Your trusted source

Roberto Quaglia, Italian author, is of the opinion that an international coalition made up of Iran, Russia, China, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria ought to be formed to counter ISIL terrorists, stressing that such a collation can be more effective in the rapid eradication of the Takfiri terrorists.

"Obviously a coalition of Iran, Russia, China, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq would be enormously more entitled to effectively counter ISIS (ISIL). In fact, I believe such a coalition would be able to wipe out ISIS quite rapidly. Unless the hidden backers of ISIS further escalate their support to the beheading terrorists, of course," Quaglia said in an exclusive interview with Fars News Agency.

Elsewhere in the interview, he said, "Turkey is clearly playing a major role in the region, and certainly a very questionable one. Turkey has demanded a no-fly zone in the region, and this has been also on the wishlist of the US for a long time now. A no-fly zone was set up in Libya for the declared purpose to protect the Libyan civil population, and we all witnessed how that story ended."

Roberto Quaglia, born 1962, is an Italian author. He's an award winning science fiction author as well as an author of political and sociological essays. His monumental book "The Myth of September 11", about the deceptions centered on the events of September 11, 2001, has been translated and already published in three languages.

What follows is the full text of the interview with this Italian author:

Q: The US formed an international coalition in September to fight against the ISIL terrorists. So far, the US-led airstrikes have failed to stop the ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the members of the coalition. In fact, the backers of the ISIL have joined the so-called anti-ISIL coalition. There is a contradiction here. What’s your view on this? Do you believe that another international coalition made up of Iran, Russia, China, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq ought to be formed in order to stop the terrorist group?

A: The US said that they are willing to fight ISIS (ISIL), but is it true? They said that they have been bombing ISIS forces, but is it true? They said that they don't have a strategy for dealing with ISIS, but is it true? If we switch on our brains and accept to learn the lessons of the past, sadly we have to assume that whatever the US is declaring must be considered false until it's eventually proven true. Specially, when their narrative is contradictory up to the point to become an insult to the intelligence of the public. As an example, let's not forget that the advanced missile defense system which the US has planned to place in Poland and Czech Republic, clearly targets Russia. According to US, it (the defense system) is officially supposed to protect Europe from Iranian ballistic missiles. My guess is that the recent rise of the absurdness of US lies is not at all a mistake, but an intentional procedure. The hidden message for everyone is: "Nobody must dare to question what we say. Don't even try not to believe whatever we say." Moreover, sending out contradictory information is a psychological warfare. When people are confused by situations which defy logic, it's proven they tend to be subject of a regression to a more infantile state of mind where they stop questioning authorities.

We should remind that in criminology the best way to find a culprit is to check the consistency of the narrative of the suspects, looking for contradictions. This too should teach us something.

ISIS didn't appear magically from nowhere and their abundant and excellent armaments did not appear from nowhere either, nor does their constant supply in ammunition appear from nothing. The US having been "surprised" by ISIS appearance is just a fairy tale. US bombings in Syria seem to have been much more aimed at destroying Syrian infrastructures than targeting ISIS forces. And now Saudi Arabia and Qatar joining the coalition which pretends to fight ISIS sounds like the joke of the year. Obviously a coalition of Iran, Russia, China, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq would be enormously more entitled to effectively counter ISIS. In fact, I believe such a coalition would be able to wipe out ISIS quite rapidly unless the hidden backers of ISIS further escalate their support for the beheading terrorists, of course.

Q: Reports suggest that Turkey's border with Syria has been the main entry point for foreign militants who seek to join ISIL. Also, Turkey has demanded a no-fly zone under the pretext of protecting the displaced. Is the buffer zone aimed at creating a safe haven for the displaced or making the area a paradise for the terrorists? What role is Turkey playing in the region? As you know, there is an official open public ISIL consulate in Ankara where you can go and get a visa. What's your view on that?

A: Turkey is clearly playing a major role in the region, and certainly a very questionable one. Turkey has demanded a no-fly zone in the region, and this has been also on the wishlist of the US for a long time now. A no-fly zone was set up in Libya for the declared purpose to protect the Libyan civil population, and we all witnessed how that story ended.

Now ISIS has conquered a big Syrian military base and has put its hands on at least three fighter jets. I think that this could be soon used as a pretext for finally declaring a no-fly zone there and blaming the countries who will eventually object for their "support of the beheading terrorists". Of course the no-fly zone would most likely be used exclusively against the regular forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. I wouldn't be surprised if ISIS had been led (and perhaps somehow also militarily helped) to conquer that base with exactly this plan in mind.

I have read about the official ISIL consulate in Ankara. It's really difficult to imagine something like that having a true official status, even though it's very likely that there must be some sort of offices for recruitment there. The impression is that in this whole story Turkey has been playing very dirty. But since no western country is blaming Turkey for anything this means its actions are perfectly aligned with NATO's policy.

Q: Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011 with organized attacks by well-armed gangs and terrorists against both the army and civilians. The unrest, which took in terrorist groups from across Europe, the Middle-East and North Africa, has transpired as one of the bloodiest conflicts in recent history. As the foreign-backed insurgency in Syria continues without an end in sight, the US government has boosted its political and military support to Takfiri extremists. Why does not the US cooperate with President Bashar al-Assad to uproot the Takfiri terrorists?

A: When the US speaks about fighting terrorism you don't have to take it literally. This is just part of a modern western mantra developed so as to stop populations from thinking. The US plans for Syria are still very similar to those they had for Libya. We should not confuse the US intentions and actions with the US narrative of their intentions and actions, there is a very little relation, if there is a relation at all between these two categories.