Is Britain About To Invade Syria
“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:
“False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time”.
The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship. Because the enemy’s flag was hung , instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, it was called a “false flag” attack.
Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.
That hasn’t stopped a long tradition of British false flag operations that continue to this very day.
On September 5, 2005, two SAS soldiers dressed as Arabs opened fire on Iraqi police after being stopped at a roadblock near Basra. After a fire fight they were arrested and taken to the Al Jameat police station where they were held under armed guard. The vehicle they had been travelling in was found to be packed with explosives and grenades.
However, later that night British troops accompanied by tanks and helicopter gun ships stormed the jail where the men were being held. After demolishing walls the detained men were freed.
The purpose of this operation was to keep the general public on-side by creating an incident that would outrage, thereby supporting politicians in their continual war mongering.
In a more recent incident, on August 2, Britain’s Sunday Express newspaper headlined “SAS dress as ISIS fighters in undercover war on jihadis,” saying: “More than 120 members belonging to the elite regiment are currently in the war-torn country” covertly “dressed in black and flying ISIS flags,” engaged in what’s called Operation Shader – attacking Syrian targets on the pretext of combatting ISIS.
It is hard to believe that British troops are dressed as IS fighters, waving black flags whilst on an illegal killing spree. This is nothing short of state sponsored terrorism. This false flag operation is a clear signal that the British government has every intention of fighting a new full-on hot war in Syria alongside America’s ‘coalition partners’.
SafeSubcribe/Instant Unsubscribe - One Email, Every Sunday Morning - So You Miss Nothing - That's It
On July 1st, Global Research reported that US policymakers sign and date a paper calling for the division, destruction, and US occupation of Syria.
Such a policy paper has been recently written by the notorious US policy think-tank, the Brookings Institution, titled, “Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country.” The signed and dated open-conspiracy to divide, destroy, then incrementally occupy a sovereign nation thousands of miles from America’s shores serves as a sobering example of how dangerous and enduring modern imperialism is, even in the 21st century.
The document openly admits that the US has provided billions in arming and training militants fed into the devastating and increasingly regional conflict. It admits that the US maintains – and should expand – operations in Jordan and NATO-member Turkey to provide even more weapons, cash, and fighters to the already catastrophic conflict.
By late July Turkey denied targeting Kurdish fighters in neighbouring Syria after they claimed their positions had come under “heavy tank fire”.
The Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), the armed wing of the Kurdish Democratic Party (PYD), urged the Turkish government to halt attacks after shells injured several fighters and Kurdish villagers outside an Islamic state-held town. This embattled group have been fighting Islamic State fighters and supposed to be on the same side as the West.
Back in August 2013, MPs rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to deter the use of chemical weapons. This is the same pretext as used for the still unfolding humanitarian disaster that was the War in Iraq. The electorate firmly told their MP’s that they were not interested in yet another Middle-eastern conflict. David Cameron said he would respect the defeat of a government motion, ruling out joining US-led strikes.
Undeterred, in September last year, David Cameron said there is a “strong case” for UK military intervention in Syria, as well as Iraq, to confront Islamic State (IS). The prime minister said it was in the UK’s interest to join in bombings in Iraq against IS and there was “no legal barrier” to similar action in Syria. Again, there was no support. But he was lying by omission.
One month ago we all learned that David Cameron knew UK pilots were involved in US-led bombing missions in Syria, even though parliament had expressly rejected British military involvement. In this admission, it was declared that UK involvement started a year earlier.
Weeks ago, David Cameron gave “carte blanche” for the SAS and SBS to target IS leaders as part of the Government’s “broad spectrum” response to the murder of 30 British tourists by ISIS gunman Seifeddine Rezgui in the Tunisian beach resort of Sousse.
Here we start to see yet another operation of dubious and suspicious origin. We are told by the mainstream press there was lone gunman on a murderous, blood thirsty mission with Jihadist ideals targeting sunbathing British tourists. But early reports fully contradict this narrative.
Numerous eyewitnesses at the five-star Riu Imperial Marhaba report that Seifeddine Rezgui, apparently radicalised during the fall of Gaddafi, had accomplices who aided him in his killing spree. Add to this the fact that initial reports said multiple gunmen were involved and Seifeddine Rezgui begins to look like a patsy set up to take the sole blame for an operation that involved more than one gunmen.
Newsmax reported early on that Friday on 26th July at 11.04am that “Terrorists attacked people at the beach. They came on a boat. From the beach they ran to the Hotel Imperial Marhaba.” This report consistently talks of gunmen not a single gunman.
In fact one witness, retired police officer Steve Johnson, told of how he saw a second gunman in red shorts open fire on tourists on the beach. Steve Johnson saw the second gunman while he was taking cover. He was one of five witnesses according to another report.
Once the shooting had finished, Mr Johnson described the gunman to a high-ranking policeman who told him that a man matching the description was ‘dead as well’, implying more than one was killed.
According to Johnson: “We saw a second terrorist. It was a guy in red shorts, walking down from the hotel into the pool area. He just had red shorts on, nothing else on his legs or his feet or his body. “And he had an automatic rifle in his arms and people were just running from him.”
Another elderly British guest at the Marhaba said eyewitnesses were convinced that another gunman came into the hotel reception, at the height of the mayhem. Quoted by the Daily Mirror, the woman who did not want to be named said: “I spoke with guests afterwards, and they thought another man came in and was firing as the main gunman entered.”
“There appeared to be more than one person firing. The problem is so many of the people who were here have now gone home. There were hundreds of Brits in the hotel on Friday – it was deserted by Saturday morning.”
The Tunisian parliament adopted a new “anti-terror” law aimed at beefing up authorities’ powers following the deadly attacks claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group.
Following three days of debate, new laws impose the death penalty as a possible sentence for a range of “terror” offences and will allow authorities to detain terror suspects for up to 15 days without access to a lawyer.
The day after the attacks, before any investigation into the attack had fully taken place David Cameron declares that Islamist extremists “have declared war on Britain and they are attacking our people at home and overseas”. At that time, no-one knew the full extent of the dead and injured or the reasons behind it. There was no attack at home in Britain. This was David Cameron’s knee-jerk response to the killing of 30 British tourists in Tunisia.
The day after the attacks, still armed with little concrete evidence Cameron continues “We are a target,” speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “Frankly, we cannot hide from this thinking if you step back you become less of a target. They are attacking our way of life and what we stand for, and so we have to stand united with those that share our values.”
Cameron promptly declared a “full-spectrum” response to the massacre.
Looking at Cameron’s record since 2010, you might be forgiven for thinking that whatever pretensions modern-day Britain still harbours about its worldly power and influence, they are sadly misplaced. An early presentiment of the Cameron years could be found in Britain’s intervention, with France and the US, in the Libyan uprising of 2011.
Cameron declares – “To those who say it is nothing to do with us, I would simply respond: do we want a situation where a failed pariah state festers on Europe’s southern border, potentially threatening our security, pushing people across the Mediterranean and creating a more dangerous and uncertain world for Britain and for all our allies as well as for the people of Libya? My answer is clear: this is not in Britain’s interests. And that is why Britain will remain at the forefront of Europe in leading the response to this crisis.”
What in fact followed Britain’s intervention – the fall of Gaddafi and the splintering of Libya into warring territories controlled by jihadis and militias. It created exactly the conditions that Cameron had vowed to pre-empt. Seifeddine Rezgui being just one result. Libya today is a very “failed pariah state”. Innocent migrants make the deadly crossing by sea to get away from the carnage that Cameron termed “a swarm of people coming across the Mediterranean, seeking a better life, wanting to come to Britain”. Of course they do, Britain destroyed their country.
Facing the world’s worst humanitarian disaster since Rwanda, Cameron, directly responsible, has eschewed intervention in Syria ever since.
In summary, Britain, with no parliamentary support is bombing yet another sovereign state, dressing its own army as Islamic State terrorists in false flag operations, while the US gears up for a full scale war, that needs support from Britain in a fake copycat Iraq war, using murdered sunbathing tourists as an excuse for a ‘full spectrum’ killing spree of innocent civilians that pose no threat to our national security.