Question:  How can Britain, which fought the IRA and been subjected to terrorist acts, support Islamist terrorists fighting a secular government in Syria?

Question:  Why would Britain, the USA, Germany and France all support a coalition of opposition groups in Doha, which were handpicked for their alleged moderation, while the same countries are arming and training radical Salafist and Takfiri terrorist groups fighting in Syria?

Question:  The British claim to have stopped several citizens from going to Turkey to fight an Islamist war in Syria; so why do their spies in Adana, Incirlik and Gaziantep prefer handling the radical Islamist terrorists? 

SyrPer believes that Britain holds out no hope that the National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces (NACOSROF?!%$) can succeed in forming a durable alternative to President Assad.  News of early ideological disputes are beginning to leak out as the crazy-quilted group attempts to set up shop in Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egypt.  Even the selection of Egypt itself has become a casus belli with communist felons like George Sabra openly wondering whether Mecca is the next satellite office.  I have also heard that British analysts at the Foreign Ministry view the coalition as “unworkable” and “awkward”.

This begs the question why the Syrian National Council was abandoned by the U.S. for NACOSROF?  Why supplant one useless group for another?  Why take the trouble to invite more exiled felons, radical clerics, gaseous academics and goldbrick physicians?  There has to be a reason.

The Doha Conference took place under the watchful eye of former U.S. Ambassador and last year’s SyrPer winner of the Egon Krenz Award (for his unintended services to the Syrian security services), Robert Ford.  What must not be forgotten also is the message that was conveyed by the location of the conference – Qatar, which equals money, lots of money.  While the Syrian National Council had become an embarrassment for its divisiveness, clumsiness and, if we may say, effete style (a must if it was to remain welcomed in Paris),  Robert Ford, whose ties to the pedophile prince of Qatar are strong, embarked on his last crusade to rescue the notion that a viable national government in exile could still be formed, and with that, to assuage the fears of opposition figures inside Syria that Islamists and Neo-Colonialists were the only game in town.   


This young protester was dead wrong.  Ford should have stayed in Damascus and helped our security services by “outing” all the rats.  His contacts in Damascus included traitor and undercover Muslim Brotherhood agent, Ahmad Mu’az Al-Khatib, now head of NACOSROF.

Britain’s role in the formation of the NACOSROF was minimal.   This was an American-Qatari project.  If it worked (unlikely), it would be fine with London.  If it didn’t (likely), Britain would be satisfied with a failed state situation that would accomplish the following:

1.  Open avenues for England’s ally, Turkey, to take control of the vast natural gas reservoirs off the coast of Lebanon, Cyprus and Syria;

2.  Break the GAZPROM stranglehold enjoyed by the Russian Federation over the EU;

3.  Crush, what is to the English, the menacing formation of the Shi’i “Fatimid Crescent” that is predictably anti-Western and, certainly, anti-British ;

4.  Degrade Russia’s influence in the Levant and the Middle East;

5.  Increase pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear program by demonstrating to Tehran that its isolation has been increased four-fold through the “engineered” non-existence of its former Syrian ally;

6.  Empower Britain’s traditional ally, the Muslim Brotherhood, a guarantor of “progressive” backwardness and political obsequiousness in the Islamic World, a must for British neo-imperialist designs;

The British and the Americans are on different tracks.  Obama, a scoundrel himself, is pursuing a policy of retrenchment, an absolute requirement for a country reeling from the effects of two expensive, unjustified and psychologically grinding wars.  Obama appears to have also reclaimed his foreign policy from the perverse clutches of the openly Zionist, Neo-Conservative vampires who occupy so many American institutions fancifully called “think tanks”.  If Obama gave the okay to Ford to pursue his Quixotic mission, it’s because he knew Qatar would be paying for it.  He also does not want a failed state in Syria which would invite more American intervention at a time when the American citizenry is openly hostile to such adventures.  A failed state in Syria is “death-watch beetle” to any American political party. Punkt!        

Britain’s policy is motivated by the six points we listed.  Its implementation is centered on promoting precisely what Robert Ford is trying to avoid.  Ford knows that Syria is a largely secular country with a tradition of moderate Islam.  The British know this well too but see no benefit to themselves in “engineering” a regime change that would bring to office a nationalist government with a constructive agenda possibly counterweighing against their interests.  It is obvious to anyone that only a destruction of Syria, rendering it a failed state,  would appease the British – hence, their stubborn cleaving to the militant Islamists now pouring in and out of Southern Turkey.  

We have written earlier about Intel we received from our sources in Turkey indicating that British terrorist-enablers are partial to the radical Salafist-Takfiri-type of terrorist.  We explained to our readers why these spies prefer the “discipline”, “single-mindedness” and “self-sacrificial mind-set” of these mainly Libyan, Tunisian, Chechen and Iraqi killers funded by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.  We thought before that the partiality was due to their courage in the face of overwhelming odds.  Now we know the real reason.  Britain’s policy selects for those traits most likely to guarantee a state of anarchy in Syria.  The British know that the kind of mayhem and pandemonium they need to insure a failed state in Syria is most assured by an Islamist-Salafist-Takfiri victory.  As they say in Farsi: “It smells of British”.  Now the British have to deal with a Syria, Russia and Iran which know about the plans being hatched in London.  


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Level 0 - Anonymous

Interesting analysis! What about the French? I remain flabbergasted how they can support the jihadists given the huge potential downsides when they return to the banlieus of St Denis and Marseille. Is it to win votes from the muslems in France? Or is it tied to gas and oil exploration in Quatar and Kurdistan? Install a friendly goverment in Syria, cut loose Kurdistan, and build a pipeline?

Keep up the good work!

Level 0 - Anonymous

There is an old saying that “Britain is always willing to fight till the last American”. But Russia and Iran are not inexperienced when it comes to British intrigue, so they really can’t be caught off-guard. re: “He also does not want a failed state in Syria which would invite more American intervention at a time when the American citizenry is openly hostile to such adventures. A failed state in Syria is “death-watch beetle” to any American political party.” Sure, but the bigger question is how much pressure the different factions can bring to bear upon Obama. Don’t underestimate the… Read more »