Während in Europa die Terrorgefahr durch Extremisten des
„Islamischen Staates“ wächst,zeigt sich immer deutlicher die
Halbherzigkeit der politisch Verantwortlichen im Kampf gegen diese alle
bedrohende Gefahr. Macht- und geopolitische Interessen stehen im
Vordergrund. Haben sie tatsächlich Vorrang vor der Sorge um die
Sicherheit der Bürger?
In diesem Zusammenhang möchten wir unseren Lesern einen
Kommentar des lanjährigen Nahost-Korrespondenten des britischen
„Independent“, Robert Fisk, nicht vorenthalten.
----------------------------------------
Why is David Cameron so silent on the recapture of Palmyra from the clutches of Isis?
In the end, it was the Syrian army - and its Hizballah
chums from Lebanon, and the Iranians, and the Russians - who drove the
Isis murderers out of Palmyra
Robert Fisk, 27.3.2016
The biggest military defeat that Isis has suffered in more than two
years. The recapture of Palmyra, the Roman city of the Empress Zenobia.
And we are silent. Yes, folks, the bad guys won, didn't they?
Otherwise, we would all be celebrating, wouldn't we?
Less than a week after the lost souls of the 'Islamic Caliphate'
destroyed the lives of more than 30 innocent human beings in Brussels,
we should - should we not? - have been clapping our hands at the most
crushing military reverse in the history of Isis. But no. As the black
masters of execution fled Palmyra this weekend, Messers Obama and
Cameron were as silent as the grave to which Isis have dispatched so
many of their victims. He who lowered our national flag in honour of the
head-chopping king of Arabia (I'm talking about Dave, of course) said
not a word.As my long-dead colleague on the Sunday Express, John Gordon,
used to say, makes you sit up a bit, doesn't it? Here are the Syrian
army, backed, of course, by Vladimir Putin's Russkies, chucking the
clowns of Isis out of town, and we daren't utter a single word to say
well done.
When Palmyra fell last year, we predicted the fall of Bashar
al-Assad. We ignored, were silent on, the Syrian army's big question:
why, if the Americans hated Isis so much, didn't they bomb the suicide
convoys that broke through the Syrian army's front lines? Why didn't
they attack Isis?
“If the Americans wanted to destroy Isis, why didn't they bomb them
when they saw them?” a Syrian army general asked me, after his
soldiers' defeat His son had been killed defending Homs. His men had
been captured and head-chopped in the Roman ruins. The Syrian official
in charge of the Roman ruins (of which we cared so much, remember?) was
himself beheaded. Isis even put his spectacles back on top of his
decapitated head, for fun. And we were silent then.
Putin noticed this, and talked about it, and accurately predicted
the retaking of Palmyra. His aircraft attacked Isis - as US planes did
not - in advance of the Syrian army's conquest. I could not help but
smile when I read that the US command claimed two air strikes against
Isis around Palmyra in the days leading up to its recapture by the
regime. That really did tell you all you needed to know about the
American "war on terror". They wanted to destroy Isis, but not that
much.
So in the end, it was the Syrian army and its Hizballah chums from
Lebanon and the Iranians and the Russians who drove the Isis murderers
out of Palmyra, and who may - heavens preserve us from such a success -
even storm the Isis Syrian 'capital' of Raqqa. I have written many times
that the Syrian army will decide the future of Syria. If they grab back
Raqqa - and Deir el-Zour, where the Nusrah front destroyed the church
of the Armenian genocide and threw the bones of the long-dead 1915
Christian victims into the streets - I promise you we will be silent
again.
Aren't we supposed to be destroying Isis? Forget it. That's Putin's
job. And Assad's. Pray for peace, folks. That's what it's about, isn't
it? And Geneva. Where is that, exactly?
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen