In the last ten days David Cameron has been making staggering statements that signify a seemingly desperate desire to launch all out war against the legitimate Syrian Government. As suggested on another occasion by the author, Cameron’s belligerence may be fuelled by his feeling certain pressure and “heat” applied upon him by those he is answerable to. This is not a reference to the British electorate – very few of which think it essential for the well-being of their country to interfere in the internal politics of a foreign sovereign state. Instead, the bosses who will be demanding progress in what so far has been a disastrous operation are the Bilderberg Group types – Royals, corporation heads and banksters who administer Western government from behind the scenes; and such is their rumoured power to make or break a politician’s career, Cameron’s haste to start a direct Syrian war must be a reflection of how these “globalists” are holding his feet to the fire.
As the author forecasted, a new phase of direct US/EU/Saudi and Qatari aggression against Syria is shaping up to be launched out of zones within Syria itself along its borders. Given various names, such as “administration zones” or “safe zones”, these areas of land will be presented as being within the jurisdiction of the newly manufactured alternative government of Syria, the Syrian National Coalition. This body of men and women is widely agreed by observers to be a superficial effort at splitting the hitherto immovable Syrian unity that has been a bulwark against attempts to create sectarian and serious political division amongst Syrian people. If the organisation does involve real Syrian opposition, this is only to provide plausibility to what is a rebranding of people regarded to be US placemen and puppets; an attempt to camouflage the Islamist and barbaric tendencies of the mercenaries and terrorists who have been pumped into Syria mainly through Turkey, and who fight with no pretence as to who they really are, but are sold by corporate-media as the Free “Syrian” Army.
Cameron has been astonishingly vocal and proactive about getting these people fit to fight a war that clearly needs to be pushed up a notch in terms of intensity. After being suitably horrified by stories told by refugees in Jordanian camps (put there by Cameron’s proxy invasion), in the middle of last week Cameron signalled a renewed determination to redouble his efforts. A Downing Street official promptly revealed that the Prime Minister wanted to revisit previously rejected measures amid “frustration” at the failure to “halt” the 20-month conflict (i.e. failure to defeat al-Assad). This mostly refers to the direct arming of the terrorists and mercenaries who are acting as NATO’s proxy army in Syria, which requires finagling a way around United Nations resolutions and an EU arms embargo; Whitehall officials having been set to work on both issues.
However, Cameron also feels that there is a need for a more direct contribution. On the 11th November the Daily Star reported the following:
RAF Top Guns could soon be patrolling the skies over Syria under a new Cameron-Obama plan.
The Prime Minister is preparing to use the RAF to enforce no-fly zones across President Assad’s trouble-torn country in a bid to stop mass slaughter.
In the same story, Whitehall sources claimed that “British special forces are helping to train rebel assassination squads to target President Assad and his warlords”.
Here, then, is indication that Cameron has been organising rather hastily in order to give direct assistance to the al-Qaeda types who, given that their main method of fighting is to let off large indiscriminate bombs in well-populated areas, rounding up innocents and executing them in acts of war crime, and taking entire neighbourhoods hostage to make Syrian government forces cause damage in pursuit, Syrian people actually need protection from. Indicative of Cameron’s hurry was a message issued immediately in the wake of Obama’s re-election to inform the world that it should be the US president’s top priority to deal with al-Assad. In the light of Cameron’s RAF deployment desire, there has obviously been an anxiety on the part of British Government for the US military to give the necessary back-up so that the bullying RAF can provide the same sort of ground support for the terrorists in Syria as they did for the same in Libya – which means the razing of whole cities to the ground in the name of humanitarian assistance.
As for the training of mercenaries to assassinate al-Assad and his “warlords”, by which Whitehall must mean generals of a legitimate national army, it is another admission of Britain’s rather shabby recourse to terrorism that does not receive the deploring criticism it deserves from corporate-media. Moreover, it is surely a double-edged sword that British politicians and top brass armed forces personnel should not like to see made manifest.
Indeed, in the last 48 hours, certain high-ranking figures rather publically quashed Cameron’s “desperate” plans to deploy British troops to “safe-zones” in Syria – which would represent a fantastic level of involvement that had not been necessary in Libya, and therefore demonstrates how badly things are going in Syria for Cameron. A military source told the Sun newspaper: “When one Brigadier heard the news Cameron wanted an armed solution his response was, ‘you and whose Army?’”
The source went on to explain that Bashar al-Assad has formidable armed forces [that have accrued 20 months battle-hardness while British troops have been picked off like sitting ducks in Afghanistan] as well as Russian backing; it means that the British military are wary of the distinct possibility of getting a calamitous drubbing (and the Establishment cannot afford for the myth of British military supremacy to be dismantled by Syrians). Cameron’s anxiety, determination and hubris may not take such considerations into account. Even today, he is chairing a meeting of the National Security Council where discussion is expected to consider implementing a “no-fly zone, supplying anti-aircraft guns to the opposition, and encouraging other countries in the region to provide arms”.
Finally, from the perspective where Cameron is viewed as an increasingly frantic victim with all four walls of his career-crushing dungeon advancing upon him, the recent trip to the Middle East seems suspiciously like a visit to organise and drum up agreement for a new phase of aggression against Syria. The corporate-media , despite complaining that it wasn’t allowed access to Cameron on the trip (the BBC’s Frank Gardner – he who revealed the Queen’s desire to imprison Abu Hamza – was the only officially attached media coverage), was full of news making it perfectly clear that Cameron was on an arms-selling mission. However, this was probably merely cover.
When Cameron made a real trip to sell arms to dictators in the Middle East in February 2011, there was embarrassment, and Cameron constructed a story about being in the area to oversee the “Arab Spring”. This time, Cameron has been blatant, and even defended his supposed weapons-mongering activity. Moreover, the secretiveness indicated by a minimal press accompaniment that reminds of Bilderberg suggests that Cameron was having discussions, principally with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (pictured in the corporate-media awarding a sash to a bowing and scraping Cameron) pertaining to a long-developed plan to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria.