Whip it up and start again

A different take on the Sibel Edmonds interview posted yesterday:

Last week, Daily Pickings covered the news of British SAS forces running around Northern Syria disguised as ISIS fighters in something called operation Shader. The initial response to the story might be comedic, more like the plot of Carry on up the Khyber, but the implications point to something far more sinister and tragic.

The Corbett Report pooh-poohed reports that claim the cunning SAS were dressing up to infiltrate and dupe silly old ISIS. The target of the disguised SAS units is far more likely to be the Syrian army rather than ISIS. SAS will commit more atrocities in the name of ISIS to stir up tensions further in the region to create the context for a full scale invasion of Syria.

Enter Sibel Edmonds, in an half hour conversation following her return from a lengthy visit to the region:

The blue eyed ISIS fighters with English accents are common knowledge on both sides of the Syrian and Turkish borders and not in dozens but hundreds! Corbett concurs and refers us back to the significant role of British Special Forces in the NATO war on Libya. The SAS however, only make up a minuscule part of the complex web that is gradually closing in on Bashar al-Assad and Syria under the pretext of a united front against ISIS.

The information that Edmond's has gleaned about a Turkey/USA agreement for the region puts them on track for all-out-war with Syria by November 2015. Presumably more bad behaviour in Syria, by ISIS/SAS/whoever else, can ratchet up tensions and bring about more direct conflict between the Syrian army and Turkey or the US and it's allies.

Edmonds suspects that Russia may be about to give the green light on Syria; RT reporting on the region has dropped to a mainstream media narrative and the Russian government is making noises that endorse the united front against ISIS "strategy".

Edmonds' sympathy and frustration with these developments is directed towards the Kurds some of whom seem to be playing along with the "grand plan".  She doesn't understand, with all their tragic history, why they are allowing themselves to be used given the wider implications of this cynical "united front on ISIS".

As James Corbett points out, it is highly unlikely that the Kurds will be given their own territory to live autonomously because the Kurdish nation works better as a chess piece for the US and Israel as that destabilising influence. Do they actually want to allow a Kurdistan to emerge or is it much better to have the Kurds as that pocket of resistance of use in various countries like Iran, in Turkey and in Syria?

Watch this space very closely.   

Please register to post comments