Der Westen, allen voran europäische Medien und Politiker sind bemüht zu betonen, wie einheitlich und systematisch sie Putin isolieren, doch diese demonstrative Zuschaustellung entschlossenen Verhaltens stellt die Europäer insofern bloss, dass das immense Ausmass ihrer Doppelmoral klar wird.

Russland soll für seine Ukraine-Politik „bestraft“ werden. Daher die Isolation Putins doch diese vermeintlich logische Ursache-Wirkung-Kette wirft Fragen auf, die die Europäer in wenig gutem Licht belassen:

1. Warum werden Israel und Netanjahu nicht isoliert, wo doch Israels Besetzung der Westbank, die Blockade und das heftige Bombardement des Gazastreifens und der fortwährende Siedlungsbau auf besetztem Territorium weit tödlicher, verheerender und völkerrechtswidriger sind als die Annexion der Krim.

Erstens war die Krim vor wenigen Jahrzehnten noch Teil Russlands und wurde erst 1954 der Ukraine „übergeben“:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/02/david-ignatius/historical-claim-shows-why-crimea-matters-russia/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/02/27/283481587/crimea-a-gift-to-ukraine-becomes-a-political-flash-point
Zweitens gab es auf der Krim eine Umfrage, in der eine breite Mehrheit den Anschluss an Russland befürwortete. Nichts dergleichen kann über den Gazastreifen und seine Bewohner gesagt werden.

2. Warum „isolierten“ die Europäer nicht die USA und Grossbritannien (bzw. ihre Regierungen) in 2003?
Nach 12 Jahren unmenschlicher Sanktionen, die bis zu einer Million Irakern das Leben kosteten, griffen die USA und Grossbritannien den Irak auf Basis fadenscheiniger Anschuldigungen (Verbindung Iraks zu 9/11) und glatter Lügen (Irakischer Besitz von Massenvernichtungswaffen) an. Hunderttausende Iraker wurden getötet oder verletzt, das ganze Staatswesen zerbrach, Sach- und Infrastrukturschaden in zwei- bis dreistelligem Milliardenwert (USD) wurde angerichtet, über Hunderttausend amerikanische und britische Soldaten besetzten das Land, ein Bürgerkrieg mit bis heute zehntausenden Toten brach in der Folge aus, amerikanische Söldner erschossen unbestraft Einheimische, im Abu Ghuraib-Gefängnis folterten Amerikaner Iraker…
Das amerikanisch-britische Verbrechen im und gegen den Irak mit der russischen Annexion der Ukraine oder der Unterstützung pro-russischer Seperatisten in der Ostukraine vergleichen zu wollen ist, wie wenn man die Lehmanpleite mit der Insolvenz eines regionalen Mittelstandsunternehmens vergleicht.

Wo waren die (anderen) Europäer da, um Sanktionen gegen die USA/GB anzudrohen und zu implementieren?
Wurde Tony Blair von irgendwelchen Gipfeltreffen ausgeladen?
Wurde George W. Bush isoliert?

Die „Empörung“ der Europäer über Putin und Russland wirkt verlogen, heuchlerisch und vor allem lächerlich und dreist, wenn man bedenkt, dass ihr amerikanischer Natopartner USA seit Jahrzehnten in fremde Länder einmarschiert bzw. sie gern auch ohne UN-Mandat bombardiert. Anstatt die USA dafür zu isolieren, dass ihr Präsident G.W. Bush diese als „irrelavant“ bezeichnete, echauffieren sich die Europäer darüber, dass China und Russland im Sicherheitsrat der gleichen UN den nächsten auf Lügen basierenden Angriffskrieg (gegen Syrien) durch ihre Vetos verhinderten.
Sicher kann man auch davon ausgehen, dass weder die Europäer noch die USA sich irgendeiner Schuld bezüglich der Tragödie bewusst sind, die Libyen befallen hat, nachdem Natobomber mit dem „Segen“ eines inhaltlich „verdrehten“ UN-Mandats dort Islamisten zum Sieg verhalfen. In der Folge zerbrach auch dort jegliches Staatswesen. Statt regulärer Sicherheitsstrukturen gibt es in dem Land Hunderte, teils mit schweren Waffen ausgestattete Milizen, die die Menschen terrorisieren.
Die Väter und Mütter des Libyenkriegs sind Sarkozy, Cameron, Obama und Clinton. Keiner von ihnen wurde während seiner Amtszeit deshalb isoliert, und bei Clinton muss man befürchten, dass sie sogar US-Präsidentin werden könnte.

As pointed out in an earlier article it has become more and more unclear who and where the much-hyped „moderate“ Syrian rebels are supposed to be:
https://radioyaran.com/2014/09/11/the-vetted-moderate-rebels-of-the-free-syrian-army-who-and-where-are-they/

From among the rebel coalitions introduced and exposed in the article above there was one specific group that some western media and „think tanks“ had attempted to portray as „vetted“ and „moderate“ and thus worthy of receiving sophisticated weapons, particularly ATGMs (anti-tank) and MANPADs (anti-aircraft): The „Syrian Revolutionaries Front“ (SRF), led by Jamaal Maarouf.
While the western and Gulf Arab intention was to portray the SRF as an Assad enemy which at the same time was opposed to ISIS and the al-Nusra Front (Syrias Al Qaeda branch and designated as „terrorist“ by the US state department), Mr. Maarouf humiliated his backers by openly admitting that not only he was not fighting al-Nusra but that his fighters even frequently conduct joint operations with that group:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/i-am-not-fighting-againstalqaida-itsnot-our-problem-says-wests-last-hope-in-syria-9233424.html

Months later another article exposed SRF for cooperating with al-Nusra and another Salafi dominated group, the „Islamic Front“ in the southern front of Syria:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2014/09/syrian_revolutionaries_front_a.php#ixzz3DtQMjSAC

Now, let´s shift attention to another much featured allegedly moderate rebel militia which has received american TOW anti-tank missiles: The Hazm movement. This group which is said to number some 5.000 fighters has been again and again described as the kind of non-islamist rebel group that deserves to receive american arms. During the last months the Hazm movement uploaded several video clips showing them firing successfully at Syrian tanks and (grounded) planes.

In an unexpected turn of events the al-Nusra front attacked both the SRF and the Hazm movement. Nusra fiighters managed to inflict heavy losses on the SRF and force them to flee their strongholds:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/11/01/245423_in-setback-islamic-state-nusra.html?sp=/99/117/&rh=1

Worse, „on Saturday night Harakat Hazm surrendered military bases and weapons supplies to Jabhat al-Nusra, when the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria stormed villages they controlled in northern Idlib province.“
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11203825/Syrian-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-US-surrender-to-al-Qaeda.html

Watch this video clip with SRF leader Jamaal Maarouf cursing al-Nusras leader al-Jolani (after being defeated and ousted by the latter): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CTie56i46g
Maaroufs accusations and rants are totally paradoxical as he fabulates of an Iranian->Nusra connection.

This chain of events is well-known and clearly confirms what many people had warned of:
– The so called „moderates“ hardly exist
– The few of them who are „vetted“ and receive arms are either unwilling or unable to fight ISIS, al-Nusra and the Syrian Army
– They have openly sympathized with al-Nusra and regularly lead joint operations
– If the „moderates“ have not handed over/sold their better weapons to ISIS and/or al-Nusra voluntarily the two takfiri/jihadi groups have attacked them and forcefully taken their weapons.

For these reasons, western countries should finally recognize the obvious:
a) Radical (mostly Salafi) Islamists are the broad majority of the rebels in Syria and not an irrelevant minority
b) Neither the remnants of the FSA, let alone ISIS or al-Nusra have the slightest connection to the „Syrian National Council“, which is bare of any political or military power and still treated by the western and arab „friends of Syria“ as the „legitimate representative of the Syrian people“
c) Ignoring the facts and continuing to pretend that there is a relevant and capable „moderate“ rebel force in Syria, which should be armed only means that such a group becomes the „import interface“ of sophisticated weapons for ISIS and al-Nusra

No doubt the use of barrel bombs is a desperate measure as this weapon is indiscriminate due to it being unguided. But barrel bombs are very probably not a weapon of free choice for the Syrian army. Would the Syrian airforce possess precision „hellfire“ missiles or other smart weapons or would it have defensive weapons that deflect heat seeking anti-aircraft missiles barrel bombs would not have become a military necessity.

To claim that the airforce deliberately uses barrel bombs in order to inflict intentional and maximum civilian casualties is nonsense. Up until July 2012 the Syrian airforce almost played no role. Fixed-wing aircraft entered the civil war after the rebels intrusion into Aleppo and even then often at the rate of dropping 1-2 bombs from Czech L-39 trainer jets.

While the Syrian army implicitly is condoning collateral damage in the shape of civilian casualties its primary target for barrel bombs are rebels fighting from and hiding in civilian neighborhoods. Dozens of rebel video clips clearly show them launching rockets and firing mortars from the middle of civilian areas. Anti-aircraft guns have often been stationed in streets running between peoples houses. Army tanks have been hit by IEDs placed on such streets and convoys have been ambushed on alleyways passing through ordinary neighborhoods.
This is not meant to justify civilian casualties and downplay the devastating effects of inaccurate weapons but it is fair to make clear that many of areas subjected to Syrian army attacks have long lost their „civilian innocence“. Also, especially in vast parts of Aleppo city rebels have chased away the rightful civilian owners and taken away their houses, subsequently turning them into sniper and RPG positions.

In conclusion one could argue that the barrel bomb is a military necessity due to the lack of better weapons.
In contrast many of the violent actions of the rebels are neither accidental nor a „military necessity“.
It is not necessary to:
– mass execute captured and handcuffed prisoners of war
– throw down postal workers from rooftops
– behead disarmed opponents (and accompany a sectarian crime with religious slogans)- send suicide bombers to blow up school children (and later call them „Shabiha kids“)
– detonate water and gas pipelines
– blast electricity plants
– misuse mosques as weapons depots and firing places
– blow up and desecrate mosques and churches of minorities
– intentionally target and kill journalists and reporters critical of the „rebellion“ (and celebrate this on social media)

All these acts have been carried out by all rebel factions, not only the notorious ISIS and al-Nusra. Besides the „others“ who are hardly less sectarian have either closely and regularly cooperated with al-Nusra or openly voiced support and sympathy for them. Thus it is a mystery where and who the „moderate“ rebels are supposed to be and how anyone can seriously claim that it is safe to supply them with more and better weapons because they are „reliable“ and won´t cooperate with the Jihadists or pass their weapons over to them.

The terror group ISIS (which calls itself „islamic State“ now) „proudly“ uploads video clips of it´s fighters beheading captured or killed enemy soldiers. Since this group considers itself Salafi and thus „true Muslims“ (something they claim ALL Shias and many Sunnis are not) one should make a fact-check regarding their actions.

There is no clear reference to the act of beheading in the Quran, however, there is a single verse that protagonists of beheading point to in order to justify this barbaric act:
„If you encounter (in war) those who disbelieve, you may strike the necks. If you take them as captives you may set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. “   47:4

In my opinion „strike the necks“ in battle is not the same as beheading disarmed and subdued prisoners of war in a way that sheep are slaughtered. In times when the major short distance weapon of war were swords striking the neck – as brutal as it appears today – was the most effective way of killing enemies that usually had body armor. At any rate it was not more brutal, painful or inhuman than stabbing into the enemies torso.
Looking at the second sentence of the verse it becomes clear that neither the „believers“ were strictly commanded to kill the enemies nor was any beheading of the prisoners as punishment allowed. The verse explicitly allows for taking captives and even recommends to set them free or ransom them.
ISIS is not fighting against its opponents in close range hand-to-hand combat. Besides, there is no legitimate way to interpret the above verse as approval to behead unarmed and handcuffed prisoners who pose no danger.

Beheading enemies, especially cutting off the heads of dead enemies is an act of mutilation.
What is the position of the Ahadith (prophetic traditions) on this?

(1) Al-Hayyaj ibn Imran reported: A servant boy of Imran had ran away and he vowed by Allah that if he caught him, he would cut off his hand. Then he sent me to ask about that, so I came to Samurah ibn Jundab and I asked him. He said, “The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, encouraged us to give in charity and he forbade us from mutilation.” So I went to Imran ibn Hussein and I asked him. He said, “The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, encouraged us to give in charity and he forbade us from mutilation.”

Source: Sunan Abu Dawud 2667

(2)The people of knowledge hate mutilation.