Amaryllis Fox: CIA Whistleblower or Secret Agent of Confusion?

Maybe it’s part of a CIA ‘outreach’ program?

brandon
Image: Anthony Freda 

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

Making quite the circuit on the Internet landscape is a new video purporting to show a former CIA agent speaking out against the manner in which the “war on terror” is prosecuted and portrayed to the American public. The video (see below) has been shared and discussed thousands of times particularly within the alternative media community as evidence that the “war on terror” is one big snowball of bad decisions and blowback.

The video, is a short clip of an interview conducted by AJ+ [Al Jazeera] with Amaryllis Fox, a former CIA Clandestine Services Officer, who makes a number of claims during the three-minute clip that range from the reasonable to the absurd.

While many alternative media outlets have hailed Fox’s video as “brave” and Fox herself as a whistleblower, it would be wise to analyze her statements for what they are as opposed to praising them simply because they are being presented as “anti-establishment.”

Fox makes a surprising amount of claims for three minutes and she also manages to conflate issues, concepts, and people in a cleverly designed monologue that is clearly scripted for effect.

Fox begins by saying:

“If I learned one lesson from my time with the CIA it is this: everybody believes they are the good guy. I was an officer with the CIA Clandestine Service and worked undercover on counter terrorism and intelligence all around the world for almost ten years. The conversation that’s going on in the United States right now about ISIS and the United States overseas is more oversimplified than ever.”

Fair enough. Lower level agents of the CIA and most lower level fighters in terrorist organizations or national militaries believe they are the good guys. The propaganda surrounding the “war on terror” is oversimplified. All of this is true indeed. But Fox moves from information easily verified such as the statement above to much more questionable claims. For instance, she says:

Ask most Americans whether ISIS poses an existential threat to this country and they’ll say yes. That’s where the conversation stops. If you’re walking down the street in Iraq or Syria and ask anybody why America dropped bombs, you get: “They were waging a war on Islam.

And you walk in America and you ask why we were attacked on 9/11, and you get “They hate us because we’re free.” Those are stories, manufactured by a really small number of people on both sides who amass a great deal of power and wealth by convincing the rest of us to keep killing each other.

Fox is correct on the latter part of her statement. Much of these stories are indeed manufactured by a small number of people in order to drum up support for foreign invasions and a police state back at home. But who exactly is Fox talking to on the streets of Syria and Iraq that would respond “a war on Islam” to the question of why the United States is dropping bombs on their country?

It certainly isn’t the average Syrian as she tries to portray. In fact, if one were to go to the average Syrian on the street and ask “Why is America dropping bombs?” the answer would almost always be centered around Israel.

Almost every researcher is aware of this fact but not one time was the word “Israel” mentioned in Fox’s interview. The “war on Islam” line is typically reserved only for the more fanatical religious zealots who make up the so-called “opposition.” So what is Fox suggesting? Is she suggesting that the average Syrian holds the same belief system as the average al-Qaeda fighter?

Actually, that is exactly what she is doing, regardless of whether or not she states it explicitly or not. She continues:

“I think the question we need to be asking, as Americans examining our foreign policy, is whether or not we are pouring kerosene on a candle. The only real way to disarm your enemy is to listen to them. If you hear them out, if you’re brave enough to really listen to their story, you can see that more often than not, you might have made some of the same choices if you’d lived their life instead of yours. An al-Qaeda fighter made a point once during a debriefing.

He said all these movies that America makes, like Independence Day, and Hunger Games and Star Wars, they’re all about a small scrappy band of rebels who will do anything in their power with the limited resources available to them to expel and outside, technologically advanced invader. And what you don’t realize, he said, is that to us, to the rest of the world, you are the empire, and we are Luke and Han. You are the aliens and we are Will Smith.”

Fox is implying that there was a “fundamentalist al-Qaeda” problem before America’s foreign policy was formed. In other words, that the problem existed and that the United States perhaps acted rashly in dealing with it. But the fact is that the al-Qaeda issue never would have existed in the first place had the United States not invented it.

Indeed, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other related terrorist organizations are entirely creations of the U.S. government and the NATO apparatus. While Fox may be forgiven for not knowing this little detail, not knowing the difference between a fundamentalist al-Qaeda fanatic and an average Syrian is not excusable. That is, assuming that the mistake is actually a mistake and not an intentional attempt to mislead the audience.

Fox also provides questionable analogies when she discusses the al-Qaeda fighters’ interpretation of Hollywood movies. If the fighter was so convinced that the U.S. is the empire (fair point – it is) and al-Qaeda is the equivalent of Luke and Han, why did al-Qaeda attack the Syrian government? Why did they attack the Iraqi government? Why did they attack the Libyan government?

This would be the equivalent of Luke and Han attacking the Galactic Republic while claiming to fight the Empire. It doesn’t make sense. Continuing with the Star Wars analogy, Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad, and Muammar Ghaddaffi would represent the Republic and those nations’ militaries along with Iraq’s “insurgents” fighting back against the U.S. would be the true rebels. Fox should know this very well.

Nevertheless, Fox concluded her statements by saying:

“But the truth is when you talk to the people who are really fighting on the ground on both sides, and ask them why they’re there, they answer with hopes for their children, specific policies that they think are cruel or unfair. And while it may be easier to dismiss your enemy as evil, hearing them out on policy concerns is actually an amazing thing. Because as long as your enemy is a subhuman psychopath that’s going to attack you no matter what you do, this never ends. But if your enemy is a policy, however complicated, that we can work with.”

So, again, the question would be “who is Fox actually talking about?” When she references “the people who are really fighting on the ground on both sides“, does she mean U.S. forces and terrorists vs the Syrian military? Does she exclude the U.S. military?

Her statements simply do nothing to clarify the reality on the ground, only to confuse it…

Continue reading this story at Activist Post

FOR MORE ON THE CIA: 21st Century Wire CIA Files


CIA ‘Makes Up’ Chemical Weapons Evidence to Justify US Assad-Must-Go Policy

A United Nations (UN) arms expert collects samples, as he inspect the site where rockets had fallen in Damascus' eastern Ghouta suburb during an investigation into a suspected chemical weapons strike near the capital (File)
 CIA Director Mike Pompeo said that the United States possesses evidence that the Syrian Army was involved in the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian province of Idlib earlier this year.

According to Pompeo, following the chemical incident on April 4 in Khan Sheihoun, President Donald Trump demanded that the truth about what happened be found out. Pompeo said that after Trump’s demand the US intelligence community began to work on the issue and held contacts with US partners.”I told him [Trump] that the intelligence community had concluded that the chemical weapon had indeed been used in the attack and it had been launched by the Syrian regime… I knew that the intelligence community had solid evidence… I said to Mr. President that we have high confidence that this really took place,” Pompeo said Tuesday at a dinner hosted by the Intelligence National Security Alliance.

In an interview with Radio Sputnik, Oleg Glazunov, a military analyst and associate professor of the Sociology and Political Science Department at the Russian Plekhanov Economic University, expressed doubts over Pompeo’s statement.

“They don’t have evidence. This is a double standards policy again. Just remember the situation with Iraq – chemical weapons and the white substance in a jar. Later, it was found out that all of that was falsified. Now, there is a falsification again,” Glazunov said.

The expert stressed that while accusing Damascus of using chemical weapons Washington turns a blind eye to the well-known fact that Daesh terrorists have such weapons.”There was a large chemical laboratory in Mosul. Former specialists of Saddam Hussein’s army and specialists from Europe and the US worked there. They helped Daesh produce chemical weapons. But these facts are ignored. Instead, they make up stories and myths about [Syrian President] Bashar Assad,” Glazunov said.

According to him, CIA operatives are “craftsmen of falsified stories.”

“They’re doing this to change regime in Syria. They would even make a deal with the devil if it was necessary to remove Assad from power,” the expert concluded.

On April 4, the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces supported by the US blamed the Syrian government for an alleged chemical weapon attack in Khan Sheikhoun in Syria’s Idlib province.Reacting to the incident, Washington, which had not presented any proof of the chemical weapons use by Damascus, launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Syrian governmental military airfield in Ash Sha’irat on April 6.

Damascus has repeatedly denied any involvement in the incident and said that the Syrian government doesn’t possess chemical weapons as the full destruction of Damascus’ chemical weapons stockpile had been confirmed by the OPCW in January 2016.

In an interview with Sputnik on April 21, President Assad characterized the alleged chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun as a provocation to justify the US strike on Ash Sha’irat. The Syrian leader also warned of the possibility of the new provocations similar to the one in Khan Sheikhoun.

Last week, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that terrorists in Syria were planning to stage provocations involving chemical weapons in order to justify US strikes on the Syrian Army and its allies.

“According to information available [to us], Syrian terrorist groups plan staged provocative actions with the use of chemical poison gases to justify US strikes against the positions of the Syrian government forces,” Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova said at a daily press briefing.

She added that Daesh has deployed chemical laboratories and special equipment for creating chemical bombs to Deir ez-Zor from Raqqa.A week earlier, the White House claimed that a new attack involving chemical weapons was in the works by the Syrian government, however, declined to present any evidence. Washington vowed to make Syrian authorities “pay a heavy price” in the case of chemical weapons use.

The Kremlin commented on the White House’s claim and said that it considers the US’ threats against Syrian legitimate leadership to be “unacceptable.” Damascus also denied the information.

*

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s