A THOUGHT FOR NOW - DOES THE WEST REALLY WANT TO USE SYRIA AS A 'SAFE HAVEN' FOR ISLAMIC REBELS, TO REDUCE THE RISK OF THEM ATTACKING EUROPE?

"Western sources said there were credible reports of people being arbitrarily arrested and executed in Aleppo, though there was a lack of firm information."

The above is part of an article written by a Guardian correspondent, Patrick Wintour, in which he cited the White Helmets in East Aleppo, pleading for help as the Regime Forces advances.

No mention is made of which 'western sources' or which 'credible reports' are alleging that people are arbitrarily being arrested and executed', as the reader is apparently expected to take Patrick's word for it that it is true. Not sure if Patrick does comment on how the rebels also are not adverse to capturing and arbitrarily executing member of the Syrian government forces and their supporters, but that does not matter, as such deaths 'either do not happen' or do not count.

As far as the West is concerned, her proxy rebel forces in Syria are 'saints', and the forces of, and those which are supporting  the Syrian government are the 'devil'; 'kafir', or not 'true Muslim', if you like.

And so with all of this rabid condemnation of the Syrian Government and its Russian, Iranian, Iraqi and Lebanese allies, I cannot but wonder whether the West really wants to use Syria as a 'safe haven' for the forces of Daesh/ISIS? When you hear the Head of the British M16 speaking in the same breath about the 'Syrian and Russians turning East Aleppo into a desert', and how the threat of terrorist to Britain remains at an unparalleled level, it is concerning. 

It is concerning because Mr Atkinson appears to be suggesting that, if the rebels are driven out of East Aleppo, them are likely to scatter to the four corners of the earth, like the ... and wreak havoc amongst peaceful nations such as Britain. Even worse, Mr Younger appears to be suggesting that, even if these rebels are not supported by the West in doing so, their action would be 'understandable'; apparently because they might have an arguable case to say they are behaving as they would be behaving, because they have been 'betrayed by the West.' 

Of course, if Mr Younger had been minded to look over his shoulder, as he presented his intelligence report, he could not have failed to observe that Britain and her NATO partners had not provided Libya or Iraq with the 'peace' he so cynically argued that the Syrian and Russians are not going to provide for Aleppo.

Thus is the case for Mr Younger to be doing his sovereign duty by proving an intelligence appraisal which supports the specious argument of his Prime Minister, who is only supporting that of her NATO, EU and American allies.

Of course, we cannot really know whether Mr Younger believes his agency's report, as we now know that his predecessors had formulated their pre-Iraq invasion intelligence evaluation on the basis of what Tony Blair's government wanted from them. 

When you are in government it does not really matters whether you believe or not believe in what you are saying or doing, as long as it is what your master wants you to do or say. If you have an attack of conscience, then you either have to resign or rationalises away your conscience.

So, what do I think? Well, yes, I am currently of the opinion that Britain and America and their European partners want to contain 'Islamic terrorism and instability' in the Middle East and North Africa, where they can monitor it, experiment with it and attack it. If this means countries such as Syria, Libya and Yemen would have to remain in a perpetual state of conflict and instability, then that is a price the West is prepared to  pay. 

Knowing well that they do not have to pay the full prices; the blood and destruction price.
It is a massively cynical and ruthless approach, but such is the way of machiavellian international affairs. 

Us ordinary mortals will probably never know how devious our leaders - all leaders - and respective governments can really be, when they convince or allow themselves to be convinced that 'this and/or that is in their nation's interest or best interests.'  

Do not be surprised if, all or much of you you have been fed by the media - whichever media - is not the truth or lie you have been told that it is, by the media and politicians. It is time which will sometimes tell, but that might come too late.