Das gestrige Votum der britischen Bevölkerung für den EU-Austritt ihres Landes erschüttert die EU und die Pläne Berlins, den Staatenbund für die eigene Weltmachtpolitik zu nutzen. Laut aktuellem Stand haben sich bei einer Wahlbeteiligung von 72 Prozent annähernd 52 Prozent der britischen Wähler für den Abschied aus dem Bündnis ausgesprochen. Das Votum wiegt für Berlin nicht nur deshalb schwer, weil nun die zweitgrößte Volkswirtschaft nach Deutschland und eine herausragende militärische Macht die EU verlässt und damit für eine über das europäische Bündnis operierende Weltpolitik nicht mehr zur Verfügung steht. Darüber hinaus droht eine Kettenreaktion: Auch in anderen EU-Staaten wird die Forderung nach einem Referendum laut; die zunehmende Unbeliebtheit der EU in einer ganzen Reihe von Mitgliedsländern stärkt zentrifugale Kräfte. Die schwedische Außenministerin warnt explizit vor einem „Spill-over-Effekt“, der zum Beispiel zu einem schwedischen EU-Austritt führen könnte. In deutschen Medien wird die Forderung laut, das Referendum zu ignorieren und das britische Parlament für den Verbleib in der EU votieren zu lassen. Berlin leitet inzwischen erste Schritte ein, seine nationalen Positionen zu stärken – unabhängig von der EU.
Military drones, like drone bees, do no legitimate work. Unlike drone bees, they can sting – terribly and brutally. Allegedly only “terrorists” are targeted, in at least six countries. But those executed so bloodily are neither tried nor judged. And who are “terrorists”? They may be seen as patriots by their neighbors. Far too often they are village civilians, often women and children, especially traumatized by the circling, buzzing menace in the air above them.
The men doing the targeting are far and safe, mostly in the USA. But due to the earth’s curvature their commands to circle and fire must be relayed to a spot across the Atlantic, and the main spot is Ramstein Air Base, tucked away in an isolated corner of Germany near the French border. Many legal experts maintain that its presence defies German law.
On June 17th up to 5000 people came by bus, train, car, a few by bicycle, defying nasty weather to circle the base and demand its closing. This year the protesters, with signs, rainbow flags, a few drums and umbrellas had made good preparations, explaining to local inhabitants that they were not wild hippies on a joy ride but seriously concerned about world peace and Germany’s role in either saving it – or endangering it. Many listened and agreed; some offered assistance.
A variety of peace groups organized the event which, in a local church, heard speeches by Oskar Lafontaine, LINKE (Left) party leader in nearby Saarland, from the Greens an expert on military-civilian conversion, even a Christian Democrat, a well-known maverick in his party, and speakers from the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the French Mouvement de la Paix, CODEPINK, and Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years now active in the peace movement. With the rain keeping some away, the “human chain” did not entirely circle the big base, but this three-day protest against drones was perhaps the largest yet, anywhere, and a pledge was made to keep getting bigger and louder.
Some German peace advocates disagree on whether to lambaste US military expansion primarily or to concentrate on “blood and iron” warriors in Germany, largely side-stepping the US role in world conflicts, even the drones. Logically, it would seem, the two cannot be separated; the USA is certainly the brawniest world power, with almost 800 military bases in over 70 countries and a military budget outweighing most other nations combined, including Russia and China. And with rare exceptions Germany has been a loyal, closely aligned junior partner, with President Joachim Gauck (soon to retire) and Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen (not thinking of retiring, but perhaps of climbing upward) both just as eager for greater military strength in the world as some leading USA politicians (one quickly comes to mind, but to avoid reproach for meddling in the US elections I will refrain from mentioning her name).
Indeed, troops of Germany and the USA, plus a bundle from 22 other countries, 31,000 in all, rehearsed together very closely– and very closely to Russia – in Poland. The maneuvers, named strangely (or perhaps aptly) “Operation Anaconda” after that reptilian strangler of large prey, involved mass parachute jumps and tank-led river-crossings. They have been followed by yet another nicely-named exercise, Operation Saber Strike, now underway in the Baltic countries. An annual event, it is much larger this year, activating 10,000 troops from 13 countries.
Despite occasional pious disavowals, Polish president Andrzej Duda declared icily: “The aim of the exercise is clear, we are preparing for an attack.” He must have meant this to be taken to mean a defense against an attack by Russia. Since Russia has made no threats or claims of any kind on Poland or the Baltic states, while the Polish government does little else than vilify Russia (when it is not abridging press rights, clipping judicial autonomy or forbidding abortions), such close military cooperation among NATO members, to be increased at their July summit – in Poland – can cause more than a shudder in today’s tense world. One might think of the look in some young tapir’s eyes when faced by an anaconda!
But hold on! There has been a surprising new twist! Is that snake, or a German coil of it, shedding its skin? Or, to change the awkward metaphor, is the iron staple binding German and American foreign policy showing signs of rusting?
Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier startled almost everyone by saying, in an interview: “The one thing we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation with loud saber-rattling and warmongering.” Did one of his words purposely recall Operation Saber Strike?
“Anyone who thinks a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is wrong,” he warned. “We would be well advised not to provide a pretext to renew an old confrontation.”
Although in other sentences, printed a few days later, Steinmeier qualified his statement a bit, mentioning fears of Poland and the Baltic countries supposedly aroused by Putin’s actions in Crimea and the Ukraine, the vocabulary he used broke previous No-No taboos in NATO and official German circles. Sure enough, some righteous warriors in Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, though linked in a coalition with Steinmeier, a Social Democrat, mounted an attack. Much of the media did the same. The bitterly aggressive anti-Russian wing of the Greens also climbed aboard to slam Steinmeier and his call for “exchange and dialogue” instead of military activity. A common line of attack was: “What? Is he calling us war-mongers? How dare he?!”
The ever eager NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, also evoking fears of a threat which was never made, huffily tossed in more tinder: “Let me be clear: there will be more NATO troops in Poland after the Warsaw Summit, to send a clear signal that an attack on Poland will be considered an attack on the whole Alliance.”
Why did Steinmeier dare to defy this official line? Has he seen the hopeful light of détente and disarmament? Vice-chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, his fellow Social Democrat, now plans a Moscow visit, certain to discuss European Union sanctions which hurt Russia but harshly shrink the earnings of countless German farmers who exported milk, fruit and vegetables to Russia and of manufacturers, like the auto makers, who wanted to sell and invest there. Was this a new pattern?
Maybe. The Social Democrats have watched their poll results drop to about 20%, a low point, and are desperately seeking ways to climb out of the slough. Other polls show that, despite the media, over 70% of the Germans favor a better approach to Russia. Putting two and two together is not hard even for Social Democrats still enjoying Cabinet armchairs with all the perks, but seeing elections looming in 2017. Their Christian Democratic coalition partners are already hunting for new buddies. And, still well versed in arithmetic, SPD leaders can see that only with the Greens, now at 14%, and the LINKE (Left) party, at 9%, can they hope to forge a majority and keep those comfortable armchairs, the best ones, in fact. They have a long tradition of turning the wheel toward portside before elections. Is this part of that old mold? (And here again overseas parallels come to mind.)
Regardless of their motives, everyone yearning for peaceful solutions can welcome this unexpected turn. But how should the LINKE party respond to moves which may slowly resemble flirtation, despite all previous taboos? Should it consider joining with Social Democrats and Greens in a sort of “united front“– also aimed against the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), now registering about 11% in the polls? How wary must it remain, knowing how smoothly both Social Democrats and Greens forget election promises on peaceful foreign policies and economic issues? How many principles would the LINKE have to dilute or abandon to win those treasured cabinet armchairs in a federal government? Attempts on a state basis have never once gone well! The approaching city-state elections in Berlin in September may raise this question even sooner.
Certainly a requirement for a truly wise policy is to get people marching out on the streets, building strength and confidence. For issues close to their hearts they do just that: in five cities tens of thousands joined hands in a human chain to oppose racism and welcome the new refugees. Over 100,000 Berliners rode bicycles in a star-formation to the Brandenburg Gate to demand more and better bike paths. Far more showed up last year against the TTIP trade deal. Similar numbers, and more, are needed against drones and maneuvers like Anaconda and Sabre Strike (better Sabretooth?) and for decent jobs and pensions. In a few hours we shall learn the results of mass pressure in Britain (for better or worse), in a few weeks those of French workers and Spanish voters. And not a few Germans are watching with great interest and enthusiasm –maybe even taking ideas – from the courageous campaigns of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders.
Was ich heute hier zu sagen habe, verantworte ich ganz allein. Ich rede für keine Partei, keinen Verein, keine Kirche. Ich rede als einer der Letzten der Flakhelfer-Generation, als einer, der das letzte Jahr des letzten Krieges noch als regulärer Soldat des Heeres überlebt hat.
Posted in Allgemein |
Kommentare deaktiviert für Rede Erhard Epplers am Sowjetischen Ehrenmal – 75. Jahrestag des Überfalls Nazideutschlands auf die Sowjetunion
Der Botschafter der Ukraine in Deutschland, Andrij Melnyk, hat den Artikel in der Zeitung „Die Zeit“, in dem der Autor Theo Sommer zur Anerkennung der Krim als Teil Russland aufruft, scharf verurteilt.
Guarantees that the US missile defense system is not directed against Russia are the only possible way of solving the missile defense problem
/TASS/. The Russian Foreign Ministry has demanded legal guarantees that the United States‘ missile shield is not aimed against Russia.
„Guarantees that the US missile defense system is not directed against Russia are the only possible way of solving the missile defense problem,“ Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told a press briefing on Thursday. „If the US actions are indeed motivated by the desire to minimize the missile threats Washington is talking about, it is clear that such an agreement with the Russian side will in no way undermine the ability of the American side to defend itself from these threats and protect its allies and partners.“
According to Zakharova, Moscow is confident that mutually acceptable solutions can be found to missile defense issues that would take into account the interests of both Russia and the US. „Otherwise, we will have to take the necessary retaliatory steps, as noted by Russian President Vladimir Putin who was speaking at a meeting with representatives of international news agencies,“ she added.
She recalled that the essence of the guarantees is that Russia and the United States could jointly develop a set of military and technical criteria that will make it possible to determine the threshold beyond which boosting the capacity of the U.S. missile defense system would pose a threat to the efficiency of Russia’s strategic deterrence capabilities. „We would like to see Washington’s pledge that it has no intention of upsetting the existing strategic balance,“ she went on to say. „That is, in fact, we offered the U.S. administration to specify the statements that their actions in the missile defense system sphere are not directed against Russia doing this in the internationally accepted legal manner.“
Russland hat nach Angaben der russischen Außenamtssprecherin den türkischen Außenminister zur Teilnahme am Außenministertreffen der Organisation der Schwarzmeer-Wirtschaftskooperation (SMWK) in Sotschi am 1. Juli eingeladen.
Hillary Clinton’s private server was temporarily unprotected by security features in December 2010, when the then-secretary of state had technical problems with her email. In 2011, Clinton’s server was hacked multiple times, newly-disclosed papers show.
Syria: Aleppo Doctor Demolishes Propaganda and Media Warmongering:
Dr Antaki reinforces that President Assad’s popularity has increased rather than waned since the US NATO war against Syria began five years ago and he deconstructs much of the propaganda upon which the US and NATO base their interventionist, neo-colonialist policies.
By Vanessa Beeley The following is the transcript of an interview given to Be Curious TV by Dr Nabil Antaki, a doctor based in the Syrian government held western sectors of Aleppo. In this interview, given during his recent trip to France, Dr Antaki once more observes that Western media has been misleading and obscurantist in their reporting of events in Syria. Dr Antaki reinforces that President Assad’s popularity has increased rather than waned since the US NATO war against Syria began five years ago and he deconstructs much of the propaganda upon which the US and NATO base their interventionist, neo-colonialist policies. Translation of interview by Vanessa Beeley.
June 20, 2016 „Information Clearing House“ – „21stcenturywire“ – “Welcome Nabil Antaki. Please would you let us know what is happening in Aleppo and Syria. You are briefly in Europe. You are Syrian, born in Syria and residing in Aleppo. You are a doctor at the St Louis hospital in western Aleppo, the area under “regime control”. People living in the west who are are not aware of what is happening in Syria might ask which is worse, the Syrian regime violence or that of the terrorists or the “rebels”. This antagonism is reflected at the heart of our media where on one side we find those who affirm that Bashar al Assad’s “regime” is terrorising his own people and on the other side are those who claim that Assad’s forces are defending their people against armed Jihadists”
Dr Antaki: “Firstly I would like to clarify..you have mentioned several times, Assad’s “regime” and Assad’s “army and its a confusion that we dont appreciate in Syria..when we read in all the media about Bashar’s airforce, Bashar’s army. In fact, it is the Syrian army, the army of the State of Syria and when you mentioned that I live in western Aleppo which is under “regime” control, no, it is under the control of the Syrian state. Our people are not afraid of the Syrian army because it is an army that defends all of Syria against armed terrorists who have invaded Syria in order to establish their Islamic state. Therefore we should never say at all that the Syrian people are afraid of the Syrian army because it is not a “regime” army as described by the media, people are, in reality very grateful for the presence of the Syrian army.
Let me give you an example. A few months ago the Syrian army launched an offensive to bring some relief to Aleppo which has been surrounded or besieged [by terrorists] for the last 3 years. According to the western media the Syrian army was imposing a siege upon the Syrian people in Aleppo when in fact the opposite was true and the Syrian army was trying to break the three year terrorist siege of Aleppo. Therefore, no, the people are not afraid of the Syrian army, they are afraid of the terrorists.
BCT: “So just to be clear, the western media is not reporting accurately what you are living through in Aleppo?”
NA: “Exactly. Western media only reports on events in eastern Aleppo. Since 2012, Aleppo has been cut in two. Three hundred thousand people live in the zones controlled by the terrorists in the east but the remaining three quarters of Aleppo inhabitants, around 1.5 million people, live in western areas controlled by the Syrian state. So, when we hear from the western media about what is happening in Aleppo they focus only on the eastern areas.
When we issue a cry for help for Aleppo, it is transformed into a cry only for eastern Aleppo. When the media announced that the last pediatrician in Aleppo had been killed, it is not true because in western Aleppo we have around 100 pediatricians. Perhaps its the last pediatrician killed on the other side, I have no idea, I have no information, but what I do know is that the inhabitants of the eastern sector living under terrorist control are Aleppans like us but chance dictated that they were living in areas invaded by terrorists.
BCT: “They didnt flee the area..?”
NA: “From the beginning over half a million people fled towards western Aleppo because they were afraid of the terrorists but there are some people who were afraid to leave, perhaps without the means to leave, afraid to lose what they had amassed during their entire life, their little appartment, their TV. They thought that if they left they might lose it all, so they decided to stay not for any ideological reasons but because materially they prefered to stay where they were.
BCT: “You have just been describing eastern Aleppo to us which is under terrorist control. Please would you differentiate for us between terrorist and “rebel”.
NA: “At the beginning of the war in Syria there were multiple groups among which there were a very small percentage of democratic opposition to the Syrian “regime” but the majority were terrorist groups intent upon establishing an Islamic state. Over time these democratic groups were absorbed into the terrorist groups and currently these terrorist groups represent more than 95% of the hundred or so armed opposition groups on the ground in Syria.
Therefore the Free Syrian Army and the opposition who are not terrorists but are nevertheless armed represent no more than 5% of the armed groups, the rest are all terrorists.
The principal terrorist groups are DAESH [ISIS] and Al Nusra. These two groups have been added to the “terrorist” list by the United States and Russia so everyone has the right to target them with air-strikes. However there are other groups which emanate from Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliate, which are not yet considered to be terrorists. Among these are three principal groups, Jaish al Islam [Army of Islam], Ahrar al Sham [Free of Damascus] and Jaish al Fatah [Army of Conquest/Liberation]. These three groups were created by Al Nusra to escape being put on the terrorist list but nevertheless have their origins in Al Nusra which is Al Qaeda in Syria.
So when these three groups are added to the terrorist list which will enable them to be neutralised, there will remain only those armed groups that are not terrorists with whom we could negotiate and achieve a political compromise.”
BCT: “What about the refugees? The 12 million migrants seeking refuge.”
NA: “Half the Syrian population is displaced. There are 23 million people in Syria and 12 million people have been driven from their homes. 3.5 million are refugees outside Syria in neighbouring countries like Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. There are 8 million internally displaced people who have not left Syria but have been forced to leave their homes. This is a very serious situation and these people need assistance just as much as those who have left Syria.
The United Nations agencies focus only on the people living in the camps external to Syria. All these people are not fleeing the actions of the Assad “regime” or Assad’s army as described in the media. These people are fleeing neither Assad’s government nor the Syrian army, nor the hypothetical actions of either of these groups. These people are either fleeing from combat zones or they are fleeing misery. The majority of the Syrian people are now living below the poverty line.
80% of Aleppo’s population are dependent upon NGO food parcels. People are impoverished. They have exhausted their savings, those who had work lost it, those who had an asset, a workshop or a factory, a shop, have lost everything. People are destitute, they are fleeing this misery or they are fleeing the combat zones. They are also considering their children, they endured 2, 3, even 4 years but the war has continued into 5 years and they want to assure their children of a future so they take the decision to uproot and to seek a future somewhere else, to start a new life.
BCT: ” How do you and the Syrian people feel about the sanctions and economic embargoes imposed by western governments since the beginning of the war?”
NA: “We are disgusted by these sanctions because these sanctions and these embargoes have not been implemented against the Syrian government but against the Syrian people, all the Syrian people. For example, me personally, as person x, living in Syria, does not have the right to conduct the smallest transaction. If I wanted to send $ 1000 to my children, I am unable to do so. I can neither import or export anything. This is crippling. I am a doctor, I wanted to replace one part of a piece of medical equipment. Normally this would take one week, it took a year and a half to get hold of the part because we couldnt import it from Japan as it was a multi-national company.
So these sanctions penalise the Syrian people and at a certain moment the EU lifted the sanctions but only for the people living in the terrorist controlled zones. Those people living in areas under the control of the Syrian state could do nothing. Contrary to their claims, this does not penalise the “regime”, it punishes the Syrian people.
BCT: “You are a Christian. A middle east Christian. If someone were to question your objectivity what would be your response?”
NA: “I dont speak to you as Nabil Antaki the Christian, I speak as Nabil Antaki the Syrian who has witnessed his country being attacked and destroyed. It is not about being Christian or Muslim, Syria is an ethnic and religious mosaic. There are eleven different Christian churches and as many different Muslim sects, its not about the Syrian government protecting the minorities and that is why we support the Syrian government. No, the government is secular, it protects everyone, whether a minority or a majority, everyone is respected inside Syria. It is a secular “regime”. Unlike the Islamic state that absolutely does not respect the minorities.
If the Christians are pro-government or pro the Syrian state it is because from the beginning they have supported a secular state as opposed to an Islamic state.
The current President is very popular. I am actually not a fan of the President, I defend Syria not the President. But viewing it objectively we cannot deny his popularity and in my opinion, if tomorrow, we have free elections under international law, giving all Syrians the right to vote, even those in diaspora, we would see our President re-elected.
The west has not understood this fact. Assad’s was popular at the beginning of the war against Syria, his support is even stronger now, not because he defends the minorities which is what the media would like you to believe but because he defends all Syrians. Christians are about 8% of the Syrian population so when they say Assad is popular because he defends the Christians and that is why the Christians support Assad, its a joke. If we are with him or against him, it has no effect upon his popularity. We have neither soldiers nor arms, we are 8%.
Assad is popular with all groups and sectors of our Syrian society so if we want this war to end we have to stop demanding that Assad steps down as one of the conditions, we have to negotiate with him, conduct free elections and work towards democracy.
BCT: “Let me just come back to some of the points you made. You speak of Assad’s huge popularity but was this the case in the beginning, in 2011?”
NA: “This is my point! When the troubles started, there were anti Bashar demonstrations, 10,000 or 15,000 people maximum. These demonstrations were televised and the figures were hugely exaggerated up to one or two hundred thousand. On the other hand, massive spontaneous demonstrations poured onto the streets in support of the Assad government, in Aleppo, in Damascus, all the big towns and cities. Over a million people supporting Bashar. Nobody filmed these demonstrations or perhaps I should say nobody televised them in the west. So, organic demonstrations of millions of people were ignored while the few thousand that marched against Bashar were blown out of all proportion and highly exaggerated.
So there was a huge amount of bias, partisan reporting and partiality from the media from the beginning. Assad was always popular and this has not changed. He is perhaps even more popular now than in the last few years before the war. He had enormously liberalised both the political and the economic sectors so people were happy, even though they knew there were still things that needed improving.
Life was not perfect but nobody wanted war, they wanted reform. Even the most outspoken enemies of the government did not want war, and certainly not this war. They wanted reforms and they wanted democracy but nobody wanted to kill Syria to improve Syria.
BCT: “We have two coalitions on the ground in Syria, according to you what is their efficacy?”
NA: “In my opinion the Western international coalition is not effective because you cannot combine two opposing sides. You have a coalition of the US and Europe with Turkey and the Gulf States and at the same time we know that Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia finance the Jihadists, finance Daesh, finance Al Nusra. On the one hand they want to fight against the terrorists, on the other they are helping them. That is completely abhorrent.
Additionally, there are the Kurds in Syria who have also taken up arms against DAESH. The US has found its allies in the Kurds to fight against DAESH. However Turkey is completely against the arming of the Kurds so Turkey combats the Kurds. So, we have two countries who are allied, the US and Turkey but one is allied with the Kurds and the other is against them so how can this ever work. There are too many contradictions within the Western coalition and that is why it has achieved nothing.
Before the Russian intervention, the coalition air-strikes were cosmetic strikes. They would carry out a hundred or so strikes in the desert and that was the extent of their campaign. They only became effective after Russia intervened.
From our perspective the Russian intervention was extremely beneficial and they have the full support of the Syrian people which contradicts the western narrative. The west accuses Russia of targeting not only the terrorist groups but also the “moderate rebels”. Russia has been very succesful in bombing the Islamic State groups so the West is trying to slow their progress by claiming they are targeting the non terrorist groups and accusing Russia of aiding Bashar instead of targeting DAESH. Of course this is not true, when the West want to bomb its ok but when Russia wants to bomb, they dont do it right.
BCT: “How do you think the Western media portray the reality on the ground in Syria?”
NA: “Western media is not objective. They are partisan, they are against the Syrian state. They are supporters of the terrorist-rebels, so the Syrian people is fed up with their portrayal of events in Syria. We dont ask that they are pro or anti “regime”, we simply ask them to be objective.
BCT: “What might you like to say from a personal point of view?”
NA: “All that I want to say to the West is please be more objective, educate yourselves, dont accept disinformation, put pressure upon your governments because Syria is a country that desires its freedom, prosperity and democracy.
The war has destroyed us, we have had enough, we want it to stop!
Department official whom Defense One calls “the woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton,” this week advocated for “sending more American troops into combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the Obama administration has been willing to commit.” In an interview with that outlet, Flournoy “said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad’s forces out of southern Syria and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region.” She had previously “condemned the Obama administration’s ISIS policy as ineffectual,” denouncing it as “under-resourced.”
Posted in Allgemein |
Kommentare deaktiviert für Hillary Clinton’s Likely Pentagon Chief Already Advocating for More Bombing and Intervention (Intercept)
Eine Herausforderung ist die Frage nach dem Charakter und der Rolle des „IS“ selbstverständlich schon deshalb, weil sie kaum einzugrenzen ist. Zu viele Worte lassen eher noch mehr Verwirrung entstehen als die Realität des „IS“ selbst. Skizziert seien hier daher nur einige Hauptpunkte, die für eine eingehende Klärung unerlässlich sind.
Also zum Thema:
Der heutige Terrorismus ist selbstverständlich nicht mit Bomben aus der Welt zu schaffen. Bomben gegen den „Islamischen Staat“ können den „IS“ als ein Symptom des Terrorismus eindämmen; zur Wurzel des Phänomens dringen sie nicht vor. Erforderlich ist eine vorurteilslose Diagnose, eine Differenzierung der Spuren, die im Terrorismus zusammenkommen. Monokausale Begründungen müssen vermieden werden – um auf diese Weise vielleicht zu einer – ebenfalls zu differenzierenden – globalen Therapie dieses Übels zu kommen.
1. Die islamische Spur:
Auch wenn klar ist, das „Islamischer Staat“ und Islam nicht identisch sind, selbst wenn klar ist, dass es d e n Islam nicht gibt, sondern diverse Konfessionen im Lauf der Geschichte ebenso wie heute, muss doch genau hingehört werden, wie der „IS“ sich aus dem Koran herleitet. Dazu dürfte es angebracht sein, den Koran in einer authentischen Übersetzung selbst einmal anzuschauen und sich die Begründungen der “IS“-Ideologen, wie auch der aus dem Islam kommenden wie auch zugelaufenen Mitglieder anzuhören – und ihre Motive ernst zu nehmen, statt sie ängstlich beiseite zu schieben.
Aus dieser Wahrnehmung sticht – abgesehen von allen Unstimmigkeiten und brutalen Verkürzungen – zumindest ein Stichwort als besonders bemerkenswert hervor, dass nahezu in jeder Sure des Koran auftaucht – gleich, wie es dann interpretiert wird, nämlich: der Koran versteht sich als letzte Warnung zur Offenbarung des wahren, des e i n e n Gottes zurückzukehren, dessen Botschaft durch Judentum und Christentum verfälscht, vergessen und verraten worden sei. Er ist der apokalyptische Zeigefinger: Wer nicht die Warnung nicht hören will, fällt der ewigen Verdammnis anheim. – Die Dogmatisierung dieses Zeigefingers führt unmittelbar in den „IS“.
2. Die koloniale Spur:
Zweifellos resultiert aus der Geschichte eine vielfache anti-kolonialistische, anti-europäische Dynamik, die sich in mehreren historischen Schüben aufgebaut hat: Der Untergang des ersten großen Muslimischen Kulturraums im Mongolensturm des 12. Jahrhunderts, während Europa zur gleichen Zeit aufstieg. Die darauf folgende Konkurrenz Europas mit dem als Osmanisches Reich wiederentstandenen zweiten muslimischen Kulturraum, die mit der Kolonisierung eines zurückbleibenden Osmanischen Reiches, ja mit dessen Auflösung und Besetzung nach dem ersten Weltkrieg endete. Die Neo-koloniale Phase nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg, in dem die muslimische Welt Ausbeutungsobjekt unter der Vorherrschaft des westlichen Imperialismus wurde – und sich jetzt davon befreien möchte, müsste, sollte, könnte…. Die Erinnerung an einstige Größe und Erniedrigung bringt starke Kräfte der Rückbesinnung hervor, die sich in einer widersprüchlichen Haltung zur „Modernisierung“ outen.
3. Die Spur der „Überflüssigen“:
Heute leben auf dem Globus ca. acht Milliarden Menschen, 2020 könnten es nach übereinstimmenden Schätzungen neun bis zehn Milliarden sein. Zwar flacht sich die a b s o l u t e Zunahme der Weltbevölkerung ab, dafür hat sich eine Disproportion zwischen einer rasant weiter anwachsenden Bevölkerungszahl im globalen Süden und den alternden nördlichen Industriestaaten herausgebildet. Das hat zu einem überproportional anwachsenden Teil junger Menschen in diesen Ländern geführt, während die Bevölkerungszahlen der Industriestaaten schrumpfen. Diese jungen Menschen drängen, wenn sie auf Grund der neo-kolonialen Zerstörung der örtlichen Wirtschaften keinen Ort der Verwirklichung in ihren Ländern finden und nicht aufgehalten werden, notwendigerweise nach Norden. Zusammen mit den auch in den alten Industrieländern selbst durch die Automatisierung aus ihren Arbeitsplätzen verdrängten Menschen sammelt sich ein zusammengesetztes Prekariat „Überflüssiger“, an den Rand Gedrängter, die in der herrschenden Welt- und Gesellschaftsordnung keinen Platz mehr für sich finden – außer wenn diese Gesellschaft gesprengt, zerstört, geöffnet wird.
4. Die geistige Krise:
Der Zusammenbruch der sozialistischen Utopie(n) und die Unfähigkeit der darauf folgenden globalen Kapitalisierung zu neuer Sinnstiftung haben eine geistige Heimatlosigkeit hinterlassen, die nach neuer Ganzheitlichkeit verlangt, es wächst die Angst vor dem Clash, vor der Apokalypse etc. Der Islam könnte eine solche neue Ganzheitlichkeit in seiner Form des alles umgreifenden E I N E N anbieten. Der dogmatische Islamismus verengt das Einheits-Angebot des Islam jedoch auf die Grenzen von Auserwählten, die sich durch die Zerstörung der aus ihrer Sicht nicht mehr zu rettenden Welt zu retten versuchen, indem sie die Apokalypse für sich selbst inszenieren – statt sich in die übergreifende, die Grenzen des Monotheismus, auch des muslimischen, überschreitende geistige Entwicklung zu stellen, die alle weltanschaulichen, religiösen und spirituellen Impulse unserer heutigen Welt in einen offenen, lebendigen, kosmologischen Zusammenhang bringt.
Hier beginnt das Hören, Sehen, Erleben neuer Zusammenhänge von Wissen und Glauben, die über monotheistische, vor- und außermonotheistische Weltsichten hinausgehen, beginnt das Nachdenken über deren möglichen zukünftigen gesellschaftspolitischen und sozialen Ausdruck selbstverständlich erst. Dies soll und muss aber an dieser Stelle so offen bleiben –und dies nicht nur aus Platzgründen, sondern weil es offen ist und offen bleiben muss, da es nur als Prozess des Erkennens und Bemühens verstanden werden kann. Nur aus einem erneuerten Geist, der die Welt ihrer materiellen und geistigen Vielgestaltigkeit sieht können lebensfördernde Lösungen für die oben genannten Spuren gefunden werden. Das ist sicher.
Eine notwendige Erinnerung:
Nicht vergessen werden darf selbstverständlich – wenn auch dies bitte nicht monokausal zu verstehen ist – dass der „IS“ wie auch verwandte Terrortruppen ein unmittelbares Produkt westlicher, von den USA ausgehender globaler Politik sind. Sie werden benutzt die Welt durch Fragmentierung und Schüren von allgemeiner Unsicherheit für die US-Hegemonie beherrschbar zu halten.
erinnert an die deutsche Geschichte: „Stellen Sie sich vor, 1989 hätte die Regierung der DDR anders gehandelt. Stellen Sie sich vor, die Panzer, die bereitstanden, hätten ganze Stadtviertel in Trümmer geschossen.“ Sie sei gegen Assad gewesen und wurde eingesperrt, erzählt sie. Vielen ihrer Künstlerkollegen sei Gewalt angetan worden. „Ich selbst konnte in ein Nachbarland über die Berge fliehen, wie eine Kriminelle“, sie sei dann auf dem Landweg nach Deutschland gekommen. Auf Wikipedia steht, sie sei ein Symbol der Revolution. LINK
der Fokus der Aktionen des Zentrums für Politische Schöheit scheint sehr stark auf Flüchtlingen aus Syrien zu liegen:
Ein sehr wichtige und grundlegende Frage bleibt deshalb:
durch wen die Menschen vertrieben werden. Durch Assad etwas? über ihn sollen noch mehr investigative Artikel geschrieben werden? Nicht über die Länder, die seit Jahren bezahlte „Gemässigte“ und Terroristen bewaffnen? Diese Art der Darstellung des Kriegs in Syrien ist völlig einseitg
ZITAT ZENTRUM POLITISCHE SCHÖNHEIT:
„Wir haben es glaube ich wieder geschafft, dass Syrien wieder in der Tagespresse erschien . Ganz viele Journalisten konnten ihre investigativen Artikel ber Syrien, über Assad und die Region wieder platzieren. Das war wirklich ein voller Erfolg.“
—————————–
Der folgende Text wurde offensichtlich Ende 2014 verfasst
Die bislang größte humanitäre Katastrophe des 21. Jahrhunderts: 13 Millionen Flüchtlinge, 5,5 Millionen Kinder, rund 200.000 Tote (bis Ende 2014). Diktator Assad lässt über 40 Gegenden in Syrien systematisch belagern, aushungern und bombardieren. Die Bevölkerung Syriens wird in Zeitlupe vor unseren Augen getötet. Assads Truppen haben Belagerungsringe um ganze Stadtteile gelegt und schüren sie von jeglicher humanitären Hilfslieferung und medizinischen Versorgung ab. Nachdem er keine Chemiewaffen mehr einsetzen darf, setzt er auf Hunger und Luftwaffe. Die Erschöpfung der Menschen ist total: Gebt uns nur Nahrung, damit wir überleben und wir verzichten auf alles, worauf wir gesetzt haben – Demokratie, Menschenrechte, Freiheit.
Assad lässt „Fassbomben“ über den belagerten Städten abwerfen. Fassbomben sind, wie der Name sagt, alte Ölfässer, gefüllt mit Sprengstoff, Nägeln und Metallteilen, die möglichst viele Menschen töten oder verwunden sollen. So sieht der Zivilisationsbruch in Syrien aus: …… Die nachfolgende Generation wird das sehen und sich fragen: wie konnten unsere Eltern das zulassen? Der deutsche Außenminister wird zu einer Gedenkkonferenz nach Syrien fliegen und flammend beschwören, dass sich das NIE WIEDER ereignen darf. Syrien ist keine gewöhnliche Krise. Syrien ist das größte politische Verbrechen seit Jahrzehnten.
dicht besiedelte Millionenstädte werden willkürlich aus der Luft mit Fassbomben bombardiert.
2014:
Mit einer Aktion in Berlin wollten Künstler syrische Kinder vor dem Bürgerkrieg retten.
Hamdoun ist ein Theatermacher, an den Protesten gegen das Assad-Regime hat er sich mit künstlerischen Aktionen beteiligt.
bei Spiegel-Online könnt Ihr auch abstimmen über die Äußerungen des deutschen Außenministers
zur NATO-Politik gegenüber Russland. Das bisherige Ergebnis seht Ihr unten.
Gruß Lisa
CO-OP NEWS 