The Anglo-American establishment are demanding that the United Nations approve an official military invasion of Syria, under the guise of stopping the violence, when that very violence is being fostered by MI6, CIA and other western forces who are on the ground and directing the extremist rebels.

In a puff piece for the mainstream media, Prime Minister David Cameron and US President Barack Obama were said to have had an emergency telephone conversation yesterday evening, where in true newspeak fashion they called for ‘international unity’ on the matter. In other words they agreed to put pressure on other nations to go along with their imperialist agenda.

They support a joint Arab League & UN peacekeeping intervention, which sounds fluffy, but literally means a UN Army could invade if they get their way.

UN’s infamous white peace tanks!

As the Al Qaeda linked mercenaries flown in from the NATO backed Libyan regime [1], and domestic terrorists clash with Assad’s forces, citizens and peaceful protesters of Homs are falling victim to fuel and food shortages. Rather than lambasting the West for their role in fomenting this violence, the media conglomerates are using the situation to lay the groundwork for further action.

The Hegelian Problem Reaction Solution tactic is in full swing. Hijack the peaceful uprising with Western NGOs, covertly arm and direct terrorists to destabilize the country, use the media to blame all deaths on Assad and then call on the UN to save the people. Create the problem for the desired public reaction, so their solution can be implemented without opposition.

One has to wonder how white tanks and a piece of paper saying the mission is about peace-keeping, makes it any different from any other military invasion with green tanks and a declaration of war. The bombing campaign against Libya, and the invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan didn’t exactly save lives. But that’s the sickening hypocrisy we’ve come to expect from our sly leaders.

David Cameron’s spokesman said Britain will also be backing the newly launched and warmly named “Friends of Syria” organization that is boldly attempting to send a special envoy in to the country without official UN or international support.

Syrian officials called this saber-rattling an unjustified interference in [Syria's] internal affairs and Russia backs them, saying the supposed peacekeepers and envoys could not be sent in without Syrian government approval.

The Friends of Syria, with representatives of the US, UK, and Turkey (where weapons are being sent to arm the rebels), will be meeting on the 24th in Tunisia. Their aim according to the Daily Mail is to compel Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime to end its brutal crackdown. Quite what that means is unclear. If rebels are bombing and shooting, are they calling for Assad to simply let them take over?

Hilary Clinton commented on the need to “move toward a transition.”

Where does that leave the thousands of Assad supporters? Do they get a say in this transition? Or will they have to succumb to a bunch of extremist armed factions like the Libyan citizens? Or perhaps a puppet dictator of the West’s choosing? What about democracy? What about sovereignty and self-determination?

Despite what the sound-bite media are reporting, before the Western backed rebels escalated the violence, reforms were being implemented to answer the peaceful protesters. They include a new constitution that allows for more power to local authorities and multi-party elections to break up the stagnated coalition parliament [2].

There’s no way this can end peacefully if the West and the Rebels are focused on a coup.

Mainstream Coverage @ The Daily Mail