Tweet
PROF. JAMES H. FETZER: WASHINGTON OVERTLY SUPPORTING AL-QAEDA IN SYRIA
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920416000534
Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:42
TEHRAN (FNA)- American philosopher and political author James H.
Fetzer believes that the United States is openly supporting Al-Qaeda
and the extremist Salafist and Takfiri groups in Syria and equipping
the rebels and insurgents inside the country with sophisticated
weapons and arms.
"The Assad forces are making great progress in putting down the
artificial uprising, which gained public sympathy because of false flag
massacres of villages in Syria, which were blamed on the government
but appear to have been committed by mercenaries and others, just as
the UN itself has concluded that the alleged use of chemical weapons
in small quantities appears to have been done, not by the government,
but by the rebels," said Fetzer in an exclusive interview with Fars
News Agency.
James H. Fetzer is a retired philosophy professor at the University
of Minnesota Duluth. He has written several books on the philosophy of
science, artificial intelligence, evolution and also tens of political
articles about the 9/11 events and the U.S. foreign policy. Fetzer's
articles have appeared on a number of print and online publications
including Veterans Today and Press TV.
In the wake of the ongoing crisis in Syria and the continued
confrontation between the government forces and the foreign
mercenaries, FNA has conducted an exclusive interview with Prof.
Fetzer. What follows is the text of the interview.
Q: Several Arab countries have dispatched mercenaries and fighters to
take part in the ongoing battle against the government of President
Bashar al-Assad. In what ways do these countries benefit from
instability and insecurity in Syria? Why are they sending terrorists
and fighters to Syria?
A: That Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both involved when they are both
allies of the United States yet support diverse objectives reflects
the complexity of the situation. Qatar supports the rise of the Muslim
Brotherhood, which came to power in Egypt and Tunisia, but where the
Egyptian military coup has now stemmed that ascent. The U.S.-Saudi
alliance appears to be intended to minimize the influence of the
Brotherhood, while creating a counter-balance to the influence of
Iran in the Middle East, which Israel also supports.
While the Brotherhood was founded in 1928 and may be the best
organized and most politically powerful Arab political movement, its
participation in the attempt to assassinate Gamal Abdel Nasser led
to a political crackdown in Egypt, where many of its followers found
refuge in Saudi Arabia. After supporting the overthrow of Muammar
Gaddafi in Libya, the Saudis appear to be increasingly concerned
about an increase in its influence, which they fear will promote
Shiite interests at the expense of the Sunnis.
The Persian Gulf Cooperation Council--which was created to fashion
a common plan among the Sunni monarchies of Saudi Arabia, UAE,
Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman--to resist Iran and support the Syrian
rebels--has its own internal conflicts, where Saudi Arabia and Qatar
are especially concerned that the Assad regime might prevail and the
influence of Shiite Iran be enhanced. It therefore appears that a mix
of religious and political motives have led to their involvement with
and support of the Syrian rebels.
Q: There are certain Western states who are opposed to the involvement
of Iran in the peace talks to end the crisis in Syria. Why do these
countries don't accept the fact that Iran is an essential and integral
part of solution for bringing to an end the two-year long unrest
in Syria?
A: The United States may be attempting to replay the events in
Afghanistan by providing weapons to the rebels, where Stinger missiles,
especially, were instrumental in shooting down large numbers of its
helicopters and planes and driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan,
which is well portrayed in the film, "Charlie Wilson's Role", apart
from omitting the crucial role of Osama bin Laden, who was "our man
in Afghanistan". The demonization of bin Laden and of al-Qaeda for the
attacks of 9/11, which were carried out by the CIA, American neo-cons
in the Pentagon and the Mossad, further complicates understanding what
has been taking place in Syria. Al-Qaeda was a creation of the CIA.
For Western nations to oppose the participation of Iran in peace
talks is completely absurd. Since important elements of the Syrian
rebel force have openly allied themselves with al-Qaeda, current US
foreign policy in attacking al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but supporting it
in Syria, is inconsistent and even bizarre. This case represents the
kinds of complications that are compounded by one set of lies (about
9/11) becoming intertwined by another - in relation to Syria and Iran.
The duplicity of the US media makes it very difficult, if not
impossible, for the American public to understand the depths of
duplicity of US involvement in the Middle East, which is predicated
upon lies nested within lies.
Q: Turkey had always tried to maintain a policy of "zero problems
with the neighbors" but today it is one of the main fronts of war on
Syria and the government of President Assad. Why has Turkey engaged
in the destructive activities and plots which continue to undermine
Syria's peace and stability? Why does the Turkish government allow the
smuggling of arms and weaponry into Syria's soil through its borders?
A: On 30 January 2013, following the first Israeli attack on Damascus,
Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu criticized Syria for not
attacking Israel and blamed it for committing crimes against its own
people, which appear to have been committed by NATO and mercenary
forces instead. For Syrians to take on Israel at that point in time,
when Israel has 200-600 nukes and Syria has none, would have been
foolhardy. Russian intervention on behalf of Syria, however, has
completely reversed the balance of force and will moderate Turkish
enthusiasm for further involvement in Syria.
Benjamin Netanyahu went to considerable lengths to induce Barak Obama
to draw "a red line", which became the use of chemical weapons by the
Syrian government against its own people. This was a transparently
obvious form of entrapment since, once Obama committed the US to such
a stance, Netanyahu could arrange to make sure that happened. The
claims that Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people,
however, have been investigated by the UN and found to be without
foundation. On 5 May 2013, Carla del Ponte, UN human rights official,
stated the results of the UN's own independent commission on Syria,
according to which the use of Sarin gas had been done by the rebel
forces rather than the Syrian government.
After the second Israeli attack on Damascus, Mr. Erdogan stated that,
if the US were to launch an invasion of Syria, Turkey would support
it, which amounted to a declaration of war against Syria and was
immediately suppressed. He claimed that Syria had long since crossed
Obama's "red line" and that Turkey would provide evidence to Obama to
substantiate it. Like the claims made by US officials to the Taliban
that they would produce proof of Osama bin Laden's involvement in
the atrocities of 9/11, however, when they met on 16 May 2013, no
evidence was forthcoming, one more sign that the only justification
that has been produced against Assad has been faked and fabricated.
Q: What's your viewpoint regarding the appointment of Qatar's new
Emir and the approach he will adopt with regard to the crisis in Syria?
Will he change the attitude taken by his father and move towards
supporting a Syrian-Syrian solution to the crisis in the Arab country?
A: In his most recent interviews, Qatar's new Emir Sheikh Tamim
bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani has affirmed that Qatar continues
to support the Syrian National Council, which is the principal
group opposing the government of Syria. Under the circumstances,
a Syrian-Syrian settlement would surely be preferable, but recent
developments suggest that the conflict is in the process of being
settled in Assad's favor on the battlefield, where a peace conference
would simply ratify the reality on the ground.
During an interview on Turkish television in April, Assad observed
that, if the militants were to take over Syria, the consequence could
be the destabilization of the Middle East for decades. "If the unrest
in Syria leads to the partitioning of the country, or if the terrorist
forces take control," he observed, "the situation will inevitably
spill over into the neighboring countries and create a domino effect
throughout the Middle East and beyond". While the domino theory in
Southeast Asia was a pseudo-justification for US intervention in that
case, in the Middle East, Assad may be correct.
Q: Irish journalist Patrick Cockburn has said that the Western
mainstream media portray a distorted and false image of Syria and that
he figured out that the reality of Syria today is totally different
from what the Western media claim. What's your viewpoint on that? Is
this distorted and unrealistic portrayal a prelude for laying the
groundwork for a military intervention in Syria?
A: The stance of hawks such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, her
successor as Secretary of State, verge on the absurd. Secretary Kerry
acquitted himself with honor when, as a returning Vietnam War veteran,
he testified to the Congress about atrocities being committed there by
American forces. Now he wants to side with the Free Syrian Army and the
Al-Nusra front, which, according to the UN, has committed more than 300
acts of terrorism and qualifies as a "terrorist organization". When a
Free Syrian Army officer was filmed eating the heart of a dead Syrian
soldier, the honor that had formerly been associated with the name of
"John Kerry" was tarnished forever.
The US has no warrant or justification for intervention in Syria,
which appears to be but one more step in the plan to overthrow seven
Arab nations in the next five years that Gen. Wesley Clark learned
upon his return to the Pentagon from serving as Supreme Commander,
Allied Forces Europe. Syria and Iran are the last stages in that plan,
which was formulated in the wake of 9/11 to dismantle the sophisticated
Arab states--and eventually Persian Iran--on the basis of the faked
and fabricated events of 9/11.
9/11 benefitted Israel overwhelmingly more than any other nation and
appear to have its roots in the book, "Terrorism: How the West Can
Win", which Bibi Netanyahu published in 1987, long before there was
any apparent reason for the US to become involved in the Middle East.
The demise of the Soviet Union in 1990-91 created what the members of
PNAC (the Project for the New American Century) was a unique historical
opportunity with the US as the sole remaining superpower to create a
new American Empire by moving aggressively into the Middle East if
only the public would accept it--which they mused might require a
"new Pearl Harbor", which they arranged to come to pass.
Most Americans have no idea that 9/11 was staged to change the US
foreign policy from one in which the US never attacked any nation that
had not attacked it first to that of an aggressor nation as well as to
gut the Constitution and created a Department of Homeland Security,
because the mass media has long been dominated by US intelligence
agencies and no longer informs the American people of transgressions
by its own government. But the exposure of massive surveillance of the
public's email, phone, financial and medical records by the National
Security Agency has become a significant subject of discussion for the
first time, extending to our European allies, who are taking a dim view
of being spied upon by their most important ally, the United States.
Q: The United States has tacitly and implicitly warned that it may
intervene in Syria militarily to dissolve the government of Bashar
al-Assad. Will the countries that are supporting Syria against the
Western powers and foreign terrorists, like Russia and China, allow
an unsanctioned military strike on Syria by the United States and its
allies? Will the United States succeed in launching a new war in the
region, given its failed experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan?
A: The Israeli attacks on Syria, which even appear to have involved
the use of mini-nukes, appear to have been a colossal blunder. It
created an opening for Russia to take measures in support of Syria
on both humanitarian grounds and in defense of international law,
which neither the US nor Israel respect. Putin even called Netanyahu in
Singapore and advised him that Russia would not permit another Israeli
attack on Syria. News reports in war zones are inevitably incomplete
and often misleading, but the situation now appears to be as follows.
Russia has provided Syria with S-300 (and probably even S-400)
anti-missile technology, which appears to be the world's best. Russia
has withdrawn its forces and ships at the naval based at Tartus but
has positioned a sophisticated spy ship in the vicinity to monitor
military developments, which does not signal any weakening of Russian
resolve but are appropriate preparations for what may become a nuclear
war over Syria.
The Assad forces are making great progress in putting down the
artificial uprising, which gained public sympathy because of false flag
massacres of villages in Syria, which were blamed on the government but
appear to have been committed by mercenaries and others, just as the UN
itself has concluded that the alleged use of chemical weapons in small
quantities appears to have been done, not by the government, but by the
rebels. Under these circumstances, US intervention at this stage only
complicates a losing proposition for American interests and creates
yet one more reason to oppose US involvement in the Middle East.
Interview by Kourosh Ziabari
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920416000534
Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:42
TEHRAN (FNA)- American philosopher and political author James H.
Fetzer believes that the United States is openly supporting Al-Qaeda
and the extremist Salafist and Takfiri groups in Syria and equipping
the rebels and insurgents inside the country with sophisticated
weapons and arms.
"The Assad forces are making great progress in putting down the
artificial uprising, which gained public sympathy because of false flag
massacres of villages in Syria, which were blamed on the government
but appear to have been committed by mercenaries and others, just as
the UN itself has concluded that the alleged use of chemical weapons
in small quantities appears to have been done, not by the government,
but by the rebels," said Fetzer in an exclusive interview with Fars
News Agency.
James H. Fetzer is a retired philosophy professor at the University
of Minnesota Duluth. He has written several books on the philosophy of
science, artificial intelligence, evolution and also tens of political
articles about the 9/11 events and the U.S. foreign policy. Fetzer's
articles have appeared on a number of print and online publications
including Veterans Today and Press TV.
In the wake of the ongoing crisis in Syria and the continued
confrontation between the government forces and the foreign
mercenaries, FNA has conducted an exclusive interview with Prof.
Fetzer. What follows is the text of the interview.
Q: Several Arab countries have dispatched mercenaries and fighters to
take part in the ongoing battle against the government of President
Bashar al-Assad. In what ways do these countries benefit from
instability and insecurity in Syria? Why are they sending terrorists
and fighters to Syria?
A: That Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both involved when they are both
allies of the United States yet support diverse objectives reflects
the complexity of the situation. Qatar supports the rise of the Muslim
Brotherhood, which came to power in Egypt and Tunisia, but where the
Egyptian military coup has now stemmed that ascent. The U.S.-Saudi
alliance appears to be intended to minimize the influence of the
Brotherhood, while creating a counter-balance to the influence of
Iran in the Middle East, which Israel also supports.
While the Brotherhood was founded in 1928 and may be the best
organized and most politically powerful Arab political movement, its
participation in the attempt to assassinate Gamal Abdel Nasser led
to a political crackdown in Egypt, where many of its followers found
refuge in Saudi Arabia. After supporting the overthrow of Muammar
Gaddafi in Libya, the Saudis appear to be increasingly concerned
about an increase in its influence, which they fear will promote
Shiite interests at the expense of the Sunnis.
The Persian Gulf Cooperation Council--which was created to fashion
a common plan among the Sunni monarchies of Saudi Arabia, UAE,
Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman--to resist Iran and support the Syrian
rebels--has its own internal conflicts, where Saudi Arabia and Qatar
are especially concerned that the Assad regime might prevail and the
influence of Shiite Iran be enhanced. It therefore appears that a mix
of religious and political motives have led to their involvement with
and support of the Syrian rebels.
Q: There are certain Western states who are opposed to the involvement
of Iran in the peace talks to end the crisis in Syria. Why do these
countries don't accept the fact that Iran is an essential and integral
part of solution for bringing to an end the two-year long unrest
in Syria?
A: The United States may be attempting to replay the events in
Afghanistan by providing weapons to the rebels, where Stinger missiles,
especially, were instrumental in shooting down large numbers of its
helicopters and planes and driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan,
which is well portrayed in the film, "Charlie Wilson's Role", apart
from omitting the crucial role of Osama bin Laden, who was "our man
in Afghanistan". The demonization of bin Laden and of al-Qaeda for the
attacks of 9/11, which were carried out by the CIA, American neo-cons
in the Pentagon and the Mossad, further complicates understanding what
has been taking place in Syria. Al-Qaeda was a creation of the CIA.
For Western nations to oppose the participation of Iran in peace
talks is completely absurd. Since important elements of the Syrian
rebel force have openly allied themselves with al-Qaeda, current US
foreign policy in attacking al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but supporting it
in Syria, is inconsistent and even bizarre. This case represents the
kinds of complications that are compounded by one set of lies (about
9/11) becoming intertwined by another - in relation to Syria and Iran.
The duplicity of the US media makes it very difficult, if not
impossible, for the American public to understand the depths of
duplicity of US involvement in the Middle East, which is predicated
upon lies nested within lies.
Q: Turkey had always tried to maintain a policy of "zero problems
with the neighbors" but today it is one of the main fronts of war on
Syria and the government of President Assad. Why has Turkey engaged
in the destructive activities and plots which continue to undermine
Syria's peace and stability? Why does the Turkish government allow the
smuggling of arms and weaponry into Syria's soil through its borders?
A: On 30 January 2013, following the first Israeli attack on Damascus,
Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu criticized Syria for not
attacking Israel and blamed it for committing crimes against its own
people, which appear to have been committed by NATO and mercenary
forces instead. For Syrians to take on Israel at that point in time,
when Israel has 200-600 nukes and Syria has none, would have been
foolhardy. Russian intervention on behalf of Syria, however, has
completely reversed the balance of force and will moderate Turkish
enthusiasm for further involvement in Syria.
Benjamin Netanyahu went to considerable lengths to induce Barak Obama
to draw "a red line", which became the use of chemical weapons by the
Syrian government against its own people. This was a transparently
obvious form of entrapment since, once Obama committed the US to such
a stance, Netanyahu could arrange to make sure that happened. The
claims that Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people,
however, have been investigated by the UN and found to be without
foundation. On 5 May 2013, Carla del Ponte, UN human rights official,
stated the results of the UN's own independent commission on Syria,
according to which the use of Sarin gas had been done by the rebel
forces rather than the Syrian government.
After the second Israeli attack on Damascus, Mr. Erdogan stated that,
if the US were to launch an invasion of Syria, Turkey would support
it, which amounted to a declaration of war against Syria and was
immediately suppressed. He claimed that Syria had long since crossed
Obama's "red line" and that Turkey would provide evidence to Obama to
substantiate it. Like the claims made by US officials to the Taliban
that they would produce proof of Osama bin Laden's involvement in
the atrocities of 9/11, however, when they met on 16 May 2013, no
evidence was forthcoming, one more sign that the only justification
that has been produced against Assad has been faked and fabricated.
Q: What's your viewpoint regarding the appointment of Qatar's new
Emir and the approach he will adopt with regard to the crisis in Syria?
Will he change the attitude taken by his father and move towards
supporting a Syrian-Syrian solution to the crisis in the Arab country?
A: In his most recent interviews, Qatar's new Emir Sheikh Tamim
bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani has affirmed that Qatar continues
to support the Syrian National Council, which is the principal
group opposing the government of Syria. Under the circumstances,
a Syrian-Syrian settlement would surely be preferable, but recent
developments suggest that the conflict is in the process of being
settled in Assad's favor on the battlefield, where a peace conference
would simply ratify the reality on the ground.
During an interview on Turkish television in April, Assad observed
that, if the militants were to take over Syria, the consequence could
be the destabilization of the Middle East for decades. "If the unrest
in Syria leads to the partitioning of the country, or if the terrorist
forces take control," he observed, "the situation will inevitably
spill over into the neighboring countries and create a domino effect
throughout the Middle East and beyond". While the domino theory in
Southeast Asia was a pseudo-justification for US intervention in that
case, in the Middle East, Assad may be correct.
Q: Irish journalist Patrick Cockburn has said that the Western
mainstream media portray a distorted and false image of Syria and that
he figured out that the reality of Syria today is totally different
from what the Western media claim. What's your viewpoint on that? Is
this distorted and unrealistic portrayal a prelude for laying the
groundwork for a military intervention in Syria?
A: The stance of hawks such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, her
successor as Secretary of State, verge on the absurd. Secretary Kerry
acquitted himself with honor when, as a returning Vietnam War veteran,
he testified to the Congress about atrocities being committed there by
American forces. Now he wants to side with the Free Syrian Army and the
Al-Nusra front, which, according to the UN, has committed more than 300
acts of terrorism and qualifies as a "terrorist organization". When a
Free Syrian Army officer was filmed eating the heart of a dead Syrian
soldier, the honor that had formerly been associated with the name of
"John Kerry" was tarnished forever.
The US has no warrant or justification for intervention in Syria,
which appears to be but one more step in the plan to overthrow seven
Arab nations in the next five years that Gen. Wesley Clark learned
upon his return to the Pentagon from serving as Supreme Commander,
Allied Forces Europe. Syria and Iran are the last stages in that plan,
which was formulated in the wake of 9/11 to dismantle the sophisticated
Arab states--and eventually Persian Iran--on the basis of the faked
and fabricated events of 9/11.
9/11 benefitted Israel overwhelmingly more than any other nation and
appear to have its roots in the book, "Terrorism: How the West Can
Win", which Bibi Netanyahu published in 1987, long before there was
any apparent reason for the US to become involved in the Middle East.
The demise of the Soviet Union in 1990-91 created what the members of
PNAC (the Project for the New American Century) was a unique historical
opportunity with the US as the sole remaining superpower to create a
new American Empire by moving aggressively into the Middle East if
only the public would accept it--which they mused might require a
"new Pearl Harbor", which they arranged to come to pass.
Most Americans have no idea that 9/11 was staged to change the US
foreign policy from one in which the US never attacked any nation that
had not attacked it first to that of an aggressor nation as well as to
gut the Constitution and created a Department of Homeland Security,
because the mass media has long been dominated by US intelligence
agencies and no longer informs the American people of transgressions
by its own government. But the exposure of massive surveillance of the
public's email, phone, financial and medical records by the National
Security Agency has become a significant subject of discussion for the
first time, extending to our European allies, who are taking a dim view
of being spied upon by their most important ally, the United States.
Q: The United States has tacitly and implicitly warned that it may
intervene in Syria militarily to dissolve the government of Bashar
al-Assad. Will the countries that are supporting Syria against the
Western powers and foreign terrorists, like Russia and China, allow
an unsanctioned military strike on Syria by the United States and its
allies? Will the United States succeed in launching a new war in the
region, given its failed experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan?
A: The Israeli attacks on Syria, which even appear to have involved
the use of mini-nukes, appear to have been a colossal blunder. It
created an opening for Russia to take measures in support of Syria
on both humanitarian grounds and in defense of international law,
which neither the US nor Israel respect. Putin even called Netanyahu in
Singapore and advised him that Russia would not permit another Israeli
attack on Syria. News reports in war zones are inevitably incomplete
and often misleading, but the situation now appears to be as follows.
Russia has provided Syria with S-300 (and probably even S-400)
anti-missile technology, which appears to be the world's best. Russia
has withdrawn its forces and ships at the naval based at Tartus but
has positioned a sophisticated spy ship in the vicinity to monitor
military developments, which does not signal any weakening of Russian
resolve but are appropriate preparations for what may become a nuclear
war over Syria.
The Assad forces are making great progress in putting down the
artificial uprising, which gained public sympathy because of false flag
massacres of villages in Syria, which were blamed on the government but
appear to have been committed by mercenaries and others, just as the UN
itself has concluded that the alleged use of chemical weapons in small
quantities appears to have been done, not by the government, but by the
rebels. Under these circumstances, US intervention at this stage only
complicates a losing proposition for American interests and creates
yet one more reason to oppose US involvement in the Middle East.
Interview by Kourosh Ziabari
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress