Skip to main content

Military Intervention in Syria: High Risk Over Next Four Weeks

by | Monday, 1st May 2017
At midnight on 14 April, several buses with civilians on board left the terrorist besieged Kafarya and Foua areas of northern Syria, as part of the so-called “four towns deal”. A journey which should have taken forty five minutes, took more than seven hours as terrorist groups forced to buses to stop at several villages held by them along the way. At each of these stops, armed men taunted and threatened them.

By the time they reached al-Nusra held compound at Rashidin, the final stop before entering Aleppo, they were already traumatised. But their trauma was just beginning as they were held captive on the buses for a further day and a half; denied food and water.

On the morning of the 15th, terrorists turned up with big transparent bags containing packets of crisps. Allowed off the buses, the children swarmed around the men with the crisps, not having seen food like this for over two years. Ten minutes later, the children were forced back onto the buses.

At around 3pm on the 15th, more crisps were delivered for the children, who once again were allowed off the buses, this time with some of the younger men. Again, the children, full of excitement, swarmed around the man with the crisps. At that moment, having been deliberately enticed off the buses with the promise of food, a bomb exploded, killing 126 people, at least 80 of whom were children.

Next, the women - only the women - were allowed off the buses. Already traumatised, and now in a state of sheer terror and panic, they frantically searched for their children. As if by magic, the White Helmets appeared with their entourage of videographers to record them “saving” the distraught mothers. After ten minutes, the women were forced back onto the buses and the doors were locked.

Contrary to media reports, these “first responders” did not help to look after the injured, and they did not help return the dead to their families. Instead they took their video propaganda and around two hundred injured children off to Turkey. Many of these children have still not been returned.

The Rashidin bus bombing represents a new low in the tragedy that is Syria. Based on witness testimony we can say with certainty that it was a planned event, with innocent civilians used as pawns in a propaganda game aimed at giving continuing credibility to the White Helmets in the eyes of all those fooled by the lies published in western mainstream media.

Chemical Weapons

So where does Rashidin leave the claims of western governments that Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people in Idlib province just over a week prior? Reports describing that “attack” came solely from the White Helmets - the same White Helmets that were willing to use the murder of dozens of children at Rashidin for their own purposes.

It is difficult to believe that any group willing to entice children off a bus in order to blow them up would have any compunction about killing others with some kind of gas, photographing rows of their dead bodies for propaganda purposes before shipping them to Turkey for autopsy. 

That propaganda has been well used. Following the defeat of a UK sponsored draft resolution submitted to the UN Security Council at the beginning of March, the White Helmets’ reports claiming Assad had gassed his own people could not have come at a better time.

Britain’s permanent representative to the UN Security Council, Matthew Rycroft, began the verbal attacks on Syria and Russia. Boris Johnson followed up with his own unsubstantiated claims. At no point was any evidence placed in the public domain, and at no point did any mainstream journalist do their jobs to ask why.

US President Trump fell for the scam, to the delight of Downing Street. He ordered a missile strike on an airbase at Shayrat, near Homs.

This was quickly followed up with another UN Security Council resolution, again vetoed. Matthew Rycroft responded, in a state of total apoplexy, with accusations of Russian support for chemical weapons use in Syria, and claiming Russia had chosen “the wrong side of history”.

Again, no evidence was provided to support these accusations, either by Rycroft, or subsequently by Boris Johnson. Both fell back on a default position of “the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons” said so. And they did, despite not having ever attended site. The OPCW’s assessment was based on the testimony of the White Helmets, and some autopsy results. They have not, to date, visited the site of the alleged bombing to gather any real evidence.

A General Election

In the midst of all the British anti-diplomacy, Theresa May dropped a bombshell. Unlike her paid-for terrorist assets in Syria, it was not a chemical bombshell, although it has released a lot of noxious hot air.

Theresa's bombshell came in the form of the announcement of a general election.

She said she made the decision while she was out for a walk with her husband. But is this credible?

The Fixed Term Parliament Act, an act of constitutional vandalism, sets a statutory requirement that all parliaments last for five years. 

The Act allows for an earlier end to a parliament under two circumstances:

  • a parliamentary vote of no confidence in the government
  • a two thirds majority vote for the dissolution of parliament in the House of Commons

How could Theresa May know a two thirds majority was possible as she made her announcement outside Number Ten? It seems unlikely that she could have known unless she had at least spoken to the leaders of the other parties.

And if the polls are to be believed, the Labour Party’s popularity is at an all time low. Why would they support such a vote at this time?

Dissolution of Parliament

On 3 May, Parliament will be dissolved. On that day, MPs vacate their seats and become unemployed.

The Executive is separate from the Legislature. Government ministers, including the Prime Minister, stay in post until a new Parliament is formed, despite no longer being MPs.

Perhaps this gives us a clue to the timing of the general election and the willingness of Labour to embrace it?

Over the last two weeks, government rhetoric over Syria, and particularly Russia’s support for the Syrian government has reached fever pitch.

“A nuclear first strike” could not be ruled out by Michael Fallon. And Boris Johnson, when asked if Britain would get involved in military action in Syria said that any requirement to obtain Parliamentary approval “would have to be tested”.

Follow up statements from a number of government ministers have made it clear that any further “chemical” incident in Syria would be enough to trigger an intervention in Syria. 

And what was Matthew Rycroft plotting with terrorist linked leader of the White Helmets, Raed Saleh, on 25 April?

Matthew Rycroft meets terrorist linked Raed Saleh

Royal Prerogative

In 2013, British military intervention in Syria was prevented by Parliamentary vote. MPs at that time knew full well that there was no support for such action among their constituents. More than that, there was clear opposition to it.

Although the latest polls suggest that opposition has reduced slightly, there is still no clear support for military intervention in Syria. Parliament, then, remains a likely block to military intervention.

So what better opportunity than when there is no Parliament?

With no-one to hold the Executive in check, Theresa May can use the Royal Prerogative to take Britain to war in Syria, and war in Syria could very well mean war with Russia.

The danger lies between 3 May and 8 June. 

Today, Vanessa Beeley reported from Aleppo that a White Helmets team has just arrived in Ariha, Idlib. We should prepare, she said, for “a new chemical weapon movie”.

 

Help the UK Column by becoming a member: