Bericht der ARD über Probleme mit kriminellen Flüchtlingen

14. Dezember 2015 (Redaktion) Die ARD hat in ihrem Format "Fakt" einen kurzen Bericht zu den Ergebnissen der dafür gegründeten Braunschweiger Sonderkommission der Polizei ausgestrahlt:"Die Soko Flüchtlingskriminalität in Braunschweig - Erste Bilanz". Der scheint in der Tat recht objektiv zu sein, auf jeden Fall ansehenswert. 

Es ist erstaunlich, daß so ein Bericht in der heutigen Medienlandschaft überhaupt möglich ist. Wir betten hier den Youtube-Film ein, da wir nicht wissen, wie lange der Beitrag auf der ARD-Mediathek online stehen wird.

Man bekommt aber auch hier wieder klare Informationen dazu, welch grausames Spiel auch mit den Flüchtlingen selbst getrieben wird. Für diejenigen unter den Zuwanderern, die das von den westlichen - und auch der BRD-Regierung! - verbreitete Märchen geglaubt haben, man brauche sie hier unbedingt und lade sie dringend nach Deutschland ein, die voller Hoffnung und Zuversicht auf ein wunderbares Leben hierhergekommen sind, ist das die pure Hölle. Für die Anwohner solcher Flüchtlingsunterkünfte auch.  

Wenn die Durchschnittszahl von 3% Intensivtätern unter den Flüchtlingen stimmt, dann sind das bei über einer Million Flüchtlingen 10.000 schwer kriminelle Leute, die hier in Deutschland wüten. Die vermutlich in großer Zahl eingedrungenen Terroristen sind darin sehr wahrscheinlich nicht enthalten, denn die werden durch solche Straftaten nicht "vorzeitig" auffallen wollen.

Hier der Link zum Originalbeitrag in der ARD-Mediathek

Für die Poesie und ein besseres Morgen!

  Immer ein Lichtlein mehr

  Immer ein Lichtlein mehr
  im Kranz, den wir gewunden,
  dass er leuchte uns so sehr
  durch die dunklen Stunden.

  Zwei und drei und dann vier!
  Rund um den Kranz welch ein Schimmer,
  und so leuchten auch wir,
  und so leuchtet das Zimmer.

  Und so leuchtet die Welt
  langsam der Weihnacht entgegen.
  Und der in Händen sie hält,
  weiß um den Segen!

  - Matthias Claudius –

Two Mainstream US ‘Journalists’ Provide Stenographic ‘News’ Report – US Anti-Russia Propaganda

Eric ZUESSE *| 22.12.2015 | 00:00

This is the story of an ordinary article by two well-known American ‘journalists’ who market the aristocracy’s lies as ‘news,’ so that the public believes dangerous myths, which might unfortunately get out of control and end in nuclear war. Josh Rogin and Eli Lake, two «Columnists» functioning in the role of reporters for BloombergView, issued on the night of December 17th, their piece of US government propaganda parading as if it were a ‘news’ report; and, in the process, they mistakenly included some real and interesting news that contradicts the very same fake storyline they’re pumping on behalf of the US government, and of their billionaire employer: Wall Street’s Michael Bloomberg. They started it with the false assumption – routine in the American ‘press’ – that the US government is right and the Russian government is wrong in their respective war-involvements inside Syria. This false assumption is presented in their opening paragraph. Headlining «New Russian Air Defenses in Syria Keep US Grounded», they opened: «There is a new crisis for the international effort to destroy the Islamic State, created by the Kremlin. The US has stopped flying manned air-support missions for rebels in a key part of northern Syria due to Russia’s expansion of air defense systems there, and the Barack Obama administration is scrambling to figure out what to do about it». Their phrase «the international effort» presumes that the US is fighting on «the international» side, and that Russia’s forces (and those of the Syrian government that invited-in Russia's forces) must therefore be the violators of international law. This falsehood is accentuated by the allegation that «the Kremlin» «created» this «crisis». Key factual background in order to understand and evaluate the truthfulness, and even the honesty, of this opening paragraph is this: The US invaded Syria; it was not invited in by the universally-recognized-as-legitimate government of that country. It’s instead trying to overthrow that very government. In fact: it’s an invader. The US government has supplied weapons and some air-support to the ‘rebels’ of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups (including even ISIS) that are pouring into Syria to overthrow that country’s leader, Bashar al-Assad, who has been shown even in Western-sponsored polls in Syria to be overwhelmingly preferred over anyone else to lead that country – and the US has now also been bombing that legitimate government’s basic infrastructure in order to weaken it further. Syria had invited in Russian air power to bomb those ‘rebels,’ the vast majority of whom are foreign invaders, just like the US itself is. So: the US and its allies caused this «crisis», whatever it is or might be. In fact, the US started planning it from the moment Barack Obama first became US President, if not before. And, even the sarin gas attack that Obama blamed on the Assad government and used as his reason for invading Syria was a put-up job from the Obama Administration with the cooperation of the Sauds, Qataris, and Turks. As a response to Russia’s bombings of ISIS, al-Qaeda (called ‘al-Nusra’ in Syria) and other jihadist invaders of Syria, ISIS bombed a Russian airliner over Egypt, and the US-allied NATO country of Turkey shot down a Russian bomber in Syria. Russia did not respond with nuclear war against ‘the West,’ or NATO, but simply sent into Syria additional weapons in order to defend Syrian airspace and protect Syria’s and Russia’s forces against continued attacks by the US and its allies such as Turkey. Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, was, in effect, saying thereby: If you try anything like that again, we’ll shoot it, and then we’ll be in a full-fledged war between you and us over Syria – and you will be very publicly exposed to the world as the invaders – if that’s what you choose to do. Then, the co-columnists go on to report that, «earlier this month, Moscow deployed an SA-17 advanced air defense system near the area and began ‘painting' US planes, targeting them with radar in what US officials said was a direct and dangerous provocation». The assumption here is that for Russia to «defend» its bombers from attacks by the US invading forces is somehow a «dangerous provocation». The co-columnists don’t themselves say this; they instead simply report the lie from the Pentagon on it. And they do not challenge that lie. The fact is that if Russia doesn’t defend itself from the attacks by the US and its allies, then Russia will itself be conquered by the US and its allies, because that has been the central foreign-policy goal of the United States government ever since the late 1970s, if not even earlier – first as a «cold war» war to defeat the Soviet Union, and then (starting in 1990, just before the USSR and its Warsaw Pact military alliance broke up in 1991) explicitly and knowingly as a continuing war by the US aristocracy to take control over Russia, the world’s most resource-rich nation. To the American aristocracy and its military, which is the Pentagon: self-defense by Russia, and even Russia’s joining an ally (Syria) in order to defend it against the invasion by the US and its allies, constitutes «dangerous provocation». It’s one thing for the aristocracy’s stooges, such as Obama or his nameless «officials», to emit that lie, but it’s something else altogether when the ‘press’ (which may be actually just a propaganda-operation to serve the aristocracy that controls the government) reports it to the public without challenging it (not even incompetently challenging it). Only a fool would respect ‘journalists’ such as that, but the George W. Bush Administration had no problems getting them to believe his lies about «Saddam’s WMD» etc., which similarly were stenographically reported and not challenged, by the American ‘press.’ (And: Bush probably had been working with the Sauds to facilitate the 9/11 attacks, in order for him to be able to win the authorization to invade Iraq.) Barack Obama is relying upon the same fake ‘press,’ and same widespread public stupidity trusting it. After a nation’s ‘press’ has so stenographically reported unchallenged its leader’s lies, as happened in 2002 and 2003, the only reasonable response by the public is to boycott those very same stenographic ‘news’ media. But that never happened in the United States, which demonstrably is no real democracy. And so, the current regime there is just as bad as its lying predecessor was – basically just a continuation of it. Presidents represent the same aristocracy, merely different wings of it, and those two wings don’t differ very much from each other; and they are united in their shared warfare against the public (but the rhetoric is much prettier and the lies are more subtle under Obama). As the liberal wing of it said, in the person of its Warren Buffett, «There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning». (He told this to the conservative Ben Stein reporting in the artistocracy’s New York Times, on 26 November 2006., but that newspaper won’t let readers access the article online, and instead prefer to charge anyone who seeks to see whether or not the quotation is authentic – it is. And the statement is true. But the vast majority of aristocrats (unlike Buffett there) want to fool the public to believe that either no class-war exists, or else its victims are instead its actual perpetrators the aristocrats themselves, just like they want their fools to believe that internationally the aggressor is Russia, not the US-Saudi-led alliance of Western ‘democracies’ and jihadist groups that together hate the non-sectarian government of Russia and want to grab that land’s resources.) Then, these two stenographers-to-power wrote: «’The increasing number of Russian-supplied advanced air defense systems in Syria, including SA-17s, is another example that Russia and the regime seek to complicate the global counter-Daesh [meaning ISIS] coalition’s air campaign,’ said Major Tim Smith, using another term for the Islamic State. The increasing number of Russian air defense systems further complicate an already difficult situation over the skies in Syria, and do nothing to advance the fight against the Islamic State, which has no air force, Smith said». In other words: they’re saying two things here: (1) Russia’s defending itself in Syria against another Turkish – or maybe even American – shoot-down of another Russian bomber, «further complicate an already difficult situation over the skies in Syria», and (2) it also does «nothing to advance the fight against the Islamic State». But both of those also are lies: The US and its allies are the ones who «further complicate» the situation, by increasing the stakes after the barbarous Turkish shoot-down of Russia’s anti-jihadist bomber. And Russia’s bombing campaign in Syria has achieved more in two months than the US and its allies – including the Sunni Shariah-law nations that finance jihad – had achieved in two years there while the «allied» side were actually trying to bring down the government of Bashar al-Assad. The fakery of the Western ‘democracies’ and ‘press’ is bare-faced in that passage. Then, the stenographers report, regarding Russia, that: «the Obama administration has accused it of targeting the rebel groups the US was supporting, not the Islamic State. The Russian strikes are also targeting commercial vehicles passing from Turkey into Syria, the administration official told us». The lies there are (1) that Russian air-strikes have not included ISIS along with all of the other many jihadist groups, all of them fundamentalist Sunnis, fighting in Syria to overthrow the secular Shiite Assad; and (2) that bombing «commercial vehicles passing from Turkey into Syria» that are sent there to load up on ISIS-controlled oil stolen from Syria, and which «commercial vehicles» (oil trucks) Russia has bombed around a thousand of them (though the US over the prior years had bombed none at all), shouldn’t be bombed. Oh? Really? On which side of this war are America and its allies? Duh – the stenographers show they don’t even care. They’re just stenographers – or, as America calls them, «reporters» and «columnists». This is ‘news reporting’ in the US ‘press.' The remainder of the article (the entire closing half of it – and by their closing with this far-right garbage they are thereby placing their emphasis upon it) presents far-right criticisms of Obama, which Bloomberg's stenographers then summarize at the very end of this scummy work by saying that «the US is not only decreasing pressure, but acquiescing to Russian pressure. This benefits not only Assad and Russia, but also the Islamic State». In other words, the message there is: the Republican wing of the aristocracy (and the stenographers don’t even inform their readers that this is what they’re now actually quoting from, and here paraphrasing) want Obama to force Russia to have to choose right now between either nuclear war, or else capitulation in Syria. This is more of the type of ‘press’ that was on display in America during 2002-2003: Back then, it was lies from the Republican wing of the aristocracy, but this time it’s lies from the Democratic wing of the aristocracy – but attacked, in this instance, by Republicans, since that’s the wing from which Bloomberg comes. In either case, it’s still the same fake ‘press.' George W Bush wasn’t bad enough, so they gave us Barack Obama. Regarding my having said at the opening, that, «in the process» of all this lying, «they mistakenly included some real news that contradicts the very same fake storyline they’re pumping on behalf of the US government, and of their billionaire employer», here’s that snippet of real news, which is the entirety of their article’s positive value (it’s the entirety of their article’s second sentence): «The US has stopped flying manned air-support missions for rebels in a key part of northern Syria due to Russia’s expansion of air defense systems there, and the Barack Obama administration is scrambling to figure out what to do about it». That was the smidgeon of truth contained in their ‘news’ report about the war in Syria. All the rest of their article was pure deception. No wonder ‘we’ invaded Iraq, Libya, and perpetrated a coup in Ukraine. But Vladimir Putin isn’t like Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, or Viktor Yanukovych. And, it seems that Barack Obama knows this, even if his Republican opposition don’t. (Actually, they’re just lying: they know it, but they are constantly baiting him to go even farther to the right, because this is the way that Republican ‘news’ media successfully sucker their fools, to think that Obama is a communist Muslim Kenyan alien, inside the White House. Suckers never learn.)

Tags: Al Qaeda ISIS Middle East Qatar Russia Saudi Arabia Syria Turkey Ukraine USPutin http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/12/22/two-mainstream-us-journalists-provide-stenographic-news-report-us-anti-russia-propaganda.html Eric ZUESSE Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

Weihnachten im Frühling 2015: Historischer Umbruch am Horizont 

Jahresendzeitliche Erwägungen von Irene Eckert

Ausgangslage

Erderwärmung.Flüchtlingsdramen. Kriege in der südlichen Hemisphäre ohne Ende in Sicht.

In den westlichen Metropolen aber findet ein manchmal grotesk anmutender Weihnachtsrummel statt, so als sei nichts gewesen.

Leider fehlt es vielen Menschen der nördlichen Hemisphäre gegenwärtig an einem Gewahrsein dessen, was um sie herum in der Welt vorgeht. Es fehlt an Verständnis dafür, wie unser relativ gutes Leben verknüpft ist mit dem Elend der Anderen. Was vor allem viel zu vielen fehlt, ist die Einsicht in die historisch-politische Verantwortung, die jeder Bürger doch am Schicksal der Erde mitträgt, so oder so. Die Blickschärfe für die Zusammenhänge und für das erforderliche Verantwortungsbewusstsein wird uns allerdings tagtäglich, stündlich, ja minütlich durch ein schier undurchdringliches Lügengespinst verstellt. Der jüdisch-britische Autor Harold Pinter hat vor zehn Jahren in seiner Nobelpreisrede noch darauf Bezug genommen. Der in diesem Frühjahr verschiedene deutsche Literaturnobelpreisträger Günter Grass wurde noch kürzlich dafür öffentlich hingerichtet, dass  er mit 'letzter Tinte' ein mahnendes Poem auf die den Weltfrieden bedrohende Rolle Israels zu publizieren wagte. Vergessen der eine, verdrängt die Worte des anderen. Ein solcher Umgang mit bekannten Persönlichkeiten schreckt intuitiv ab. Mächtig und einschüchternd tritt die Lobby jener global agierenden Eliten auf, die von dem Unheil, das sie stiftet, stets profitiern.

Für die paar übrig Gebliebenen, die trotz aller zielgerichteten Blendung etwas ahnen von dem Geschick, in das wir alle verstrickt sind und die vor allem etwas dagegen tun wollen, fehlt es spätestens seit 1989 an positiven Visionen. Das Vertrauen darauf, dass sich nachhaltig und konstruktiv eingreifen lässt in ein durchaus abwendbares Verhängnis, hat deutlich nachgelassen.

Globale Überwindungsbemühungen

Dennoch zeichnen sich jenseits von Niedergang und kriegerischer Versrickung seit einigen Jahren auch konstruktive Umbrüche in der Welt ab und zwar wider alle Blindheit der Mehrheitsgesellschaft im globalen Norden und ihrem irrsinnigen Weiterso. Diese langfristig wirkenden, positiven Entwicklungen sind nicht mehr aufhaltbar. Der Wiedereintritt Russlands in die Geschichte seit dem Abtritt des Alkoholikers und West-Lakeien Jelzin vor nunmehr 15 Jahren ist ein Meilenstein auf dem Wege zu einer kooperativen, multipolaren Weltordnung. Die geschickte, wohlüberlegte Bündnispolitik der multiethnischen und multireligiösen Russischen Föderation unter Putins umsichtiger Führung verdeutlicht nachhaltig die Möglichkeit zu einer anderen, konstruktiveren Weltordnung. Der größte Flächenstaat der Erde mit den umfänglichsten Naturressourcen kann und wird an der Seite des volkreichsten und revolutionären Staates China, die Welt in eine bessere Zukunft führen. Beide große Kulturnationen wissen, warum sie zusammenarbeiten müssen. Sie haben viele Gemeinsamkeiten und sind der gemeinsamen umfassenden Bedrohung durch imperiale Einkreisung ausgesetzt. Vor allem aber verfügen sie beide über eine reiche revolutionäre Erfahrung. Im Bunde mit allen fortschrittlichen, anti-imperialen Staaten der Erde bilden diese Länder daher schon eine ganze stille Weile ein konstruktives Gegengewicht zum hegemonialen Vorherrschaftsstreben der USA und ihrer verblendeten Vassallen. Während die westliche 'Staatengemeinschaft' des NATO-Kriegsbündnisses und die 'Koalition' von ihm unterworfener Völker ein fragiles Gebilde darstellen, das im Grunde nur durch erpresserische Gewalt zusammengehalten wird, verbindet die BRICS-Gemeinschaft das befreiende Interesse am Aufbau eines globalen Gegengewichts. Das Acronym BRICS bedeutet in sinngemäßer Übersetzung ziegelrote Bausteine. In der Tat bauen unter dem BRICS-Siegel Brasilien, Russland, Indien, China und Südafrika an einer kooperativen Weltordnung. Stein auf Stein entsteht so ein globaler Zusammenhalt, der ohne Drohgebärden auskommt und ohne pseudo-humanitäre Intervention. Die streng am Völkerrecht der UN-Konventionen orientierte Zusammenarbeit respektiert die nationale Souveränität und die Vielfalt fremder nationaler Gebilde. Die Islamische Republik Iran steht daher fest an der Seite der BRICS-Staaten. Auch dieses Land hat sich seit 1979 mühsam aus imperialen Fesseln zu befreien vermocht.

Begründete Hoffnung auf eine alternative Weltordnung

Es gibt also eine relativ neue, vom Westen zwar allseits und bei jeder Gelegenheit diffamierte, auf globaler Ebene auch im Rahmen der UNO zusammenwirkende Staatengemeinschaft. Dieser lockere Staatenverbund verkörpert die Hoffnung für die Menschheit.

Das Wissen darum, dass eine andere Welt nicht nur nötig, sondern auch möglich ist, ist ein notwendiger Faktor für all jene Individuen und Völker, die erkannt haben, dass die Welt mit ihrem derzeitigen Kurs keine Aussicht auf Fortbestand hat. Die Hoffnung ist aber ein unverzichtbarer Kraftspender. Ohne Hoffnung verfallen wir entweder in Resignation oder in sinnlosen Lebenstaumel.

Gemeinsames Interesse an systemischer Veränderung

Während die herrschenden Eliten zu keiner Zeit ein Interesse an systemüberwindender Veränderung hatten, sind es die kolonial bedrängten Völker und die verlendeten Massen die einen Ausweg aus ihrer Misere herbeisehnen. Während die Oberen alles zu tun bereit sind, um sich potentiellen Systemveränderungen in den Weg zu stellen, gibt es ganz unten die Sehnsucht und den Willen nach etwas Besserem als den Tod. Die da ganz oben verbreiten deshalb Hoffnungslosigkeit und Chaos, um Oberwasser zu behalten. Zu ihren Methoden gehört in Zeiten schwerer Bedrängnis der Aufkauf verelendeter Elemente und deren Anstiftung zum die übrigen einschüchternden Terror. Es ist wichtig, ihre Machterhaltungsstrategien zu erkennen. Nur wenn wir erkennen, wer hinter dem desaströsen Terror steckt, können wir ruhig und gelassen ihre niederträchtigen Pläne durchkreuzen.

Während also in diesem Jahrtausend die noch herrschende Wirtschaftsunordnung weltweit zu Barbarei, Dekadenz, Krieg und um sich greifender Niedertracht geführt hat, wachsen an anderen Stellen die heilsamen Kräfte hervor und erstarken. Denn wo da Gefahr ist,wächst das Rettende auch, wir müssen es nur erkennen und beim Schopfe fassen. Jedem innehaltenden und nachdenklichen Menschen kann heute bewusst werden, dass buchstäblich alle Welt von der Ablösung dieser Unordnung nur noch profitieren kann. Das westlich angeführte hegemoniale System lässt sich im von ihnen noch beherrschten Teil der Erde nur noch mittels rücksichtlosester Gewalt aufrechterhalten. Jeder, der sich ihren Zielen in den Welt stellt, gerät gnadenlos ins Visier und man versucht ihn oder sie zu beseitigen. Dafür werden Milliardenbeträge anderweitig nicht mehr profitabel investierbarer Gelder eingesetzt. Jene Gebilde auf die wir Unteren unsere Hoffnung setzen, versucht man auszumerzen. Mit den schwächsten Kettengliedern wird begonnen.

Aber wir sehen überdeutlich, ihre Strategie greift nicht mehr. Eigentlich greift sie schon lange nicht. Kleinere Gebilde hat man niedergewalzt und atomatisiert: Jugoslawien exisistert nicht mehr , in Afghanistan beherrschen die Drogenbarone mehr oder weniger das angerichtete Chaos. Auf dem Schlachtfeld des einst prosperienden Ölstaates Irak mästen sich Terrorgebilde und nennen sich in gotteslästerlicher Weise „Islamischer Staat“. Auf dem ehemaligen Staatsgebiets des ehedem wohlhabenden Libyen und im armen Yemen geht es ähnlich zu. Flüchtlingsströme aus den bewusst vom Imperium USA samt Anhang zugrunde gerichteten Staaten bedrängen nunmehr auch den reichen Norden.

Die Vereinigten Staaten weit weg vom Chaos, das sie angestiftet haben, fordern von ihren europäischen Partnern nunmehr die Öffnung ihrer Grenzen und fördern so den grenzüberschreitenden Terror.

Wirtschaftliche starke Partner und eigenständige Gegenüber können sie nicht gebrauchen. Ihre absichtsvolle Strategie heißt 'divide et impera', wie einst im antiken Rom. Selbsbewusste Repräsentanten stolzer Völker sind ihnen ein Graus. Damit schaufeln sie sich aber am Ende ihr eigenes Grab. Sie zerstören jene Partner, die sie in ihrem unabweisbaren Fall noch stützen könnten.

Syrien und Ukraine Haupszenarien von Widerstand

Während das einst stolze Sowjetrußland beginnend mit 1953 von innen mittels ausländischer Unterstützung zielgerichtet kaputtgemacht und in Einzelteile zerschlagen wurde, schaffte es die Russische Föderation dank kluger Führung ab der Jahrtausendwende wieder auf die Beine zu kommen. Das einst russische Kernland Ukraine aber wurde vom Westen, vor allem von US-amerikanischen Planern und Interventen zerrüttet. Immerhin wehrten sich die mehrheitlich von Russen besiedelten Gebiete im Osten des Landes mit nachbarschaftlicher Hilfe tatktäftig gegen ihre ethnische und physische Vernichtung. Die stragegisch bedeutsame Halbinsel Krim kehrte nach einer positiven Volksabstimmung zurück ins Mutterland der Russischen Föderation. Von Völkerrechtsbruch keine Spur. Die westliche Welt aber entdeckte mit dem Abfall der Krim von ihrer Bevormundung das Völkerrecht wieder. Auch das lässt sich als Fortschritt werten.

Während das Minsker Abkommen von Kiew mit westlicher Unterstützung nicht eingehalten wird und das ganze Land weiter verelendet, ist die Ukraine aus dem Fokus westlicher Medien verschwunden. Das unter dem Augenarzt Bashar Al Assad dem Terror seit vier Jahren die Stirn bietetende Syrien hält weiter stand. Erst der angeforderte und erfolgreiche Einsatz modernster russischer Bomber für die Zerstörung der Infrastrukturen des Terror auf syrischem Boden bringt endlich  das Thema Syrien wieder auf die internationale Agenda und befördert gar eine einmütige UN-Resolution. Der US-Außenminister Kerry ersuchte in Moskau um eine Audienz, die ihm von höchster Stelle gewährt wurde. Das angeblich isolierte Russland macht Weltpolitik und dient wieder einmal dem Frieden. Die effektive Bekämpfung des Terrors muss zumindest verbal auch vom Westen als Priorität Nummer eins anerkannt werden, obwohl dessen Züchtung zur Beseitigung unliebsamer Regime des Hegemons ureigenstes Werk ist. Nicht mehr dessen Lieblingsforderung „Assad muss gehen“ bestimmt heute die Agenda, sondern der Kampf gegen den Terror und die von Moskau und Peking stets kompromiß bereit angestrebte, politische Suche nach einer Beendigung des unheilvollen „Syrienkonflikts“.

Die Politik des 'Regime Change' in der Sackgasse

In Syrien ist die von den Vereinigten Staaten eingeführte, unheilvolle und völkerrechtswidrige Politik des von außen verordneten Regimewechsels definitiv in eine Sackgasse geraten, aus der sie sich nicht mehr wird befreien können. Das Schicksal des Niedergangs der einst stolzen, auf demokratische Werte verweisende US-amerikanische Nation wurde von dem ersten schwarzen Präsidenten in der Landesgeschichte nicht abgewehrt. Solches von ihm zu erwarten wäre auch unrealistisch gewesen. Der scheidende Juraprofessor und noch Landeschef befindet sich fest im Zangengriff der die Nation beherrschenden Eliten. Er hat nicht einmal die Kraft sich voll und ganz hinter seinen um Ausgleich mit Russland bemühten Außenminister zu stellen. Seine mögliche weibliche Nachfolgerin im Amt Hillary Clinton wird das Land nur noch tiefer in Schuld verstricken und den Rutsch in den Abgrund beschleunigen. Die Politik der einst mächtigsten Nation der Erde wird nicht wie das Alternativgebilde BRICS und co von um Ausgleich und Völkerfrieden bemühten Politikern gelenkt, sondern von egoistischen, mächtigen Interessengruppen, die sich untereinander nicht grün sind.

Diese Situation ist gefährlich und dem Weltfrieden nicht dienlich. Allerdings ist das ideologische Kapital der USA und des Westens verspielt. Sie haben keine Trümpfe mehr im Ärmel. Ihre blutige Hand wird vor der Weltöffentlichkeit immer deutlicher sichtbar, ebenso wie die unblutige Alternative.

Bedeutung einer kritischen Öffentlichkeit

Die Art und Weise wie US-Amerika bemüht ist, all seinen Einfluss geltend zu machen, um die tonangebenden Medien der Welt auf ihre Seite zu ziehen und ihr Lied zu singen, ist Ausdruck der Defensive in die sie längst geraten sind. Ihre Methode der Diffamierung etwa von RT international, das mit seinem Motto „mehr Fragen“ stellen und einer höchst professionellen Darbietung ein Millionenpublikum anzieht, deutet ebenso daraufhin, dass ihnen der Schwund ihres Einflusses sehr bewusst ist.

Um so bedeutender wird in der nahen Zukunft der Einfluss einer kritischen, unabhängigen Öffentlichkeit, die sich vom Einfluss des Imperiums zu lösen versteht. Dazu gehört auch, das wir uns vom Einfluss gekaufter NGOs, gekaufter und nur pseudo-unabhängiger Alternativmedien und „Bewegungen“, die längst zu Salzsäulen erstarrt sind, freischaufeln. Es gibt sie aber, die wirklich unabhängigen Stimmen. Man erkennt sie daran, dass sie die falsche Äquidistanz zwischen Freund und Feind, zwischen Opfer und Täter aufgegeben haben. Sie beten nicht mehr die falschen Töne der imperialen Stimmleiter nach. Diese wartet noch immer mit Stichworten auf wie das 'Unrechtsregime Assad', 'der grausamer Diktator, der sein Volk verheizt', 'die Fassbomben und Giftgaseinsätze des arabischen Dikators' oder sie palavern weiter von der 'unrechtmäßigen, völkerrechtswidrigen Aneignung der Krim durch den russischen Aggressor' oder sie unterstellen die Möglichkeit der Unterscheidung von 'moderaten und rabiaten Terroristen'.

Manchen fällt auf einmal ein, dass der Koran vielleicht doch eine lehrreiches Buch sein könnte, zur Unzeit möchte meinen.

Wir müssen stattdessen lernen, uns argumentatativ schützend vor jene Länder zu stellen, die auch für uns den Kopf hinhalten, die an einer Alternative arbeiten, auch wenn sie den Fenzielen manches linken Visionärs nicht zu entsprechen vermag.

Oköpazifisten oder Anhänger radikaler Gewaltfreiheit

Ähnliches gilt für Oköpazifisten oder Anhänger radikaler Gewaltfreiheit.

Das etwa unter ökologischen Aspekten heftig kritisierte China hat sich zur Priorität gesetzt sein Volk zu ernähren und zu einem bescheidenen Wohlstand zu führen. Alles spricht dafür, dass dieses Ziel in allernächster Zukunft voll umfänglich erreicht sein wird. Das rohstoffarme, bevölkerungsreiche Land arbeitet auch zielstrebig an einem ökologischen Umbau. Noch ist es auf die Nutzung des Energieträgers und Umweltverschmutzers Kohle angewiesen. Die Problematik der Luftverschmutzung ist der Leitung des großen Landes durchaus bewusst und wird planerisch angepackt. Der größte Umweltverschmutzer weltweit bleibt allerdings nach wie vor der Westen unter Führung der Vereinigten Staaten. Auch die lange Dauer der Erdbelastung in Anbetracht der Kolonialgeschichte seitens jener Länder muss mitgedacht wetden. Die Umzingelung Chinas und sein vergleichsweise geringes Militärbudget möge all jenen Kritikern ins Bewusstsein gerufen werden, die China hegemoniale Bestrebungen unterstellen.

Wer in Anbetracht unmittelbarer Aggression, in Anbetracht kololonialer Besatzung oder vor dem Hintergrund terroristischer Angriffe aus dem Hinterhalt die Opfer zur Gewaltfeiheit auffordert, macht sich mitschuldig an der Auslöschung menschlicher Existenzen.

Es gibt Widersprüche und Widersprüche. Manche Widersprüche haben einen vorantreibenden, potentiell befreienden Charakter, andere wiederum halten die Menschen vom befreienden Handeln ab. Auf alle Fälle hilft die Aufarbeitung der Geschichte von unten her, aus der Perspektive der Unterdrückten. Es hilft der befreite Blick, der sich von der Gängelung durch die jahrzehnte währende Gewaltherrschaft löst.

In diesem Sinne gilt es anzupacken und das uns jeweils Mögliche zu tun.
Frohe Weihnacht  und neue Energie für ein besseres Neues Jahr!

UNSC Approves Resolution on Syria: Russia, US Make Strides in Boosting Cooperation in Middle East (II)

Andrei AKULOV | 21.12.2015 | 00:00

See Part I Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) believes US double standards towards Russia and refusal to work with President Putin in the Middle East and elsewhere have resulted in an Islamist takeover in Libya and bloodshed in Syria. «The double standard that we have been judging Russia with, and basing our policy on that double standard, has caused us great harm», Rohrabacher said at a hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.  «Had we been working with the Russians all along in good faith, I believe the situation in the Middle East would have been totally different, and better, more stable». «The double standard that we’ve been judging Russia… is just overwhelming», Rohrabacher said. Noting that he had taken great pride in fighting against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, he said that Russians had expected to be treated as friends after the conflict ended, but were only met with more hostility. He also pointed out that the US had turned down a Russian proposal to broker a compromise end to the civil war in Syria years ago because of this hostility. Now that Syria has «totally gone to hell, we still can’t get ourselves to try to look at Putin as a possible partner in cooperation to make things better», Rohrabacher stressed.  «I believe it is our hostility to Russia that prevented us from creating a policy that would create a more stable Middle East», the congressman said. When Rohrabacher asked why exactly that might be a US goal to begin with, Anne Patterson, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, replied that Washington was protecting a «national security interest» because the situation in Syria affected the security of US allies – Israel, the Gulf Arab states, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. «By dealing with Putin instead of trying to demonize him, perhaps we could have had have more stability in Syria and our friends would be actually better off, than the current policy of ‘whatever we do, don’t work with Russia, and get rid of Assad’», Rohrabacher retorted. His testimony provides a clue to understanding why the Russia-US dialogue on international security has been, to great extent, stalled to complicate the situation in many areas and regions.  The adoption of the UN resolution on Syria is a long-awaited breakthrough against the background of Russia - US discourse being in shambles. In fact, the United States is NATO’s leading member-state, so the channels of military cooperation between the United States and the alliance’s other countries, on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, are totally frozen. Though not formally abolished, the Russia-NATO Council does not work. The alliance’s activity on Russia’s borders has been growing with retaliation on the part of Moscow to follow. The tensions are running high. Any incident, like the interception of plane may entail a tragic mistake. For the purpose of preventing the risk no matter what the circumstances could be (for instance, the two coalitions conducting their separate campaigns in Syria), the USSR and the US back in 1972 signed an inter-government agreement On The Prevention of Incidents On And Over the High Seas, which set a code of conduct both parties should abide by in case of direct contact. However that agreement applied mostly to ships, while these days military planes get involved ever more often. In the case of the both coalitions, air forces carry out the brunt of missions in Syria. To ward off threats it would be expedient to restore the operation of consultative groups of Russia and NATO in the spirit of the 1972 convention for exchanging information about flights by military planes and voyages by naval ships in the Mediterranean (and elsewhere). Against the backdrop of the explosive situation in the Middle East military cooperation should be restored on the pragmatic basis. The need for interaction stems from the common threats to international security, such as the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, terrorism, local crises, and the disastrous effects of the Arab Spring chain of government coups. No single state will be able to cope with these challenges on its own, so military cooperation between Russia and the US just has no alternative. So far, Russia has justified blocking any type of international action besides talking as defending the norm of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states (except at the request of their leaders or with Security Council approval.) The United States has countered that the responsibility to protect civilians is part of what makes a sovereign legitimate and the international community worthy of that name (the responsibility to protect).  But nobody wants to live in a world where either principle always trumps the other, but the current situation violates both principles and many other values. Looks like the time to change the focus of conversation. The United States and Russia have a common interest in defeating the Islamic State and promoting an end to the conflict and chaos in Syria, and the U.S. and Russian militaries have a specific interest in cooperating to deconflict their respective military operations in and over the country.  With Russia’s military deployments to Syria as part of separate coalition and US current strategy of conducting airstrikes and supporting moderate rebel groups having failed, the White House has little choice but to engage. Whether the US likes it or not, Russia is an increasingly important player in Syria, and any political solution will have to take account its interests. What Moscow cares about is preserving the Syrian state structure, which, it argues, the U.S. failed to do in Iraq and Libya. The facts on the ground have demonstrated that the Syrian President has much more support than the US believed he did.  This presents the US with a clear choice: continue to support relatively weak opposition forces with support from key regional allies or work together with Russia in an effort to build a unified coalition to fight the Islamic State and give less priority to ousting Assad. The current policy approach has not yet succeeded after almost five years. The alternative would make the administration confront significant political opposition inside the country and likely from some U.S. allies. But successful U.S.-Russia cooperation could substantially alter the dynamics of the fight against the Islamic State and, hopefully, accelerate its defeat. This cooperation could include some form of coordination of international air strikes with ground operations as well as joint U.S.-Russia efforts to persuade other regional states to participate in the fight and to facilitate talks between the Syrian government and non-Islamic State opposition forces. The UN resolution provides a solid ground for launching the process.  The agreements on Syria’s chemical weapons and Iran’s nuclear program have demonstrated that the both parties can do it. If there is a will, there is a way. Russia and the USA can negotiate win-win solutions for their countries on issues of high importance for not only the U.S. and Russia, but also the entire international community, despite all the hindrances on the way. There is another sign to show the trend is positive. President Barack Obama urged Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan in a phone call on Dec. 18 to "deescalate tensions" with Iraq by continuing to withdraw Turkish forces from northern Iraq, the White House said in a statement. * * * After all, Russian, U.S., European, Iranian, Saudi, Chinese and Indian interests are on the same side against an enemy that threatens all of them. Everyone agrees that IS must be defeated, even though they disagree on how to do it. We may never see the Syria we once knew. It will have to be put together again in a wholly new way. But the only way to do it is through negotiations among the various Syrian players (except those excluded by the UN), with the assistance of the international community, including Russia, Arab states and the West. Priority should be given to Syria people. They are the ones to decide their fate. All are interested in doing away with the IS that now controls large swathes of eastern Syria. This is not the time to snipe at each other, this is the time to save Syria and reach the common goal. As much as divided they were, Russia and the US managed to convince the Syrian the chemical weapons. It actually happened. They can do the right thing now. On Dec. 18, a very important event made the world much safer. It is a big stride in the right direction to make the Middle East actors see light at the end of the tunnel. Russia and the US are among those who gained much.http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/12/21/unsc-approves-resolution-syria-russia-us-make-strides-boosting-cooperation-middle-east-ii.html

Tags: UN Middle East Russia Syria US

UNSC Approves Resolution on Syria: Russia, US Make Strides in Boosting Cooperation in Middle East (I)

Andrei AKULOV | 20.12.2015 | 00:00

For the first time since the Syrian civil war began, world powers agreed on Dec.18 at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to embrace a plan for a cease-fire and a peace process that holds the distant prospect of ending the conflict. The UNSC approved a resolution that calls for talks between the Syria’s government and opposition groups, as well as a cease-fire in the nation devastated by 5-year-old civil war. The resolution envisions the formation of a unity government and calls for an immediate halt to any attacks on civilian targets. A mechanism to monitor, verify, and report on the truce is to be worked out. The resolution gives Secretary General Ban Ki-moon one month to tell the Council how a cease-fire could work and how it could be monitored. The UN is asked to convene formal talks on a transitional government. The talks between the regime and opposition are targeted for early January.  The document says elections must be held in the next 18 months. It makes no mention of whether incumbent President Assad will be able to run. The only groups excluded from the ceasefire are Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and Al-Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria. Offensive and defensive actions against such groups (a reference to air strikes by Russia and the US-led coalition) – are to continue. The two biggest obstacles to a peace deal: the fate of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the classification of armed groups as terrorists were left out of the document’s text. Russian and Iranian diplomats said the question of Mr. Assad wasn’t discussed because neither of the countries would accept a deal that calls for Mr. Assad’s exit, even at the end of a political transition period.  The U.S. and its European allies have maintained that Mr. Assad must leave power, if not at the beginning of the 18-month transitional period spelled out in the road map, then by the end. For the U.S., the resolution continued a softening of the U.S. position on Mr. Assad. President Barack Obama, in a news conference reiterated his view that Mr. Assad had lost any legitimacy and couldn’t run the country, but said the views of pro-Assad powers such as Russia and Iran had to be considered. Secretary of State John Kerry, who visited Russia earlier in the week, had signaled the U.S. would allow Mr. Assad to remain as part of a transitional political process, a turnaround from his earlier insistence that the Syrian ruler couldn’t be part of a transition. Al in all, the resolution broadly lays out a framework similar to the one agreed on in the last round of talks in Vienna in November.  Diplomats acknowledged that enforcing a cease-fire in Syria will be extremely challenging given that the Islamic State extremist group controls vast territory and won’t honor a cease-fire. The goal, diplomats say, is for pockets of the cease-fire to hold between the Syrian army, Shiite militia and opposition groups so the focus can shift to fighting Islamic State and moving forward with a political process. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who hosted the U.N. meeting, said the resolution sends «a clear message to all concerned that the time is now to stop the killing in Syria». Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that the Vienna format is the only way to bring all foreign players to the table and ensure a fair settlement in Syria through talks. «Today’s unanimous vote in the [UN Security] Council should pave the way for the formation of a broad front against terrorism on the basis of the UN Charter, with the support of all on Earth who are opposed to terrorism, including the army of Syria, the Kurdish militia, and the armed forces of the Syrian patriotic opposition,» Lavrov said. «The air force of the Russian Federation, at the request of the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic, is contributing to the completion of this task». «Only Syrian-led inclusive dialogue can put an end to untold suffering in Syria», the Minister added stressing that Syria should remain a secular, unified, and multi-ethnic country. The accord was hailed as a major step toward bringing peace to Syria, where a civil war has killed millions and sent thousands of refugees fleeing into other nations. «It's going to be uphill», said U.N. Envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura. «It will be complicated. But it will be possible». Summing it all up - the resolution does three things, which internationalize efforts to seek a political solution in Syria. It endorses the 17-member ISSG (the International Syria Support Group) as the main body dealing with the Syria peace process; validates the peace plan agreed to by the ISSG in Vienna last month, including a ceasefire between the regime and opposition in six months and talks leading to drafting a new constitution; and gives the United Nations a leading role in working with the regime and opposition on negotiating a ceasefire and drafting a constitution, which officials said is aimed at putting an international stamp on the peace process. The US, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran were brought together to agree on an international document after a series of meetings in Vienna and elsewhere over the past three months – the diplomatic process that many had believed would never get off the ground. * * * It won’t be a bed of roses, but rather a tall order. There remain sharp disagreements to be reconciled between the American and Russian positions, and huge uncertainty about what the plan will mean on the ground. A dizzying array of armed forces have left Syria in ruins, killed 250,000 (some sources say more than 300 000) and driven four million refugees out of the country, threatening to destabilize the nations where they are seeking new homes. A cease-fire in Syria poses its own challenges. It is not expected to apply to all parts of the country — certainly not to the vast areas held by the Islamic State — and the idea of sending United Nations-sanctioned observers to monitor it seems almost unthinkable.  The resolution leaves open the question of whether other rebel groups can be designated as terrorist organizations and excluded from the cease-fire agreement. It embraces an effort led by Jordan to figure out which groups should receive that designation. Mr. Lavrov hinted at the disagreement there, saying it was «inadmissible to divide terrorists between good and bad ones». * * * There is a long road to go and success depends of the ability to compromise and act together. The UN has laid down a foundation launching the international effort to tackle the problem that many believe to be intractable. This is challenge the world community can meet having joined together. http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/12/20/unsc-approves-resolution-syria-russia-us-make-strides-boosting-cooperation-middle-east-i.html

Muslims entering US, Surveillance of Mosques: Donald Trump’s Religion Test for Immigrants Is Standard Practice in Israel

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 14.12.2015 | 11:31

The widespread political condemnation of Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims entering the United States and for surveillance of mosques was pretty great yesterday. American leaders left and right said that such policies are unconstitutional and counter to U.S. values. “Donald Trump is a race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot,” Senator Lindsey Graham said emphatically. But those leaders are strong supporters of Israel (“The pro-Israel community has been the heart and soul of my campaign,” Graham told Jewish Insider), and Israel practices many of the policies that Trump wants the U.S. to implement. For instance, Israeli airport security officials routinely ask travelers what their religion is and often bar Muslims as a result. Last night, Chris Matthews was enraged by Trump’s recommendation that American immigration officials ask travelers if they are Muslim. But our own State Department has blasted Israel for denying “entry or exit without explanation”– notably to “those whom Israeli authorities suspect of being of Arab, Middle Eastern, or Muslim origin.” [emphasis mine]. Nour Joudah, an American who was deported from Israel, explained that Israel discriminates against anyone with an Arab name, at Electronic Intifada: I think it is very clear that they want as few people with Palestinian origin in what they consider Israel and the occupied territories because they don’t even want the [Palestinians] that are there. So why in God’s name would they want us returning in any form or fashion, even if it’s for a limited period or for a visit? … They consider no one’s citizenship valuable if you have an Arab name, end of story. Sadly, Israeli profiling is already being offered as a model for American ports: “What’s so great about Israeli security? Profiling.” Israel also discriminates against non-Jewish refugees and immigrants. In an article titled,“Trump is no more racist than mainstream Israeli policies,” +972 states: [I]n Israel, there is already a law banning Muslims from immigrating — the ‘Law of Return’ which gives that right to Jews alone. Yousef Munayyer, who was born in Israel, explains that the discrimination keeps him from living with his own wife in the country of his birth! Today, a Jew from any country can move to Israel, while a Palestinian refugee, with a valid claim to property in Israel, cannot… [B]ecause my wife has a Palestinian ID, she cannot fly [into Israel]; she is relegated to flying to Amman, Jordan. If we plan a trip together — an enjoyable task for most couples — we must prepare for a logistical nightmare that reminds us of our profound inequality before the law at every turn. Even if we fly together to Amman, we are forced to take different bridges, two hours apart, and endure often humiliating waiting and questioning just to cross into Israel and the West Bank…. Israeli law prevents my wife from living with me in Israel. This is to prevent what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once referred to as “demographic spillover.” Additional Palestinian babies in Israel are considered “demographic threats” by a state constantly battling to keep a Jewish majority. Compare Netanyahu’s racist xenophobic rhetoric to Trump’s claims re Mexicans and Muslims. There isn’t much difference. P.S. A related criticism of Trump is that he is endangering American citizens because his comments fulfill extremist claims about pervasive Islamophobia in the United States. Trump is “the ISIL man of the year,” Lindsey Graham said on CNN. We have young men and women in harm’s way around the world… The enemy will use [this rhetoric] against us… He’s putting our soldiers and diplomats at risk. Secretary of State John Kerry offered a similar warning:  As I travel around the world, it is clear to me and how both our friends and our adversaries watch and listen to the discourse in the U.S., and I believe that comments such as those that we just heard are not constructive — and I would say that is putting it diplomatically. As did the Pentagon. “Anything that bolsters ISIL’s narrative and pits the United States against the Muslim faith is certainly not only contrary to our values but contrary to our national security,” [spokesperson Peter Cook] said, using another name for ISIS. But as all these officials can tell you, Israel’s discriminatory policies are also watched closely around the Arab and Muslim world and are held against the United States. Israel’s occupation of Palestine was a factor in the terrorist slaughter of 9/11 and last January in Paris. Israeli policies are said to have upset one of the San Bernardino killers, too. Donald Trump’s critics would be a lot more consistent if they urged Israel to stop persecuting Palestinians and Muslims because such policies endanger its allies. Thanks to Adam Horowitz for much of this post. Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, 2015 http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/12/14/muslims-entering-us-surveillance-mosques-donald-trump-religion-test-for-immigrants-is-standard-practice-israel.html