Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 8 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Is This the Man Who "Radicalized" Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

By       (Page 4 of 5 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.     (# of views)   2 comments
Author 43658
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Joe Giambrone
Become a Fan
  (28 fans)

Former National Security Agency officer Wayne Madsen says , "The Jamestown Foundation is part of a neo-conservative network that re-branded itself after the Cold War from being anti-Soviet and anti-Communist to one that is anti-Russian and "pro-democracy.'"   Madsen notes several further connections.   "The network not only consists of Jamestown and the Caucasus Fund but also other groups funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the [George Soros] Open Society Institute (OSI).

Jamestown and Caucasus Fund were flagged by Georgian state security as holding training seminars in 2012 attended by none other than Tamerlan Tsarnaev during his trip to Russia in the first half of the year.   This second connection between Jamestown Foundation and the Tsarnaev brothers bolsters the idea that the two brothers were being recruited by US intelligence and were not "lone wolves" as is presented uncritically across the US corporate media spectrum.   A further connection to both the CIA and to USAID leads directly to the boys' uncle Ruslan Tsarni .   That's three.     And now we have reasonable suspicion to investigate further persons associated with these shady and highly-motivated organizations.

USAID, which uncle Ruslan Tsarni worked with -- or more likely for -- since the 1990s, was recently expelled from Russia for interfering in the internal politics of that country.     This interference is a consistent pattern, one that has flipped multiple countries from the Russian alliance to the NATO/US alliance, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Ukraine.

Back to Chechnya

Brian Glyn Williams' so-called expertise on the Chechen conflict stems directly from official US policy since the Cold War, and that is a policy to break up the Soviet Union and Russia in order to weaken it, and to therefore strengthen the US / NATO alliance and expand it into Asia.   The dissolution of Chechnya and Dagestan is seen as a continuation of the break-up of the rest of the Soviet Union, despite Chechnya being a part of Russia for 150 years.   The Chechen insurgency of the 1990s sprung up in similar fashion to other radical Islamic insurgencies promoted by the US and its allies throughout Central Asia.   Numerous foreign fighters flooded in to fight the Russians in similar fashion to the Afghanistan Jihad, also known as Operation Cyclone.

Brian Glyn Williams' 2004 paper on the subject provides clues to his motivations, and they are far from neutral or academic.   In From "Secessionist Rebels" to "Al-Qaeda Shock Brigades": Assessing Russia's Efforts to Extend the Post-September 11th War on Terror to Chechnya, Williams wrote, ""Condoleeza Rice, tellingly proclaimed "not every Chechen is a terrorist and the Chechens' legitimate aspirations for a political solution should be pursued by the Russian government.'"  

In other words, the US demanded that secession and the break-up of Russia be permitted by the Russian government.   When the United States itself faced secession and break-up in 1860, this was not exactly welcomed by those in power.  

The strategy of defining terrorists working in the interests of US policymakers as "freedom fighters" and dismissing their atrocities by characterizing them as the work of a small "minority," seems to originate with Zbigniew Brzezinski.   Williams quotes Brzezinski in the piece: "What should be done? To start with the US should not fall for Russia's entreaty that 'we are allies against Osama bin Laden'... Terrorism is neither the geopolitical nor moral challenge here [in Chechnya]."

This is an ideological foundation for ignoring terrorism whenever and wherever it suits US interests.   Such has been the policy for a long, long time and in the Muslim world easily shown back to 1979.    Terrorism in Chechnya is described by Professor Williams as not being from the majority, but from a minority.   Essentially a straw man argument, no one would claim that terrorists are a majority in the first place.    This exact argument is used by US apologists concerning Syria today in regards to the Al Qaeda connected Al Nusra Brigades operating there.  

In The Atlantic on April 26th of this year, Brian Glyn Williams told American readers, "There is a minority among the rebels that subscribe to the global view of jihad.   But overall Chechens are very pro-American and pro-Western."   The first sentence claims a minority "among the rebels," but the second statement seeks to bolster the first claim by mentioning "overall" about Chechen civilians in general.   The first claim, however is false, and the actual fighters committing bombings, hostage takings and shootings in Russia on behalf of Chechen independence are connected with Doku Umarov and his Jihad to establish Sharia Law.   Therefore Williams is wrong on the facts today and misleading his readers.

One of the most useful sources of information to debunk Brian Glyn Williams is, surprisingly enough, Brian Glyn Williams' own papers, like the 2004 piece cited above.   "" President Bush went on to declare that "Arab terrorists' linked to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization were operating on Chechen territory and ought to be "brought to justice.'28   U. S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, went a step further and proclaimed "Russia is fighting terrorists in Chechnya, there is no question about that, and we understand that."   His entire paper reads like a Cold War propaganda piece designed to dispute the assessment of even Bush and Powell and to put forth the myth that the Chechens are not in any way, shape or form linked to Al Qaeda, which is a demonstrably false premise.   Williams mentions that the Taliban recognized the breakaway Chechen Emirate as a legitimate government in 2000, but he dismisses this fact as a "purely symbolic gesture."

Remember, this is the man who is currently authoring a book to destroy the idea that Chechen terrorism is in any way linked to Al Qaeda.   His April 19th interview with Steve Urbon ended with,   "[Chechens] are not Al Qaeda. Repeat: They are not Al Qaeda."   Chechen fighters, however, are overwhelmingly radical Islamists, and this is where Williams is debunked as a tale spinner.

In the Huffington Post , April 25th, Williams wrote, "I myself personally traveled to Afghanistan in 2003 and interviewed numerous Taliban prisoners of war held by Northern Alliance Uzbek General Dostum." Williams does not disclose his CIA assignment on that trip nor who this General Dostum actually is .   Patrick Cockburn described Dostum as follows.   "In northern Afghanistan General Rashid Dostum, a warlord of notorious brutality but an ally of the CIA, had hundreds, if not thousands, of prisoners buried alive or packed into containers to suffocate."  

Here with Dostum and friends, the ever-objective Professor Williams found a consistent story: no Chechens.   "None of them had ever seen or heard of Chechens; it was like looking for the Chechen Big Foot ."   That's a nice story, but is it the truth?

In his 2004 report, Williams tells how this very question was essentially the purpose of his mission, his CIA assignment.   "My goal was to see if any of these prisoners of war had seen or fought alongside one of the "thousands' of "Chechen die-hard Al Qaeda fanatics' reported to have fought against U. S. forces in the Afghan theater."   His mission was to make the distinction between Chechens and Al Qaeda, apparently at the behest of the CIA.   He has been dutifully repeating this claim ever since.   His new book to be released next year, entitled "Inferno in the Caucus: The Chechen insurgency and the Mirage of Al Qaeda," will attempt to make this same argument again.

Mark Ames at NSFWCorp was first to challenge Wiliams' "Chechen Big Foot" claim.   Ames compiled a list of articles to dispute Williams.  

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5


Must Read 2   Interesting 2   Well Said 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Joe Giambrone Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Joe Giambrone is an American author, freelance writer and filmmaker. Non-fiction works appear at International Policy Digest, WhoWhatWhy, Foreign Policy Journal, Counterpunch, Globalresearch, , OpedNews, High Times and other online outlets. His science fiction thriller Transfixion and his Hollywood satire (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Is This the Man Who "Radicalized" Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

The Future Children of Fukushima

The U.N. Would Never Lie to George Monbiot

Genocide and the Native American Experience

Nuclear Nightmare Worsens

Do I trust Christopher Nolan or his Batman?