U.S. Renews Calls For Attack On Syria Air Force, U.K. Calls For Safe Zones, Military ActionBy Brandon Turbeville After having violated international law and Syrias national sovereignty by not only funding and supporting proxy soldiers for the purpose of destroying the secular government of Bashar al-Assad but also by deploying aircraft and troops in the country despite not being invited in by the legitimate government, the U.S. is now warning Russia and Syria against targeting terrorists and Western proxy fighters within Syrias own territory. The new U.S. Commander of American troops in Iraq and Syria stated on August 22 that he will defend the Special Operations Forces aggressively deployed by the United States to Northern Syria if Syrian warplanes or Syrian artillery again strike areas where U.S. troops are located. During an interview with CNN, Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend stated from his headquarters in Baghdad that Weve informed the Russians where were at (they) tell us theyve informed the Syrians, and Id just say that we will defend ourselves if we feel threatened. The hypocrisy and deception of the United States government on this issue has now reached a staggering level. An accurate translation of what Townsend is saying is that We have funded proxy terrorists to destroy the Syrian government. Those terrorists started losing so we deployed troops to support them and forge new brigades of terrorism with Kurds. Despite the fact that we deployed these troops against international law, violated Syrias national sovereignty, as well as the wishes of the majority of the world, we will play the victim if those troops are injured during the course of Syrias battle with the terrorists we support. We will then attack Syrian planes as a response to attacking terrorists whom our soldiers are assisting in attacking the Syrian government. In other words, the U.S. position is that We will attack you whenever we want, however we want, and everyone and everything else in the world be damned. And if you dare respond, we will play the victim, drum up sympathy and good ol fashioned Murican patriotism back home so that we can launch a full-scale war upon your country. Essentially, Syria is being threatened with full-scale war if it defends itself and a death of a thousand cuts if it does not. This is an epic level of hypocrisy even for the U.S. government but the most surprising element is that it can be carried out so openly. Perhaps Western audiences are now so utterly befuddled as to foreign policy that such overt acts of deception and aggression simply go unnoticed. Enter the British. Never known to take a backseat in hypocrisy, thirty Labour MPs are now calling for a safe zone in Syria, an obvious and admitted act of war that would initiate the creation of Libya 2.0. The pro-war camp is fully playing up the spirit of Jo Cox, the celebrated humanitarian bomber and warmonger who was murdered earlier this year. The campaign to create safe zones and buffer zones in Syria is being promoted not only by the war hawks in parliament but also by friends of Cox and the UK military establishment. In life, Jo argued with such passion and eloquence that the UK armed forces could play a role in protecting civilians in Syria by enforcing a no bomb zone, said John Woodstock, friend of Cox. This is a time for Britain to show the courage and resolve which Jo herself exemplified by taking bolder action to end the horrific bloodshed. Translation: a warmongering MP was murdered so lets pretend to honor her by ensuring that the people she wanted to murder while she was still alive are murdered now that she is dead. This may be poor logic and poor presentation but, unfortunately, this type of propaganda is effective in the modern-day UK. The former Shadow Minister, Pat McFadden chimed in as well. The British contribution to attacking Isis strongholds in which our pilots do everything they can to avoid civilian casualties is an important part of the effort to free the people of Syria from the brutality of what they have been enduring. The whole approach to Syria has been marked by a reluctance to intervene but telling ourselves that because we didnt break it we didnt buy it is of little comfort to the innocent victims of the war. Translation: We have been bombing intermittently for some time and that is good but we should just go all in, to hell with civilian casualties and to hell with international law. In fact, to hell with our own population who will pay the price in blood and sacrifice as well as lower living standards back home. The UK military voice is chiming in as well. As Col. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon said: There is a military solution here and now is the time to be bold. We arent talking about boots on the ground, the very least we can do is place no bomb zones around hospitals. As the Russian government have strenuously denied that they target hospitals there should, in theory, be little danger of the nightmare scenario of a British or US jet shooting down a Russian one. I have suggested creating a Safe Zone for civilians to go to in North West Syria and protect it otherwise they will remain and die in Aleppo or leave and turn right to Raqqa, where we could see them turn to Isil. The very least we can do is place no bomb zones around hospitals. Translation: We have to destroy the Syrian government. I think we can do this without starting thermonuclear World War 3 but its just a chance we will have to take. Lets create a safe zone that is, in effect, a refuge for terrorists and an excuse to bomb the Syrian Air Force out of existence. We can use hospitals and civilians as excuses. And if that nuclear world war happens, we will know we made the wrong decision. According to the Telegraph, sources close to Hillary Clinton have stated that Killary is planning on a safe zone approach upon her coronation, er, election. The idea of establishing a safe zone in Syria is, of course, not a new concept. In July, 2015, the agreement being discussed would have effectively created a buffer zone that would have spanned from the Turkish border line into Syria. It would have extended from Azaz in the East to Jarablus in the West and as far south as al-Bab. The width of the zone would have been about 68 miles and would have extended around 40 miles deep into Syria, right on the doorstep of Aleppo. The zone would have much smaller than that which Turkey and the United States have been calling for in the years prior and wouldnt have necessarily stretched the length of the Turkey-Syria border. But it is a start. True to form, the US and Turkey attempted to obfuscate the fact that their agreement was the creation of a no-fly zone by renaming it an ISIL-free zone. This is the same tactic used when the term no-fly zone and buffer zone began to draw too much ire from observers only a year ago. Then, the term became safe zone. Semantics have served NATO and the United States well over the years. After all, a simple name change of terrorist organizations has made the Anglo-American powers able to produce moderate rebels and the most frightening terrorist organization the world has ever seen while using the same group of terrorists. The description of the ISIL-free zone of 2015 was that it would be a distinguished area in which the Turkish and U.S. military would engage in aggressive operations against ISIS. It was floated that this area would have also functioned as a place where civilians displaced by the Syrian crisis may run to for safe haven and where moderate rebel forces can maintain a higher presence free from the battles with ISIS. Once the area is cleared, the plan is to give control to as-yet-unidentified moderate Syrian rebel groups. The United States and Turkey have differing interpretations as to which groups can be defined as moderate, the Washington Post reported. The reality, however, is that the ISIL-free zone would have been nothing more than a Forward Operating Base deeper into Syrian territory, working under the direct protection of the U.S. military and Turkish air force. That is exactly what the British and the U.S. are arguing for today. Going further back, public discussion of the implementation of a buffer zone began as far back as 2012 when the Brookings Institution, in their memo Assessing Options For Regime Change stated: An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annans leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts. The Brookings Institution went further, however, describing a possible scenario that mirrors the one currently unfolding in Syria where Turkey, in coordination with Israel, could help overthrow Assad by establishing a multi-front war on Syrias borders. Brookings writes: In addition, Israels intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regimes power base and press for Asads removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syrias military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly. Of course, the establishment of a No-Fly Zone is tantamount to a declaration of war. Such has even been admitted by top U.S. generals when explaining exactly what a No Fly Zone would entail. As General Carter Ham stated, We should make no bones about it. It first entails killing a lot of people and destroying the Syrian air defenses and those people who are manning those systems. And then it entails destroying the Syrian air force, preferably on the ground, in the air if necessary. This is a violent combat action that results in lots of casualties and increased risk to our own personnel. General Philip Breedlove also echoed this description when he said, I know it sounds stark, but what I always tell people when they talk to me about a no-fly zone is . . . its basically to start a war with that country because you are going to have to go in and kinetically take out their air defense capability Regardless of the fact that the Anglo-American empire may very well be risking a direct military confrontation with another nuclear power, the NATO forces are intent on moving forward in their attempt to destroy Syria and its government. The major victories by the Syrian military that have taken place in recent weeks as well as the inability of the Wests terrorists to roll back SAA gains have obviously convinced NATO that more drastic measures are needed and that proxies are simply not enough to defeat a committed military supported by its people. For a national oligarchy intent on warning other countries against defending themselves, we encourage the United States establishment to begin paying attention to warning signs themselves. Brandon Turbeville article archive here is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbevilles radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com. This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link. How surprising, just few days after The Aleppo Poster Child. When we see this king of propaganda it mean the Empire is ready to shift gear. The UK or Britain as it then was, is steeped in imperial hubris as is the US. Both these nations are not used to being successfully opposed militarily or otherwise, especially by third world countries. That hubris unfortunately is reaching its zenith in Syria! Once the first Syrian plane is downed by either of them, there will be no looking back, it will full charge ahead, right into oblivion. The majority of Brits dont want war but with a class-ridden society we had less democracy than you until recently, until you descended into dictatorship. We have a controlled media too and you forget, in 2003 far more Brits objected to the start of wars than did Americans who were baying for Muslim blood. Most of us knew Blair was lying and said so; most Americans knew Bush was lying but said, Lets do it! Great article, direct and to the point. Love your translations. 