Das Kein-Schmarrn-Abo
Prager Frühling Banner
Kürzliche Beiträge
3. November 2012, 15.16 Uhr:

Der Gang zur Toilette, verletzte religiöse Gefühle und eine abgeschnittene Zunge

von Thomas von der Osten-Sacken

Weil er,  ohne vorher gefragt zu werden, einen Salafiten nicht auf seiner Toilette pinkeln lassen wollte, mussten ein Mann in Suez und sein Bruder einen hohen Preis zahlen. Denn wer einen Salafiten am Toilettengang hindert, der beleidigt eine religiöse Figur und damit den Islam selbst. Und als Strafe werden Hände und Zungen abgeschnitten:

“I told him that he needs to ask for permission to use the toilet,” said Gharib, “but he just responded with ‘we do not ask for permission,’” he added.

A few minutes later, a group of 30 “bearded” men reportedly came to Gharib’s shop and said they wanted to “discipline him for insulting a religious figure,” reported the newspaper.

“They tied me down and assaulted me,” said Gharib. “They tried to cut off my hand for reaching for one of them,” he added.

They were unable to cut off his hand, however, as passersby intervened to stop the fight. But Gharib sustained deep cuts.

Gharib’s brother, who had reached the shop later, angered with what had happened to his brother insulted the men so the “Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice” group ordered the cutting of the young man’s tongue as they claimed that he cursed Islam.

“They tried to catch him to carry out the order but he managed to escape with the help of neighbors,” said Gharib.

The father of the two men had to report the incident to police after the group refused to leave and remained waiting for the brother outside his home’s doorstep.

A political activist, Fawazi Abdul al-Fatah, also confirmed the incident and said that the group remained in search of the young man and members of the neighborhood had to guard the man’s house.

 

3. November 2012, 14.55 Uhr:

Amerikanische Waffen für syrische Jihadisten?

von Thomas von der Osten-Sacken

Es gibt viele offene Fragen, was eigentlich genau am 11. September in Benghazi geschah, warum die US-Army nicht eingriff, um Botschafter Stevens zu retten, wieso Obama wieder besseres Wissen noch Tage später erklärte, es habe sich um eine “spontane Demonstration” und nicht einen lange vorher geplanten Terroranschlag gehandelt. Besonders den Republikanern nahe stehende Medien greifen das Thema immer wieder auf. Die neuste Frage nun ist: haben die USA über Libyen syrische Jihadisten bewaffnet?

Perhaps one of the most important questions that President Obama should be required to answer is, “What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi when our ‘consulate’ was attacked?” And a follow-up question: “Was Ambassador Stevens helping to arm militant anti-American jihadists, including Syrian and Libyan al-Qaeda elements?” Investigative reporter/bestselling author/radio talk-show host Aaron Klein has reported (see here and here) that according to his Middle East sources, that is precisely what Ambassador Stevens was doing.

This reporter interviewed Aaron Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief for WorldNetDaily, in Appleton, Wisconsin, on October 22 (see video below) , where he appeared at a joint speaking engagement with New Zealand author/researcher Trevor Loudon, author of Barack Obama and the Enemies Within.

Klein emphatically took issue with the numerous media reports that referred to the U.S. compound that was attacked on September 11 as a “U.S. consulate,” and he explained why that distinction is important.

“It was not a consulate,” Aaron Klein told The New American. “According to Middle East security officials I talked to, this was a major meeting point — I would say the central meeting point — for the American diplomats, including Christopher Stevens, the U.S. Ambassador who was killed, to meet with officials of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, about supplying the opposition in Syria and Libya. Well, who is the opposition? In Libya, the opposition openly included jihadists, included al-Qaeda elements. In Syria, right now, the al-Qaeda elements are leading the opposition…. According to the different sources I spoke to, what we have here is a U.S. policy of arming rebels, knowing or not knowing — but I can’t understand how they would not know — that many of these rebels are jihadists.”

2. November 2012, 20.56 Uhr:

Wenn deutsche Parlamentarier mit dem iranischen Menschenrechtscouncil dialogisieren ....

von Thomas von der Osten-Sacken

Wenn deutsche Parliamentarier in den Iran reisen, um dort kritische und andere Dialoge zu führen, so weiß man eigentlich schon im Voraus und aus leidvoller Erfahrung, wie das Spektakel sich gestaltet.

So auch diesmal, wobei anschaulich der “High Council for Human Rights” im Iran (George Orwell hätte es den Namen nicht treffender erfinden können) dokumentiert den Ablauf eines deutsch-iranischen Treffens dokumentiert.

So tätigte, laut dieser Meldung, dort der FDP-Politiker und Vorsitzende der Deutsch-Iranischen Parlamentariergruppe Bijan Djir-Sarai erst einmal die obligatorische Feststellung, “that western and European politician do not necessarily consider Iran as it is being shown by western media. “European media, even in Germany, cover many negative issues about Iran and its human rights condition that could affect people’s minds about the Islamic Republic. Iran and Germany should take proper measures to make the issues covered in media closer to reality,” he also said.” He added that the German delegation have travelled to Iran to hold talks and provide grounds for further cooperation in different fields and has no intention to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs such as in judicial system.

Nö, mit der Scharia hat man ebenso wenig Probleme, wie mit Homosexuellen, die an Baukränen baumeln oder ausgepteitschten Frauen und anderen Opfern des “judicial systems” in Iran.  Weshalb es auch ein warmes Willkommen gab und das übliche Blabla über die Notwendigkeit von Dialogen, in denen jeder dem anderen ganz auf gleicher Augenhöhe und voller Respekt zuhören solle:

The secretary of Iran’s High Council for Human Rights welcomed the German delegation, saying, “Iran has always supported bilateral talks based on mutual respect. We support a discussion, in which the sides listen to each other’s remarks and have their own judgment and not a one-sided criticism.”

Um dann, wie könnte es anders sein, zur Sache zu kommen:

“It is very surprising that the western and European governments worry about some issues but at the same time they have very close ties with the Israeli regime, which is the main violator of human rights in the world, or several other countries in the region who don’t even respect the democratic principles. They not only support these anti-human rights administrations both financially and politically, but also provide them with arms.”

Denn zaghaft hatten die Deutschen angefragt, warum sie denn keine Eralubnis erhalten hätten, die beiden Empfängerinnen des diesjährigen Sacharow Preises im Gefängnis zu besuchen. Die Antwort folgte auf dem Fuße:

“The idea of award was important per se, we will become very happy to see Iranians win prizes across the world. But the political purposes behind such awards are very disappointing. Iranians are aware of the aggressive behavior of the West with the country. On one hand the West supports the terrorist groups, like Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) or PJAK terrorists who have killed several Iranian youths, on the other hand talk about human rights and give human rights awards to those people who are regarded as being criminal in their own countries.”

Und wie reagiert der wackere Leiter der deutschen Delegation, zumindest laut iranischer Darstellung? Er stimmt seinem Gastgeber vollinhaltlich zu:

The head of the German delegation confirmed the view and tactic of media in covering the issues related to Iran, but said that Iran should take the responsibility to improve such views. “We very well know those terrorist groups you mentioned and have several times told them that we don’t consider you as the representatives of Iranians and don’t consider them as being legitimate.”

Am Ende des schönen Treffens dann schüttelte man sich die Hände und sagte: Auf bald!

The meeting was ended with the two sides expressing interest in continuing mutual meetings and talks about human rights.

2. November 2012, 19.45 Uhr:

Über die Entwicklung in der syrischen Opposition

von Thomas von der Osten-Sacken

Peter Hartling von der International Crisis Group erklärt, wie und wieso sich die syrische Opposition radikalisierte,  viele dem Islamismus zuwandten und zugleich die Hoffnung auf ausländische Unterstützung verloren haben. Mit wenigen Worten bringt die Entwicklung der letzten Monate akkurat auf den Punkt:

The armed opposition on the ground has increasingly turned towards their religious narrative as all other narratives failed. The initial narrative was an Arab Spring kind of reference with an ambition to create a vast demonstration that could prove once and for all the illegitimacy of the regime. Repression made sure that that couldn’t occur, and so the protesters moved on to a logic of self-defence.

They started to organize – in the face of very vicious and repressive security services – the protection of areas where they could continue to demonstrate. Then they moved on to a logic of a “Free Syrian Army", the ambition being to recreate a national army on the basis of volunteers and defectors from the regime’s own military. (…)

That evolution has been self-reinforcing. The more Islamist, the more thuggish the opposition became, the fewer people were willing to support it. In fact, in some places its base of support has narrowed to those people who have been subjected to such forms of violence on the part of the regime, that will support anyone fighting it. (…)

Basically, the expectation in Syria was that at some stage the international community, given the amount of violence the opposition was being subjected to on the part of the regime, would step in and do something decisive. People on the ground really didn’t have an understanding of what the international community could actually do. I think they had this instinct that ultimately they would not be left alone.

And there were many signals from the anti-regime camp within the international community, pushing protestors and later armed groups on the ground to continue to escalate the confrontation with the regime. You had numerous pledges of support but in the end nothing really materialized beyond these empty statements, beyond new rounds of economic sanctions which are affecting the people more than the regime and beyond some support of the armed opposition but which stayed short of providing them the weapons they need to have an edge against the regime, militarily.

2. November 2012, 17.54 Uhr:

Iran: Gute Geschäfte trotz Sanktionen

von Wahied Wahdat-Hagh

Nach langem Zögern hat sich auch Deutschland zur Verhängung von Sanktionen gegen den Iran durchgerungen. Iranische Kommentatoren und Politiker sagen, dass die Sanktionen zwar die Wirtschaft treffen, aber mitnichten zu einer Kursänderung der Diktatur führten. Der Iran werde seinen Handel umorientieren. Doch im Fall Deutschlands scheint die Umorientierung auf sich warten zu lassen, die deutsch-iranischen Handelsbeziehungen sind weiterhin stabil. Unter Ahmadinejad waren sie sogar besser als zu den besten Zeiten der Herrschaft der Pahlavi-Dynastie. Dennoch wachsen die wirtschaftlichen Probleme des Iran.

Weiterlesen.

1. November 2012, 14.55 Uhr:

Krieg in den Flüchtlingslagern

von Thomas von der Osten-Sacken

Nun eskaliert der Konflikt in Syrien final auch in den palästinensischen Flüchtlingslagern. Seit Monaten schon unterstützen vor allem jugendliche Palästinenser, oft gegen den Willen der die Lager kontrollierenden Parteien, den Aufstand. Während die Hamas sich aus Damaskus zurückgezogen hat, die Fatah noch nie besonders gute Kontakte zu Assad pflegte, versuchen PFLP und DFLP irgendwie neutral zu bleiben und die PFLP-GK, eh eine Schöpfung des syrischen Geheimdienstes, kämpft offen auf Seiten Assads.

Damit sind in Syrien nun auf beiden Seiten des blutigen Konfliktes neben Irakis, Libanesen, Kurden aus der Türkei, Iranern und, in geringerem Maße freiwillige Kämpfer aus der gesamten arabischen und islamischen Welt, auch Palästinenser verwickelt:

Syrian rebels said on Wednesday they had formed a brigade of sympathetic Palestinians in a Damascus district to fight armed Palestinians aligned with President Bashar al-Assad.

About 150,000 Palestinian refugees live in the Syrian capital’s Yarmouk camp, a sprawling area of concrete apartment blocks, where some residents support the 19-month-old uprising against Assad and others fight alongside Syrian soldiers.

“We’ve been arming Palestinians who are willing to fight … We have formed Liwa al-Asifah (Storm Brigade) which is made up of Palestinian fighters only,” a rebel commander from the Suqour al-Golan (Golan Falcons) brigade told Reuters.

“Its task is to be in charge of the Yarmouk camp. We all support it and back it,” he added.

Rebels said they and the new brigade will attack Yarmouk fighters loyal to Ahmed Jibril, head of the Syrian-sponsored Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), accusing Jibril’s men of harassing camp residents and attacking Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighters.

29. Oktober 2012, 15.45 Uhr:

Uneinigkeit bei der Hizbollah

von Thomas von der Osten-Sacken

Der Sunday Telegraph berichtet, dass bei der Hizbollah eine recht hitzige Debatte ausgebrochen sein soll, ob und wie man das Assad-Regime weiter unterstützen soll:

“There are different points of view, with some saying that we should push for a settlement within Syria and not bank on Assad staying,” said one Lebanese with connections to senior Hizbullah circles.
Some Hizbullah members, including clerics, fear that their support for Assad is dragging them into a dangerous fight with Sunni Arabs in Syria and Lebanon. They say it is now urgent to end their support for Assad, so that a new relationship can be formed with whoever comes to power in Syria next. “The future of Hizbullah and the Shia is directly related to the future of Syria. If Bashar is to be sacrificed, let’s sacrifice him and not Syria,” the source said.
Disagreement is said to be strongest between civilian Hizbullah members, who are more likely to favor cutting links with Damascus, and its powerful military wing, still fiercely loyal to the Syrian regime.

Ob es wohl auch bei den schiitischen Milizen aus dem Irak, die an der Seite Assads kämpfen, ähnliche Diskussionen gibt?

Scores of Iraqi Shia militants are fighting in Syria, often alongside President Bashar al-Assad’s troops, and pledging loyalty to Iran’s supreme Shia religious leader, according to militia fighters and politicians in Iraq.

Iraqi Shia militia involvement in Syria’s conflict exposes how rapidly the crisis has spiraled into a proxy war between Assad’s main ally Shia Iran and the Sunni Arab Gulf states supporting mostly Sunni rebels fighting the president.

Schmeicheln Sie uns!

Falls Sie Ihre Wertschätzung für unsere Website ausdrücken möchten, können Sie dies mithilfe des Mikro-Bezahlsystems Flattr tun. Benutzen Sie einfach den folgenden Button:

Mehr Informationen auf flattr.com

RM16

Werden Sie ein Fan!

Jungle World
auf Facebook

Sie müssen sich nicht für Facebook registrieren, um unsere Seite zu betrachten. Na gut, dann …