slammed this whole war and ridiculed the whole bunch of politicians in Washington who had geared it in the first place.
- American soldiers bored with this pathetic mission of fighting natives -who probably never heard of New York before, let alone Ground Zero – began to kill Afghanis for fun and collect their fingers as trophies.
- Wikileaks- or wikidleaks- revealing tons of confidential military documents targeting and accusing Pakistan – one of Israel’s strategic enemies – as not doing enough to help the United States eliminate this super Bin Laden so that the boys could pack up and go home to America.
- Recent massive jail break in Kabul with hundreds of Taliban leaders and top operatives on the loose again bringing those years of American military operations back to scratch.

There is a lot more footage like of drones killing civilians in Pakistan and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in Iraq … etc, to be replayed and discerned again on this mythical hunt of Bin Laden but that would take time and skills available only to guys at wikileaks.

Bin Laden, the end of a dreary fiction

War on terrorism

 Lately this movie-like plot of the die hard-Bin Laden was waning away and getting boringly overstreched it had to come to an immediate end one way or another. It had to come to an end before more people, with their perception not obscured any more, start wondering what all that devastation and chaos got to do with capturing a single man.

This bad movie that we have been watching for ten years now was losing on the top ranking and had to be pulled out of world political theatres.

There was no way for this world hunt and this war of terror to end without a moment of apparent victory, the huddled masses of viewers of this terribly long movie had to be given a good finale.

They had to be given a catch worthy of their time, taxes and most of all their believing it happened the way it was told.

Wanted not alive but definitely dead, Bin Laden had to be declared finally captured and killed.

"Bin Laden II" released soon in all political theatres

But to get this done and over with without leaving any trace or a chance for someone to doubt or investigate the war on terrorism story, the white house and CIA officials, like what they did back in 9/11 quickly getting rid of the debris of the collapsed towers that contained valuable forensic evidences and clues as to how those gigantic towers were demolished in seconds the CIA took the body of Osama Bin Laden and in less than 24 hours got rid of it and buried it at the bottom of the sea.

Reminiscent of the mafia way of getting rid of the ones they kill out of fear they would squeal on them, and In a critical and long waited for moment of capturing an extremist Muslim and international terrorist, the United States ironically decided to observe the Muslim traditions of burying the dead as soon as possible and to honor Bin Laden by dumping his body at the bottom of the sea.

And exactly as this fictional movie started with a hasty statement from the white house that it was Osama bin laden who pulled off 9/11, the end came quite similarly hasty as president Obama emerged from the white house and with a victorious grin on his face announced “Tonight, I can report to the people of the United States and the world, the United States had carried an operation that has killed Osama bin Laden, a terrorist responsible for killing thousands of innocent people”

End of Bin Laden film. Lights on again and time to take a short break before we start watching another episode of this Bin Laden saga.
The United States has decided it was time to pull the shades down on this going nowhere anymore plot but it won’t be long before the release of Ben Laden part II that will hit the world political theatres by the title of “ Ben Laden’s Affiliates … The Hunt Goes On”