Will Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi give Trump a second presidential term?

Will Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi give Trump a second presidential term?

- in Releases
Comments Off on Will Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi give Trump a second presidential term?

Dr. Abdullah Sheikh

Translated by : mudhaffar al-kusairi

Once you take a first look at the title of this article, the reader will come to mind the pragmatism known to most, if not all, of the presidents who have been sitting on the Oval Chair in the White House in terms of policies adopted by all regarding the exploitation of the world to achieve authoritarian gains Whatever means to achieve the objectives, and the consequences of this exploitation, all based on the utilitarian principle that “the end justifies the means.” However, this article will focus specifically on an approach – certainly not a coincidence – between the last two presidents ruled United States, they are: “Barack Obama, Donald Trump, on the one hand, and among the most notorious terrorists of modern times, Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, on the other, in terms of ties between both …
In spite of the importance and diversity of questions that arise itself, but we will refer only to these questions, which we will begin this article as follows:
Why is this similarity between the ends of terrorists Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? Who is the biggest beneficiary from their end in the way it planned? Were they really liquidated as is known and common to all? Why this similarity in the circumstances of their end? Does the end of these terrorists have any real connection with determining the fate of those sitting in the White House?

Although we are certain that it is very difficult to find accurate answers to these questions, as they reside in two contradictory pages, one of which is clear and need no explanation or analysis, based on the repeated scenarios of the White House for decades, in terms of such matters. The other, more complex, riddled with puzzles and riddles, is characterized by the difficulty of finding accurate answers, given the White House’s superior ability to evade and mislead, complex tricks difficult to decipher, as well as directing attention in directions often far from the facts that all are looking for its secrets .

According to international sources, the use of the powers of office is one of the basic rules used by US presidents facing scandals, and the quick return of US presidents to the ways of distracting attentions from scandals whenever one of them was involved , the world still remembers how President Richard Nixon before his fall in the Watergate scandal, he went on a trip to the Middle East in 1974, hoping to look like a statesman, received by the Israeli occupation state as a hero , and about 100,000 people went out to greet his motorcade that moved through the streets of Jerusalem.

Based on the foregoing, we will try to return to the details of the liquidation of global terrorists, “bin Laden” and “Baghdadi” and the gains achieved by the US administration, on the one hand, and the good services provided to US Presidents “Barack Obama and Donald Trump” on the other.

The killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 under President Barack Obama, particularly when the elimination of bin Laden became the magical paper that would guarantee Obama a second term in office, was used, and was actually the winning joker that put Obama on the US presidency for the next four years – then, for a second term, in full view of his Republican rivals – a few days after he announced the death of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, a public opinion poll revealed that US President Barack Obama had made several points over the Republicans who contested him in the presidential elections 2012, here comes the secret of the White House in the timing to liquidate bin Laden.

This process has undoubtedly been welcomed by the public, both at the American and international levels, especially among those who have tasted the scourge at the hands of the terrorist al-Qaeda.

The follower of this stage finds that it was addressed, analyzed and read from three sides, in the first place where the optimists, or those who look at things superficially, then agreed that “bin Laden” is the most dangerous terrorist in the world, and that the liquidation of him will end – or at the very least, it will greatly weaken the capacity and threat of al-Qaida. On the other hand, those who read the reality more carefully, those who did not exaggerate their reactions to the elimination of bin Laden, considered it to be a trump card that was played at the time that was precisely defined.

While those who stand on the threshold of the third dimension, the pessimists – if we may say this – have reacted to the liquidation of bin Laden, to arouse suspicion of many who adopt analytical logic, when they considered the whole subject as a mock play written by US policy directors, and prepared the suitable scenario and they identified its heroes, actors, open start, and its middle that was full of plots and dramatic crises that tied them to the least thrilled as a Hollywood industry par excellence, all the way to a closed end in terms of the triumph of the legendary American hero over the evil terrorist who was said to have been liquidated according to the unverifiable American version, the same end that was repeated with the terrorists “bin Laden, al-Baghdadi”, both have been liquidated on a dark night, in very similar mysterious circumstances, and then dumped the bodies at sea, making these two ends the same end , which[ was a closed end in terms of conflicting personalities, but it was an open end, or circular in a more precise sense in terms of dramatic terms, in terms of the continuity of events, as it referred to another part of the upcoming comic play led by new heroes, alone defined by monotonous and stereotypical two Hollywood Scenarios, those who stand on the outskirts of the third dimension of the analysis of this issue gave – rationalists , the credibility of the highest in the analysis, especially to return to contradict statements launched by US officials at the end of each page they close from their sitcom .

To return to the statements of Donald Trump comparing between the terrorist, Trump said “Osama bin Laden was important, because he gained his importance because of the September 11 attacks,” but “Baghdadi is a man who built what he saw as the Islamic Caliphate”, explaining that Usama bin laden was a big threat to the US national security, while Baghdadi did not exceed the geographical boundaries of Iraq and Syria in particular, and the Arabian Peninsula or small parts of it in general.

Not only that, a follower of Trump’s remarks during the liquidation of bin Laden and al-Baghdadi finds, unquestionably, the apparent contradiction in his statements. He announced that he was the first to predict that bin Laden would turn into a problem, which is inaccurate even though he already wrote in his book. “America We Deserve,” said in 2000 that the United States faces the risk of a devastating terrorist attack.


Observations between bin Laden and al-Baghdadi’s death are not merely a mere rhetoric of American victory, which essentially promotes the idea of the success of the White House administration, both past and present, in retaliation for the blood of thousands of Americans killed against “terrorism”, but extended to the form of the process that was carried out by US special forces, or even where the operation took place.

The killing of terrorists “bin Laden and Baghdadi” fits with the American mentality in making the media victory over the militant organizations, the killing of Osama bin Laden was like a US victory in Afghanistan, and today with Trump’s decision to leave the Syrian territory and stay only around the oil fields, it seems the announcement of the killing of Baghdadi Importantly, his administration assures the American street that the mission to eliminate ISIS has been fully accomplished.

Returning to the similarity between bin Laden and al-Baghdadi, and despite their different extremist terrorist approach, which uses Islam as a pretext to achieve their goals , the circumstances of their deaths are similar , the leaders of the two largest terrorist organizations, al-Qaeda and ISIS, Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi have been ended to the same fate and at the same hands, with the same weapon, and at the same time, without any trace, pictures, videos, witnesses, evidence, etc. that point to the truth of what happened, which is suspicious of the credibility of the two American novels, at least among those we referred to as they are rational in the analysis .
Eight years ago, in 2011, when Washington announced the death of al-Qaida leader bin Laden, the most wanted terrorist on its list, no trace, photos or videos of the operation were left , leaving only the question “Where is the body of bin Laden?” was it thrown in the sea as claimed by the US military ?! A question that carries more than one of the confused signs and wonder.

Eight years after the killing of bin Laden – according to the American version also – the issue did not differ much with the killing of Baghdadi, the conditions are similar, and the justifications are identical, and the same pretexts .With the killing of bin Laden, the pretext of US President Barack Obama to withdraw his troops from Afghanistan, and with the killing of Baghdadi, President Trump’s pretext was to withdraw his troops from Syria, and suddenly announced the killing of ISIS leader Baghdadi in an intelligence operation involving four countries and the division of the Delta Force operation , followed by a US media announcement on Monday that the body of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS was thrown into the sea, as It happened exactly with the body of bin Laden !!

So, in spite of the above, and despite the similarities and contradictions mentioned above, and based on statements are more than to include in this article, to senior American officials, most notably “Hillary Clinton,” which all confirmed that the terrorist organization “Al Qaeda” or the organization that It has been spawned by ISIS, are an American industry, but the fact that most followers and observers have almost unanimous consensus is that the biggest beneficiary of the survival of large terrorist organizations, or spawn from it , is the US administration in particular.
Finally, I conclude this article with these questions: Will the tragic end – or as it has portrayed to the world – the terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the greatest guarantor of staying of Donald Trump in the White House for a second term as Obama’s end to bin Laden? When will the third part of the sitcom (terrorism) begin, and where will it appear? And who are its heroes? What are its means and goals? Will it end to the same ends of the previous two parts?
The coming days alone will bear the answer to these questions…

Political Studies Unit
Rawabet Center for Research and Strategic Studies