$158.00 donated in past month
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay FeatureRelated Categories: International | Anti-War
Putin Says Kerry Lied About Al Nusra's Links to Al Qaeda
Russian Pres. Putin called out U.S. Sec of State John Kerry for lying about the known connections and support between Al Nusra and Al Qaeda. It is likely that the Syrian rebel groups are are by now hopelessly interwoven with the Al Nusra Front and thus any attacks on the legitimate Syrian government of Pres. Bashar Al Assad by the U.S. will encourage the growth of Al Nusra and then in time their attacks will turn on U.S. soldiers and civilians.
Sec. of State John Kerry claims that there is no Al Qaeda presence in Syria. This is a bold faced lie as evidence exists that the Syrian rebels are connected with the Al Nusra Front and they are themselves ideologically linked with Al Queda.
"Putin accused Secretary of State Kerry of lying after Kerry denied Al-Qaeda existence in Syria. “He lies and he knows he lies. It’s pretty sad.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin called the false statements made in the U.S. Congress by Secretary of State of the country John Kerry in the debate about a possible intervention in the Syrian conflict. As informs “Interfax” , the statement Putin on Wednesday, September 4, made by the Human Rights Council.
The president said that the question of a congressman in the conflict zone, “Al-Qaeda” Kerry replied that the members of this organization in Syria not. “He’s lying, and he knows because that’s lying. It’s sad, “- Putin said, explaining that now operates in Syria grouping” Al-Nusra Front “, a unit of” Al-Qaeda “, and the U.S. government just know it.
At the same time, according to the transcript of the debate, hosted in the newspaper The Washington Post, U.S. Secretary of State, however, did not deny the presence in Syria, “al-Nusra Front.” Moreover, much of the debate was devoted to, would not a military operation in Syria to strengthen affiliated with “al-Qaeda” groups and the transition of chemical weapons out of the hands of local authorities in the hands of terrorists.
It clarifies the RIA Novosti , Putin believes that Congress, in any case can not authorize the use of force against Syria, as it is outside its competence. According to the Russian president, such a decision can only accept the UN Security Council.Thus, the president, direct U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict without the approval of the Security Council would be an act of aggression.
At the same time, Putin called unfounded allegations of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian authorities. According to the president, such measures are usually applied only in cases where there is no other way out. In Syria, believes Putin, the government control the situation in the country and, in fact, already finish off the remaining rebels, making the use of chemical weapons illogical step.
In Congress, is being discussed a possible military operation against the official government of Syria. Formally, the U.S. President Barack Obama could take a decision on their own, but he chose to enlist the support of Parliament. In this case, the leaders of both houses of Congress have expressed support for the president’s plans. It is expected that in the case of consent on the part of the armed forces of the United States Congress will not conduct a full-scale ground operation, and limited to rocket fire from the Syrian army facilities.
The need for intervention in the ongoing for more than two years the Syrian conflict guide explains the recent U.S. chemical attack near Damascus, which killed, according to various estimates, from 355 to 1,400 people. Rebels blamed for what happened to the Syrian authorities, who in turn called the incident a provocation by the opposition. U.S. authorities and a number of NATO member states sided with the rebels, while the Russian authorities called the opposition’s arguments unconvincing. In the case of a vote in the UN Security Council, Russia can block a resolution on military action in Syria, as it has a right of veto. Nevertheless, Obama said he hoped for a change in Russia’s position on the issue."
Another question to ask is whether the Syrian rebels and Al Nusra are themselves in possession of chemical weapons. The military-industrial complex says they do not have this access, though there is dispute about this denial. Then why did Turkish security forces find a 2 kg cylinder of sarin gas in the possession of the Al Nusra rebels last May?
"Since the reported chemical attack last Wednesday, the Obama administration and members of Congress have been pushing the line that Syria’s President Bashar al Assad ordered the use of a chemical weapon on the outskits of Damascus.
According to CNN, one U.S. officials claims “There is nothing credible to indicate that the rebels, either the Syrian National Council or even al-Nusra Front, have used chemical weapons,” the official said. “Only the Assad regime is responsible for chemical weapons use.”
But that statement is false. When it comes to this latest incident, at this point we don’t know what kind of chemical might have been used. Nor do we know who used it. Some of the claims early on from “unnamed government sources” were that sarin gas was used in that Damascus suburb. The use of sarin gas would point toward the Assad regime, would it not?
Not necessarily. What our national media isn’t telling you is that in May Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front. Where did the sarin gas come from? We don’t know. But clearly, Al Nusra Front has access to sarin gas and was planning a use for it.
President Obama and his administration keep talking about “the red line” that would have to be crossed in order to bring the United States into this conflict. That “red line” is consistently touted as responding to chemical weapons.
As we’ve reported, the U.S. is already involved:
There are also claims made by former Al Qaeda members that the ringleader of the Al Nusra front is a CIA operative;
"A former al-Qaeda member says the ringleader of the al-Nusra Front, the primary terrorist group in Syria, is an operative of the US Central Intelligence Agency CIA.
“I personally believe that the leader of the Nusra Army who declared his support for Ayman al-Zawahiri is a CIA operative,” Sheikh Naiim, who led an al-Qaeda training camp in Egypt, said in a released video.
Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani, the head of the terrorist al-Nusra Front, said on April 10 that the group was loyal to the al-Qaeda chief al-Zawahiri.
Sheikh Naiim called on those who have joined the foreign-backed al-Nusra Front to be wary of the true objectives of the cause they're fighting for.
He said militants were fighting a war in Syria on behalf of the US, adding Washington was trying to reap its own benefits from the crisis in the Arab country.
He added that the US support for the al-Nusra Front and other militant groups fighting against the Syrian government was part of the same campaign.
Foreign-sponsored militancy in Syria, which erupted in March 2011, has claimed the lives of many people, including large numbers of Syrian soldiers and security personnel.
The al-Nusra Front has been behind many of the deadly bombings targeting both civilians and government institutions across Syria since the beginning of the violence."
The evidence mounts that the Syrian rebellion against President Bashar Al Assad is a CIA sponsored false flag operation that will only put the Wahhabist extremists of Al Nusra and Al Qeada back into the driver's seat in Syria. If there was any better way to destabilize the secular Syrian government the CIA would try it, so for now a fake rebellion led by militant Sunni Wahhabi groups Al Nusra and Al Qaeda are their most likely chances for success. If only the public and other nations would stop telling the truth and exposing the deceptions of the U.S. military-industrial complex!!
The Wahhabi extremists in Al Nusra hate the secular government of Syria and are waging war against Al-Assad for this reason. The U.S. hates the government of Syria because of their close ties with Iran and their independent policies that do not cater to the whim of U.S. empire building efforts. This brings the Wahhabi Al Nusra groups into bed with the U.S. military-industrial complex with the common goal of destroying the secular Shia government of Pres. Al-Assad. By attacking the legitimate government of Syria we are making alliances with the same exact Wahhabi terrorist mentality of Al Qaeda that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Should we include in the overall military-industrial complex category the CIA-terrorist complex responsible for destabilizing foreign governments who don't follow our government's orders??
What are the roots of the U.S. Wahhabi alliance?
US Sponsored “Islamic Fundamentalism”: The Roots of the US-Wahhabi Alliance
By Benjamin Schett
Global Research, September 07, 2012
The alliance between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia helped spread the ideology of fundamentalist Sunni Islam all over the globe. The majority of its victims are not citizens of Western countries, but citizens of countries that U.S. elites consider a threat to their economic and geopolitical interests. Many victims of Sunni extremism (often called Wahhabism or Salafism) are in fact Muslims (often with a secular leftist or nationalist political background), moderate Sunni or members of Shiʿite Islamic faith.
This article addresses the history of Wahhabi fundamentalism and the examples of Afghanistan in the 80s, as well as the current situation in Syria. Both cases illustrate America’s responsibility for the destruction of secular, socially progressive societies in the Islamic world and elsewhere.
The Origins of Wahhabism
Wahhabi ideology serves U.S. interests for several reasons. Its followers’ archaic perception of society makes them reject any kind of progressive social change. Therefore they are well equipped to push back socialist, secular or nationalist movements, whose independence-oriented policies are a threat to America’s geopolitical agenda. Although Wahhabism certainly is not representative of the majority of Sunni Muslims, Wahhabi Muslims are Sunni extremists, which causes them to maintain an extremely hostile stance towards Shi’te Islam.
After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which brought down the secular-nationalist regime of Saddam Hussein (a Sunni), the influence of Shi’ite-dominated Iran increased and caused a certain power shift in favor of Shiʿite Islam in the region. Due to this strengthened Shiʿite representation, American activities in the Middle East in recent years have been almost exclusively directed against Shiʿite interests. The emancipation of deprived Shiʿite masses in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen or Lebanon are contrary to aspirations from the side of the U.S., whose main allies in the region (next to Israel) consist of repressive Sunni regimes and terror groups.
In the case of Syria, President Bashar Al-Assad (an ally of Iran) and the secular Syrian society particularly evoke the hatred of extremists. The fact that Al-Assad belongs to the Alawite minority (a mystical religious group and a branch of Shiʿite Islam) makes him unacceptable to Wahhabi purists.
Portraying Syria ruled solely by its Alawi minority (as some mainstream journalists tend to do) would nevertheless be wrong. As Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya pointed out, among the Syrian top officials killed by a terrorist attack on July 18, 2012, Sunnis and Christians could be found among the Alawites.
It is therefore worth examining the background of these enemies of secularism, multi-faith society and progress. Wahhabism is a puritanical branch of Sunni Islam that was founded in the middle of the 18th Century by Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab, a theologian who propagated holy war and the “purification” of Islam. One of his inspirations was Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328), an early Islamic fundamentalist scholar who opposed any kind of intellectual debate that differentiated between the word of god and its interpretation.
Al-Wahhab and his ideas might have been forgotten by history if he hadn’t made a pact with Muhammad ibn Saud, emir of Al-Diriyah and ruler of the first Saudi state in 1744.
According to Robert Dreyfuss, the Saudi-Wahhabi alliance:
“…began a campaign of killing and plunder all across Arabia, first in central Arabia, then in Asir in Southern Arabia and parts of Yemen, and finally in Rhiadh and the Hijaz. In 1802 they raided the Shiite holy city of Karbala in what is now Iraq, killing most of the city’s population, destroying the dome over the grave of a founder of Shiism, and looting property, weapons, clothing, carpets, gold, silver and precious copies of the Quran.”
In order to keep the faith “pure”, influences from Greek philosophy, Christianity and Judaism had to be exterminated. Intellectuals, artists, scientists and progressive rulers were declared enemies with no right to live.
It goes without saying that the idea of representing the pure teaching of Islam was fanatically pursued; in fact, Wahhabi warriors were fighting in order to spread the most archaic lifestyle that could be found within Arab culture.
In the second half of the 19th century, British imperialism discovered the house of Al Saud as a potentially useful ally in its attempt to gain influence in the Middle-East.
Riadh had been invaded by the Ottoman sultan in 1818. The Al Saud returned to power in 1823, but its area of control was mainly restricted to the Saudi heartland of the Nejd region, known as the second Saudi State. In 1899 the British helped the Al Saud establish a base in its protectorate of Kuwait, in order to reconquer Riadh, at that time ruled by the pro-Ottoman Al Rashid dynasty.
Originally Great Britain’s motivation to gain influence in the Middle-East was caused by their view of Arabia and the Gulf as being “one link in a chain that ran from Suez to India, the two anchors of the empire.” Vast oil reserves would be discovered in the 1930s.
Great Britain became the first country to recognize the new Saudi Arabia as an independent state, establishing its current borders in 1932. A “Treaty of Friendship and Good Understanding” between the British Crown and the Saudi monarch was signed already in 1927. The 1924 integration of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina into the kingdom through military conquest inevitably contributed to firmly entrenching Al Saud’s authority in the Muslim world.
U.S. interest in Saudi Arabia started to grow as well around the same time, and a treaty with the California Arabian Standard Oil Company was agreed upon in 1932. It was the first such agreement created in cooperation with a western oil company.
In the following years and decades, the increasing revenues in oil business enabled the Saudi financing of religious institutions worldwide, propagating extremist interpretations of Islam. The flow of petro-dollars was of great importance to Saudi elites, who adapted a luxurious lifestyle and at the same time maintained an alliance with the Wahhabi base. They also maintained ties to U.S. state officials, who welcomed Saudi oil as well as radical Islam, as long as it was directed against those standing in the way of America’s geopolitical agenda.
“Foreign aid” financed by the Kingdom was tremendous, according to U.S. “anti-terror” expert Alex Alexiev (though he doesn’t acknowledge the U.S. involvement in spreading Wahhabi terror):
“Between 1975 and 1987, the Saudis admit to having spent $48 billion or $4 billion per year on ‘overseas development aid’, a figure which by the end of 2002 grew to over $70 billion (281 billion Saudi rials).These sums are reported to be Saudi state aid and almost certainly do not include private donations which are also distributed by state-controlled charities. Such staggering amounts contrast starkly with the $5 million in terrorist accounts the Saudis claim to have frozen since 9/11.”
A report from September 2009, made by the United States Government Accountability Office, points out the historical relevance of U.S.-Saudi relations:
“Relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia have a long historical context. Since the establishment of the modern Saudi state in 1932, and throughout the Cold War, the governments of the United States and Saudi Arabia developed a relationship based on shared interests, including energy production and combating communism. For instance, both Saudi Arabia and the United States became major supporters of the Afghan Mujahideen’s struggle against the Soviet invasion in 1979.”
Saudi-backed archaic ideology served as an incentive to thousands of confused young men to receive military training in Pakistan in the 1980s, from where they were sent to Afghanistan in order to kill Russians.
America’s ‘Holy War’ against the USSR in Afghanistan
In a famous interview from 1998, former National Security Advisor to President Carter and geopolitical strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, openly admitted that the hidden agenda of U.S. involvement in the war between Soviet troops and Afghan Mujahideen (1979-1988) was about “giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.” He also admitted that American covert support of Islamist fighters in Afghanistan had already started six months prior to the beginning of Soviet intervention in order to create a trap that would eventually lead to the collapse of the USSR. Nothing about this is worth regretting, according to Mr. Brzezinski, not even the U.S. alliance with radical Islam:
“What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”
In addition, the former Pakistani regime under General Zia Ul Haq, whose political program consisted of a plan of “Islamisation” of the country, was the main American ally when it came to training Islamist fighters. This happened under close cooperation between the CIA and the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence). The ideological indoctrination of the people supposed to fight against the Soviets was being delivered by Pakistani madrassas, schools of radical (Wahhabi) Islam, financed by Saudi Arabia.
While U.S. officials justified their support for the Mujahideen by presenting them as some kind of supposed freedom fighters, their Islamist allies showed less restraint in revealing their plans for Afghanistan. One example was the ISI Director General at the time, Akhtar Abdur Rahman Shaheed, who expressed his opinion quite undiplomatically: “Kabul must burn! Kabul must burn!”
While Brzezinski achieved his goal, the fate of Afghanistan is well known: decades of civil war, brutality, analphabetism, the worst possible violation of women’s rights, extreme poverty and sectarian violence. Not to mention pollution by depleted uranium causing a sharp increase in cancer rates thanks to the U.S. bombing campaign from October 2001.
United States and Saudi Arabia against Secular Syria
Many other scenarios involving CIA/Saudi-sponsored terrorism took place in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union (e.g. in Chechnya, Bosnia, Libya etc.).
Currently, Syria’s secular, multi-ethnic and multi-faith society is being targeted by these very same forces, as well as reactionary regimes belonging to the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) and Turkey. As with the war in Afghanistan in the 80s, U.S. involvement in the Syrian crisis is intended to isolate Iran and, once again, target Russia. In conjunction, Wahhabi extremists are carrying out the same work as their forefathers in the 18th Century, namely fighting all tolerant forms of Islam.
Might this have been the reason why insurgents killed the youngest son of Syria’s highest Islamic authority, Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddine Hassoun? Indeed, the position of the Grand Mufti is not aligned with Wahhabi extremism, as was clearly shown in last year’s interview with Der Spiegel:
“I see myself as the grand mufti of all 23 million Syrians, not just Muslims, but also Christians and even atheists. I am a man of dialogue. Who knows, maybe an agnostic will convince me with better arguments one day, and I’ll become a non-believer. And if I’m enthusiastic about the opposition’s political platform, I also might change sides.”
In addition, several events that took place on the day this particular interview are worth noticing:
“During the late afternoon, the grand mufti has other appointments: condolence visits with a Christian and a Muslim family. In the evening, he will have to comfort his wife once again, who is completely distraught over the death of Saria. He was the youngest of the couple’s five sons, and the only one still living at home. Saria’s fellow students are holding a vigil at his stone sarcophagus, even now, four weeks after the murder. The young man’s last resting place can be found in the courtyard of a modest mosque. Sheikh Hassoun visits this sad place every day.”
This certainly does not correspond with the Western media’s picture of fanatical Islamists, who consider the death of their sons a sign of honour and martyrdom, as long as they have died under circumstances that caused the death of “infidels” as well. Such behaviour is encouraged by Saudi Arabia, as can be seen on a shocking video available on YouTube. The shocking footage features a father in Jeddah, selling his son to be sent to Syria as a suicide bomber. Even if one questions the authenticity of the video, the ongoing suicide bombings in Syria are undoubtedly real:
To be sure, the religion of Islam poses just as much or little a threat to the world as the religions of Judaism or Christianity. Nevertheless, certain radical pockets exist who use and abuse religion to justify their disgust for dissent and whose totalitarian practices can only be classified as fascist. Their attempts to destroy reason, progress and humanist ideals make them ideal tools for the most aggressive imperialist factions within the U.S. establishment to push for regime change and implement their exploitative impoverishing agendas.