With the very few exceptions, the kneejerk reaction of the Western politicians’ to the Russians fighting ISIS with the Syrian Army, and the Russia’s Ministry of Defense revelations about the Turkey’s officials involvement into the terror financing has been predictable to the “t”: denial, denial, and more denial. In a face of anti-terror operations in Europe, and the loss of the basic democratic liberties by blindsided Europeans, leaders of the European Union seems to be set to support an advancement of islamo-fascism all the way from Ankara to Andalusia.
It’s absolutely obvious by now that the West will not fight against the islamo-fascism and will keep doing everything possible, politically and militarily, to support it.
There are very few talking points that are being offered to the Western readers as axioms, as we can see from the following two articles taken from the German Media.
C., our German research assistant, couldn’t find the English translations of these articles. So, he graciously translated them for us, non-German speakers.
Previous SITREP by C. of the “drivel of the German mainstream press” is here
This is what he wrote to me: “There is one very important article that I wanted to include in my sitrep, but could not, because I did not find an English translation.
Liebe Leserinnen, liebe Leser! Von Mathias Döpfner
I think it is a very important editorial, written by a very influential person. CEO of Springer SE, certainly one of the most important companies in the German media. And I think it is underreported even in Germany and certainly world-wide.
I wrote a quick translation that tries to stick to the original in wording and style as close as I could manage with two hours to spare. I tried to capture his weird German tone as closely as possible. The rest is my bad English.
This has been penned by the highest executive of one of the most powerful media conglomerates in Europe, and I did not see a lot of reporting on it.
Maybe you can distribute the translation among other researchers who might be interested, or post it on the blog?
Do not miss this crucial passage:
Orig: “Wie kann man da auf die Idee kommen, man müsse Verständnis für die andere Seite haben, die Wahrheit läge in der Mitte? Das tut sie eben nicht.”
In the light of this, how can anyone come to the conclusion that we should have understanding for the other side? That the truth might be somewhere in the middle? It is not.”
How can anyone come to the conclusion that peace could be won without understanding for the other side?
1914 redux… It is happening again….
This is really bad.
It is important to note that the author is the CEO of the biggest brain-washing machine in the German and maybe European media. He is a very influential man. It’s hard to say if he is this brainwashed himself, or whether he knows that he is misleading people. Btw, all journalists for Springer have to sign a declaration that binds them to say nothing critical about their transatlantic partnership and Israel, if I am not mistaken. So, it’s no surprise that he, as their boss, does not dare criticize the USA.
The corpses have not been put in the paramedics’ body-bags, the victims have not been counted. But the commentaries have been written. The speeches have been delivered. Everything has been analyzed. And we hear the same invocation over again. We will not allow our European values to be destroyed by terrorists. We want to and will stick to our way of life. Freedom will be victorious. This is all right. This is all important. And yet it is helpless. Europe is trying to be brave like a scared child screaming back at thunder and lighting. Europe has been weakened. Even worse: Europe is weak.
The sequence of “Charlie Hebdo” and the attacks of Friday, 13 November, is psychologically the European Nine Eleven.
The core has been struck. The state. The order of things. The security. The confidence to have everything under control. The self: It could have been me walking down that road, I could have been at that concert, people tell themselves. And nobody and nothing would have helped me. Not the police. Not the state. Not the politicians. The brute force of religious fanatics, wicked murderers is above our order. The salvoes from the Kalashnikovs, the detonations of the bombs are stronger than reason. This event has fundamentally shaken our trust and confronts the politicians with archaic questions. What to make of it? What will change because of it?
Michel Houellebecq’s book “Submission” was published a few days prior to the attacks on “Charlie Hebdo”. It tells the story of a creeping infiltration and finally the conquest of France by islamist fundamentalism. In the beginning there are attacks, fire, bombs going of in the centre of Paris. Then synchronized shootings of civilians. Slowly everyday life changes. Mini-skirts disappear and are replaced with long dresses. Then the political coup: The leader of a Muslim party is elected president. The hero or anti-hero of the book converts to Islam – more due to a need for complacency then fear. The Submission.
The novel has been accused of islamophobia. That is absurd. It is a frightening fantasy (orig. “beklemmende Fantasie”) – written without hate or prejudice. All the more frightening (orig. “beklemmend”) because traces of it can be found more and more in our reality here and now. Parts of the books read like a portent of things to come. Other parts like a manual the IS murder commandos might have read and said: We will put into action what the decadent West puts in literature.
The Western democracies face a fateful question: How to actually defend our often cited freedom? Or more archaic: Submit or fight? And if it is fight we chose: How?
The refugee crisis and now the terror wave of Paris are the combustive agents of a clash of cultures that has been smoldering for a long time. The non-democratic regimes of this world are often lead in a virile and decisive manner, the democratic societies are often too weak, indecisive and hesitant. Russians, Chinese and most Islamic states know what they want and put that into action. Most democracies seek dialogue and compromise with and applause from their citizens. But it is easily overlooked that the canon of our culture and civilization does not apply to our enemies. While we see offering a compromise as a moral obligation for the enemy to make concession in return, Muslim extremists see such offers as sign of weakness and also as encouragement.
The consequence of this policy is inaction in Syria. It’s a stand-off in Iran. It’s looking the other way in the radicalized parts of Africa. It’s a “welcome-culture” in Germany – without any concept.
The facts of the migration wave allow all those, who have not lost their common sense completely, to realize that this is unsustainable. Millions of refugees a year cannot be integrated, not even by the most potent and tolerant society. Opposition is rearing its head everywhere, even in the deep leftist milieus. If the killing frenzy of Paris is used as evidence of the limits of integration, there is a huge risk that this will result in unleashing left- and right-wing nationalists and racists. The borderless cosmopolitanism of today is only the vanguard of a new wave of xenophobia of the ugliest kind. In the end there will be a crisis of state and riots that might escalate to civil war. The answer can only be a policy of strength, the decisive and confident defense of constitutional democracy, freedom of religion, market economy and human rights. But it is hard to find decisiveness and strength in today’s continental Europe.
We apply double standards.
In more and more hotels in Germany there is a Quran in the drawer. In an Arabic hotel one will look for the Bible in vain. You cannot enter most Arabic countries and Iran if your passport shows that you have been to Israel. In some European countries arriving with an Arabian passport might result in a slightly more lengthy procedure when entering the country. But no one would entertain the notion of denying someone entry because they have been to a country with a different religion. In Israel a head of state is imprisoned for sexually molesting his secretary, in Iran women who betray the fact that they have been raped, are stoned to death. In the light of this, how can anyone come to the conclusion that we should have understanding for the other side? That the truth might be somewhere in the middle? It is not.
The message of Paris is: We have to defend our values with all lawful and democratic means at our disposal. This includes new immigration policies that grant refugees from war zones in existential peril asylum, but consequently turns away economic migrants and people from safe third party nations. And immediately expels people who violate the rules of our laws. Also the financial incentives that make some countries in Europe alluring destinations for refugees have to be reduced. Even more important: A truly common European and transatlantic security policy. A policy of united strength.
Defense with all instruments of the constitutional state and democracy also means: Only with these instruments. And not with the means of our adversaries. Because who answers freedom with censorship or torture betrays the ideals of freedom.
It might not be happenstance that these days a stage play and a movie have this dilemma at the heart of their earnest search for answers. Steven Spielberg’s film “Bridge of Spies” stars as its main character lawyer James B. Donovan, who is trying to defend soviet spy Rudolf Abel. He is fighting a judge that casts aside constitutional procedure under the pretext of “higher interests”. Donovan withstands the pressure of the intelligence agencies and wins by putting regulations before good intensions. In the end, through the great agents exchange at the Glienicker bridge, he saves the lives of at least three people and the order of the free society.
Similar to Ferdinand von Schirach’s recently premiered stage play “Terror”. At the centre of it are the court proceedings around the hijacking of a plane carrying 164 passengers. The Islamic hijackers plan crashing it into Munichs biggest football arena and 70.000 spectators. Is it acceptable to shoot down the plane and kill 164 innocent people to save 70.000? Von Schirach tortures himself and the audience with finding the answer. The judges closing words express this dissatisfaction: “Even if it is hard to bear, we have to accept that our laws are incapable of resolving every moral dilemma without contradictions.” This sounds like defeat, but is actually victory. It is the triumph of our values over simple solutions. Simple solutions can be found with hate and bombs. Good solutions only through rules which favour principles over intensions. Along these lines Schirach says: “Terrorists cannot endanger our republic, only we ourselves can.” And vulnerability is a price that free societies will always have to pay.
If the attacks in Paris, the assault in the heart of Europe, will be a wake up call for policies of strength of the West, for watchful pride of the enlightenment, constitutional law and human rights and their active defense – this scare might result in something good. If indecisiveness and tolerance keep on reigning, the victims of Paris will just be the prelude to submission. Enough speeches have been given. Enough condolences from Muslim institutions have been received. This is not enough any more. The imams have to point the way in their mosques. AS for the politicians in the parliaments, we need no left or right populism. We need a radicalization of society’s centre, a centre that decisively defends its freedom-values. Democracy is ready to fight. A strong Europe. We owe it to the victims and to our children.”
Today, I have received the second article translated by C.
This is what he writes to me: “Much like the last translation I sent you a couple of week ago, people who are interested in German mainstream media, but do not speak German, might find this informative.
I read an article today that made my blood boil, so I translated it.”
This second article is a created by Spiegel Online editor Raniah Salloum, who dismisses all evidence provided by the Russia’s Ministry of Defense,
as “a red herring to distract from the fact that so far his (Putin) government has done hardly anything against Daesh”.
Actually, Raniah Salloum states, its Syria and Iraq that buy oil from Daesh on “industrial scale.” Does, she provides any evidence? No, she doesn’t.We just have to believe her.
Who is Raniah Salloum ?
She is a foreign affairs editor with SPIEGEL ONLINE.
According to tlaxcala-int.org, she was born in 1984, studied politics and economics at the French university Sciences Po and Cornell University in the US state of New York. After that, she received training at the Henri Nannen School of Journalism with stations at the “taz”, “Financial Times Germany” and “Sueddeutsche.de”. Thereafter, she was an editor at the Financial Times Germany in departmental policy abroad. Since May 2012, she is an editor at SPIEGEL ONLINE in departmental policy.
In 2013, an anonymous author of the article Lügen und Desinformation auf Spiegel Online
called Raniah Salloum “Propagandaschmierfink”
Raniah Salloum has been reporting on the civil war in Syria since its interception, reporting on “crimes of Assad regime,” that we know have been investigated and proved as being false flag attacks. Not a single word from her of ever retrieving any of her statements.
Not only, Raniah Salloum is a specialist in the Middle East politics, she is also an expert on Ukraine. Here some of her tweets from the post-Maidan Ukraine. As you might imagine, all of her views are anti-Russian. [source]
I tried to find any information about Raniah Salloum family’s background, but couldn’t find anything in English.
But then I found this:
ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, book review by Syrper: part one
By Ziad Fadel / April 26th, 2015
A great example of acerbic journalism that sounds like it came directly from one of the thesaker’s authors. Ziad Fadel writes about the phenomenon of the modern Western press that uses the fake personalities with ethnic sounding names as “journalists.” In his review he writes about one of the co-authors of a book “ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror” namely a personality that calls him/herself “Hassan Hassan.” Ziad Fadel convincingly proves that the personality is not real, and no one seems to challenge his assertion.
It remands me, how I, inadvertently, stumbled into a body of work of “Sheren Khalel,” who appears to be a “Hassan Hassan’s” virtual twin. [source]
The book “ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror” was touted by every western TV channel from France24 to BBC, and even OMG. The only review of this book that was worth reading was Ziad Fadel’ review, including comments by a few readers, one of which mentioned “Raniah Salloum”:
“radioyaran April 26th, 2015 at 8:33 AM [Level 7 – Tribunus Angusticlavius]
Good article. The pattern with the likes of “Hassan Hassan” is being repeated over and over again within western media. The idea is to deceive the naive reader by creating the impression of having “insiders” or “native experts” writing for the newspaper. For instance, Germanys Spiegel Online uses “Raniah Salloum” one of the most stupid journalists ever. Her Arabic sounding name is intended to lend credibility to her. Its the repetition of the same 4 years old nonsense: Hundreds of thousands of people, almost entirely secular and totally unarmed and peaceful wanted democracy and “reforms” (to this date I don’t know exactly WHAT they demanded, except that we are told it were “legitimate demands”), while Assad, the “butcher” who is supposedly a sectarian Sunni hater with no support in Syria decided to “massacre” his people…”
On December 1st, Raniah Salloum @Ranyah tweeted:
“Putin, a close ally of #Assad who buys oil from ISIS, accuses Turkey of buying oil from ISIS. An Alanis Morissette song comes to mind.”
So, this is an official Spiegel’s stance on the Russia’s attempts to cut financing to the terrorists groups in Syria and Iraq.
Spiegel now accuses Assad and Syria in buying oil from ISIS, without any proof, without any satellite images, or photos of hundreds of trucks traveling toward Damascus.
The following is a translation of Raniah Salloum’s article by C.:
“The disagreement between Vladimir Putin and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has not been settled more than a week after the downing of a Russian war plane. To the contrary, the Russian military in Moscow have tried to support Putin’s accusations with satellite images.
Remember: Putin made four accusations:
– Deash supplies Turkey with oil “on an industrial scale”.
– Erdogan profits from this trade personally.
– Turkey shot down the Russian plane to protect Daesh’s supply routes.
– The oil enters Turkey via the Syrian border town of Asas to be transported to the ports of Iskenderun and Dörtyol.
The pictures presented this Thursday do not support any of these four theories.
P/ Russian Defense Ministry
Supposed proof: Russian military present satellite pictures in Moscow
Two close-ups were presented, supposedly taken on November 14. The first allegedly shows a traffic jam eleven kilometers south-east of the Turkish town of Silopi, the second showing neighboring Iraqi Kurdish town Zakho.
A glance at the map shows:
– The towns supposedly shown in the satellite pictures are 500 kilometers away from the site where the Russian jet was shot down. They can hardly be seen as evidence that the downing of the aircraft was meant to protect Daesh smuggle routes.
– The pictured regions are not controlled by Daesh anyway. On the Iraqi side of the border
– the Iraqi-Kurdish Peschmerga are in control. They are an enemy of Daesh.
Overview: Crash site far to the west, Silopi and Zakho in the east.
Two further satellite pictures allegedly taken on October 18 picture Deir al-Sor in Easter Syria, also far from the site where the jet was shot down, according to Russian sources show “390 tank trucks”. Should this be accurate the question remains: Who owns them? Where are they going?
REUTERS/ Russian Defence Ministry
Vehicles in the desert: According to Russian sources the picture shows 390 tank trucks.
These are the decisive questions. It has long been known that Daesh controls the oil fields east of Deir al-Sor. From there the militia sells the oil to Iraqi and Syrian merchants, unconnected to Daesh. They in turn trade the oil, especially in Syria and Iraq.
The tank trucks might be owned by these merchants. Should their trucks be filled with oil in the deserts of Syria and Iraq, which does not prove that they deliver their goods to Turkey. In a nutshell:
Russia’s pictures suggest a lot, but do not prove anything.
Putin’s accusations mainly rest on two popular prejudices: Everything in the Middle East is connected to oil. Erdogan would dare go wherever. Is their any truth in that? An overview:
What is the Turkish government’s position on Daesh? It is at best ambivalent. Turkey widely allows Daesh-supporters freedom to act as they please. Whether they actually go as far as supporting them is questionable. So far there are no facts to prove that. But one thing is for sure: The fight against Daesh is not Erdogan’s priority.
What is the Russian government’s position on Daesh? Moscow’s priority is to keep Assad in power. The Russian government concentrates on fighting the Syrian rebels, because they are a greater threat to Assad than Daesh. But these rebels also fight Daesh.
Is the Syrian crisis all about oil? No. Syria only has modest reserves of oil and gas unlike e.g. Iraq. Anyway, the oil revenues only make up an insubstantial part of Daesh’s total income.
Who buys Daesh’s oil? Almost all parties of the Syrian and Iraqi conflict buy it via middlemen. Ideology takes a backseat to business and the supply of fuel. Among the profiteers are Turkish smugglers in the border region. Ankara tries to find and put them out of business. The only actor buying oil from Daesh “on an industrial scale” is the Syrian regime. Joint ventures organize the production of oil and gas on which the Syrian regime’s electricity production hinges.
Why have the USA not stopped the oil trade by now? The biggest problem is that it mainly involves civilians: workers, engineers, truck drivers, middlemen and merchants. The oil trade is their only hope of sustaining their families in these war-torn countries. Daesh, in a certain sense, might be found at the source, but even there just in the background.
What does Putin gain from his allegations? The accusations are a red herring to distract from the fact that so far his government has done hardly anything against Daesh. Instead Russia mainly bombs those who fight Daesh in Syria and props up a regime that does indeed buy oil and gas from Daesh on an industrial scale.