Gesellschaft Medien Politik Wissenschaft

Syrien: Falschmeldung bei „Ärzte ohne Grenzen“ – Angriff auf Krankenhaus in Aleppo durch Al Kaida vorgetäuscht

Im syrischen Aleppo wurde angeblich das in den Gebieten der „Rebellenkoalition“ unter Führung der syrischen Al Kaida (Al-Nusra-Front) gelegene Al-Kuds-Krankenhaus bombardiert, „Ärzte ohne Grenzen“, auf die sich die deutschen Medien beziehen, sprechen von 50 Toten. Ein Bombardement – unklar ist, durch wen – mag stattgefunden haben (Vielleicht ein unbeabsichtigtes). Doch die Angaben von „Ärzte ohne Grenzen“ zu dem Vorfall lassen starke Zweifel aufkommen, ebenso wie die Quellen, die von dem Angriff berichten: Ein Mann aus England, der sich „Syrische Beobachtungsstelle für Menschenrechte“ nennt, verbreitete die Story, die wiederum auf Berichten von lokalen „Rettungshelfern“ (Tagesschau) beruhen. Bei diesen „Rettungshelfern“ handelt es sich um die der Al Kaida (und dem Westen!) nahestehenden Weißhelme (White Helmets), eine Propagandatruppe gegen die syrische Regierung, die schon des öfteren beim Fälschen von angeblichen Regierungsangriffen mit angeblichen Fassbomben erwischt wurde. Siehe:

white_helmets_fake_red

„Ärzte ohne Grenzen“ (Médécins sans Frontièrs, MSF) schreibt in der deutschsprachigen Mitteilung zu dem aktuellen Vorfall, der gerade in den Propagandamedien „rauf- und runtergespielt wird“: „Wer in Syrien in einem Krankenhaus Hilfe sucht, begibt sich in Lebensgefahr. In diesem Jahr wurden bereits elf von Ärzte ohne Grenzen unterstützte Krankenhäuser bombardiert. Viele Menschen haben ihr Leben verloren. Zuletzt wurden bei einem Luftangriff in Aleppo das Al-Kuds-Krankenhaus und benachbarte Gebäude zerstört, dabei starben mindestens 50 Menschen, darunter sechs Mitarbeiter des Krankenhauses. Die Überlebenden berichten, dass zuerst zwei Fassbomben die angrenzenden Gebäude trafen. Dann explodierte eine dritte Bombe, diesmal gezielt am Eingang der Notaufnahme, also dort, wo sich Ärzte und Pfleger um die Verwundeten kümmerten.“.

msf_lügt

Dieser Bericht der „Überlebenden“ ist – gelinde gesagt – grober Unfug, der offensichtlich auf der üblichen Fassbombenpropaganda beruht und zudem in sich überhaupt nicht stimmig ist. Eine Fassbombe ist eine improvisierte Sprengbombe mit geringer Wirkung, die im Vergleich zu echten militärischen Bomben nur geringe Schäden anrichtet. Die zwei angeblichen Fassbomben auf Nachbargebäude können keine Wirkungstreffer bei der Klinik erzielt haben. Fassbomben, wenn es sie in der Form in Syrien überhaupt gibt, wie behauptet, werden außerdem nicht aus Kampfjets abgeworfen. Bleibt noch die eine Bombe, die angeblich gezielt die Notaufnahmetür traf. Um gleichzeitig Fassbomben abzuwerfen und gezielt den Notaufnahmeeingang mit einer normalen Bombe zu treffen, müssten man schon mit dem Hubschrauber unterwegs sein und das sehr tief, über dem Krankenhaus und in Reichweite der Rebellenwaffen. Das alles klingt insgesamt sehr unplausibel. Genauso unplausibel ist, wie die eine Bombe, die angeblich den Eingang der Notaufnahme traf, das ganze Gebäude zerstören konnte und 50 Menschen tötete. Abgesehen davon kann man es generell die Frage stellen, ob auch ein Kampfflugzeug so einfach in der Lage wäre, gezielt den Eingang der Notaufnahme zu treffen.

Bei der Tagesschau heißt es: „‚Dieser schlimme Angriff hat ein unverzichtbares Krankenhaus in Aleppo und das wichtigste Zentrum für Kinderheilkunde in der Gegend zerstört‘, teilte der MSF-Leiter in Syrien, Muskilda Sankada, mit. Die Al-Kuds-Klinik im Stadtteil Al-Sukari werde von MSF mit medizinischer Ausstattung versorgt. Aktivisten aus der Region sprachen sogar von 50 Todesopfern bei den Angriffen auf die Klinik. Den Rettungshelfern zufolge traf das Bombardement auch umliegende Gebäude, in denen medizinisches Personal untergebracht war. Es würden noch Menschen unter den Trümmern vermisst. Videoaufnahmen zeigten zerstörte Häuserfronten, brennende Gebäude und Helfer, die Leichen und Verletzte wegtrugen.“. In dem im Artikel eingebetteten Video lügt der Sprecher dreist, Russland und Syrien hätten in der Vergangenheit immer wieder Kliniken in Syrien bombardiert.

Diese ganzen Angaben zu dem (angeblichen) Angriff auf das Krankenhaus kommen von den „örtlichen Rettungshelfern“, den White Helmets, und den dieses Gebiet beherrschenden Rebellen in einer Koalition aus Al Kaida, weiteren „Kopfabschneider-Islamisten“ und einigen wenigen CIA-ausgebildeten Kämpfern! Gegründet hat die „propagandalügende Rettungshelfertruppe“ James Le Mesurier – nach eigenen Aussagen „1. Trainer“ von Syria Civil Defence / The White Helmets – der laut diesem Al-Jazeera-Interview zufällig 2013 in der Gegend war (Türkei) und spontan spontanen syrischen Freiwilligen half, eine schlagkräftige Truppe aufzubauen. Sein Twittername @USARinwar spricht sich – natürlich ist das völlig unabhängig von seiner humanitären Mission – übrigens „USA are in war“ aus, das heißt „Die USA sind im Krieg“.

usarinwar

Interessant auch ein Zitat zu den White Helmets aus einem englischsprachigen Artikel: “The trainees are said to be ‘nonpartisan’ but only work in rebel-controlled areas of Idlib (now controlled by Nusra/Al Queda) and Aleppo. There are widely divergent claims regarding the number of people trained by the White Helmets and the number of people rescued. The numbers are probably highly exaggerated especially since rebel-controlled territories have few civilians. A doctor who recently served in a rebel-controlled area of Aleppo described it as a ghost town. The White Helmets work primarily with the rebel group Jabat al Nusra (Al Queda in Syria). Video of the recent alleged chlorine gas attacks starts with the White Helmet logo and continues with the logo of Nusra. In reality, White Helmets is a small rescue team for Nusra/Al Queda.”

Die Angaben zu dem Vorfall in Aleppo (Es mag einen Treffer gegeben haben oder auch nicht, aber sicher nicht in der genannten Art.) kommen nicht ursprünglich von MSF/“Ärzte ohne Grenzen“, wie es die meisten Nachrichtenmeldungen hierzu suggerieren, sondern von diesen mit der NATO (USA, UK, Türkei) verbündeten White Helmets, die ausschließlich in den Al-Kaida-CIA-Rebellen-Gebieten aktiv sind und keinesfalls neutral sind! Man beachte beispielsweise auch das schon angesprochene Tagesschau-Video dazu, in dem ständig diese White Helmets herumspringen und das (dessen Videomaterial) offensichtlich von ihnen oder anderen örtlichen „Offiziellen“ produziert wurde. Und das, was MSF da weitergibt (siehe oben) ist offensichtlich Schwachsinn. So kann es mit Sicherheit nicht gewesen sein. Und MSF gibt das wieder, was die „örtlichen Rettungshelfer“ berichtet haben, auf deren Angaben der ganze aktuelle Propagandazirkus beruht! Die westlichen Medien wiederum schreien dann „Ärzte ohne Grenzen“ und stellen die syrische Regierung an den Pranger. Al Kaida steuert mit Hilfe der USA die westlichen Medien, könnte man sagen … Oder umgekehrt.

white_aleppo

Vor einigen Monaten hatten die USA ein Krankenhaus der „Ärzte ohne Grenzen“ im afghanischen Kundus in Schutt und Asche gelegt. Hier kamen etwas weniger als 50 Menschen ums Leben, obwohl nicht nur der Notambulanzeingang getroffen wurde und das Krankenhaus in mehreren Wellen mit Raketen und sogar noch der Bordkanone des angreifenden Gunships angegriffen wurde. Nach einigen Ausreden musste US-Präsident Obama den Angriff einige Tage danach zugeben. MSF drängt seitdem auf eine unabhängige Untersuchung des Kriegsverbrechens, die USA wiegelt ab, spricht von einem Versehen und will das Ganze intern klären.

Perverserweise könnte ausgerechnet dieses Kriegsverbrechen des US-Militärs in Afghanistan letztlich dazu geführt haben, dass MSF sich in Syrien genötigt fühlt, die Propaganda der „USA-Al-Kaida-Koalition“ 1:1 weiterzureichen: Würde MSF das nicht tun (weil die Angaben aus Syrien überhaupt nicht nachprüfbar sind und aus unseriösen und schon des Öfteren beim Lügen erwischten Quellen – siehe Bild ganz oben – stammen), stünden Vorwürfe im Raum, man sei parteiisch und würde sich nur gegen das Bombardement in Afghanistan aussprechen (gegen die USA), nicht aber gegen (Pseudo-) Ähnliches in Syrien. Ein Vorwurf, den sich MSF nicht leisten kann, will es in den Krisengebieten dieser Welt und unter der strengen Wacht des weltweiten Kriegsbetreibers USA als neutral gelten.

Interessant ist auch, das der offensichtlich der westlichen Propaganda nicht abgeneigte deutsche MSF-Sprecher in dem Tagesschau-Video nicht das Kundus-Bombardement durch die USA anspricht (im Gegensatz zur internationalen Sektion, die ständig zurecht darauf hinweist). Er spricht lediglich das Bombardement in Jemen an. Bereits in den letzten Monaten hatte sich immer wieder gezeigt, dass gerade die deutsche MSF-Sektion immer wieder westliche Propaganda betreibt und dazu Angaben dubioser syrischer Quellen völlig ungeprüft durchreicht. Dass Teile von MSF wie viele andere „internationale“ Hilfsorganisationen auch und gerade beim Thema Syrien „westlich-propagandistisch unterwandert“ sind, sollte hier auch nicht verschwiegen werden.

white_block

UPDATE vom 2.5.2016:

Die russischen englischsprachigen Sputnik News über gefälschte „Beweise“ der Weißhelme: „Homs Airstrike: White Helmets Caught Faking Syria Casualties Report“ (mit Bildnachweis).

UPDATE vom 2.5.2016:

Daily Press Briefing der US-Regierung vom 27. April 2016 (vor fünf Tagen): Die USA unterstützt die White Helmets mit 23 Millionen Dollar („Well, I can tell you that we provide, through USAID, about $23 million in assistance to them.“) und der Chef der White Helmets durfte wegen Terrorismusverdacht nicht in die USA einreisen (Offenbar wusste eine US-Behörde nicht, was die andere tut). Nachzulesen auf der Website der US-Regierung: Mark C. Toner, Deputy Spokesperson, Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC. April 27, 2016. „I mean, this just seems bizarre to me. You’re giving this guy and his group $23 million. Yes, they do good work, they save lives, but you’ve revoked his visa for some reason and you won’t say why and it just doesn’t make any sense. Why is the U.S. taxpayer supporting a group whose leader you have banned from coming to the States?“.

Okay, und auf Basis der White-Helmets-Videos zu dem (angeblichen oder tatsächlich versehentlichen oder als False Flag durchgeführten) Krankenhausangriff macht der Westen und insbesondere die USA jetzt gerade Politik …

19 Kommentare

  1. In dem Kontext auch interessant:

    ARD: Kriegspropaganda über einen angeblichen Luftangriff Russlands auf eine Klinik in Syrien https://propagandaschau.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/ard-propaganda-ueber-einen-angeblichen-luftangriff-russlands-auf-eine-klinik/

    „Man sollte annehmen, dass die Opfer eines Luftangriffs anschließend möglichst aussagekräftige Fotos von dem Schaden veröffentlichen. Was sehen wir? Einen mutmaßlichen Abstellraum mit einem von der Wand abgerissenen oder umgestürzten Regal. Wir sehen ebenfalls heile Fenster! Ausgesprochen merkwürdig für das Schadensbild eines Bombardements aus der Luft mit angeblich 13 Toten.“

    Intakte Fenster!!! Keine zerbrochenen Scheiben!

    1. Ich bin der Meinung, dass es bessere Quellen als die „Propagandaschau“ gibt! Obwohl anfänglich mal halbwegs gut, entwickelt sich die PS langsam zum heimlichen Sprecher der AfD – das braucht niemand!
      Man wird dort langsam AfD-affin! Und die Zensur hat dort grosse Fortschritte gemacht!
      Mein Beitrag z.B. zur allgemeinen Kritik:

      “ Eure Medienkritik ist gefragt! “
      Ist sie nicht immer! Es wird auch bei der PS zensiert! Und wer nicht der „Meinung“ der PS-Redaktion ist und Zweifel hat und sich dann noch über den Bachmann-mässigen Tonfall bei der PS beschwert, wird eben wegzensiert! Wobei pro-AfD Kommentare immer eine bessere Chance haben veröffentlicht zu werden!
      Manche Dinge scheinen wie mit dem „Contra-Magazin“ ausgetauscht.

      wurde dort natürlich nicht gebracht!
      Die PS unterscheidet sich halt nicht von anderen Medien. Und das sie Kritik an sich selbst nicht zulassen sagt doch eigentlich schon alles. Typisch MSM!

      1. Noch ein Beispiel zu meiner Anmerkung PS und AfD:

        Folgendes ist dort gerade heute erschienen 03052016

        “ Gelenkte Aufmerksamkeit: Wie die Mainstreammedien AfD-Forderungen nach direkter Demokratie vertuschen “

        Mein Kommentar zu einem Beitrag in dem „DOK“ bejubelt wurde und ihn gedankt wurde

        “ Man gut das wenigstens die PS voll hinter der AfD steht!
        Wo kämen wir da hin, wenn keiner über die Forderungen der Rechten (Nazis) völlig offen berichten würde? “

        wurde natürlich nicht gebracht!

  2. Spiegel: „Die Lage in der geteilten Stadt sei Anlass zu „tiefer Besorgnis“, erklärte Kerrys Sprecher. Die Truppen von Präsident Baschar al-Assad griffen in Aleppo „überwiegend unschuldige Zivilisten“ an. Solche Angriffe seien „direkte Verstöße“ gegen die Waffenruhe und müssten sofort aufhören.“

    Die US-Regierung hat doch einen absoluten Knall. Warum sollten die Syrer wie die Bekloppten Zivilisten abschlachten? Und warum ausgerechnet nicht die „Terrorrebellen“?

    1. Hier kann man das auch in Textform nachlesen:

      Mark C. Toner
      Deputy Spokesperson
      Daily Press Briefing
      Washington, DC
      April 27, 2016

      http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/04/256667.htm

      Zitat:

      MR TONER: […]

      And then last thing – and this is about the attacks that occurred, I believe yesterday, on the Syrian Civil Defense station in al-Atareb, Syria. The United States is appalled by Monday’s multiple aerial strikes, reportedly by the Assad regime, on a Syrian Civil Defense station in the town of, as I noted, al-Atareb in Aleppo province, where at least five members of the civil defense are believed to have been killed and many more innocent people were injured.

      This attack fits with the Assad regime’s abhorrent pattern of striking first responders, over 100 whom – of whom have been killed in action. Many are killed in so-called double-tap strikes, where warplanes return to a strike zone after first responders have gathered to assist victims, and the Syrian Civil Defense station in al-Atareb was reportedly hit five times on Monday.

      We condemn in the strongest terms any such attacks and we urge Russia to use its influence and press the Assad regime to fulfill its commitments under UNSCR 2254 and immediately stop any further attacks of this nature. We also commend the heroic members of the Syrian Civil Defense who’ve saved more than 40,000 people by serving as impartial emergency responders on the front lines performing search and rescue missions following brutal attacks often perpetrated by the Assad regime and its allies. And the United States will continue to support this group and their courageous and tireless efforts to protect the Syrian people.

      That’s it. Matt.

      QUESTION: On the last one —

      MR TONER: Yes, sir.

      QUESTION: — you commend this group, you’re going to continue to support them, and yet you revoked the visa of their leader. I don’t – that makes zero sense to me.

      MR TONER: Well —

      QUESTION: What – what’s exactly going on?

      MR TONER: Well, I mean, this group, and I would precisely make that —

      QUESTION: Yeah, but this is the guy who is the leader of this group who the head of USAID lionized in a – and her – that she lauded him —

      MR TONER: Sure. Sure.

      QUESTION: — in a speech at the event that he was supposed to be accepting —

      MR TONER: Sure.

      QUESTION: — an award that he couldn’t get here for because the State Department canceled his visa while he was in the middle – while he was in midair, presumably, over the Atlantic so that when he arrived at Dulles, he was promptly thrown on the next plane back to Turkey. And now here you are talking about how wonderful his group is. I just don’t understand how it works.

      MR TONER: So a couple responses. One is, unfortunately, we can’t speak to individual visa cases. I think broadly speaking, though, on any visa case we are constantly looking at new information, so-called continually vetting travel or records. And if we do have new information that we believe this – an individual —

      QUESTION: But —

      MR TONER: — let me finish – would pose a security risk, we’ll certainly act on that. I can’t speak again specifically to this case, but what I can talk about is this group. And this group, as I said, has saved some 40,000 lives, that are first responders, they operate in a combat zone, and the fact that they’re being singled out and hit by the Syrian regime is, frankly, cause for a concern. And we do support this group. We do support their efforts to save lives in what is admittedly a very complex and convoluted battlefield scene.

      And to speak to your broader – to say that this group’s – which I think is the implication of your question, that they somehow have ties to —

      QUESTION: No, I’m not suggesting that at all.

      MR TONER: Then – okay.

      QUESTION: I’m saying that it just strikes me as a bit odd that you’re saying that this group is wonderful and does such a great job and you’re commending them for their heroism, and yet, this – you’re doing this just 10 days after the leader of this group, who was supposed to be – who got his visa revoked and wasn’t allowed to travel here. I understand there was an attack that killed some of its members, and I know that that’s the immediate cause of it —

      MR TONER: Right.

      QUESTION: — but it just strikes me as being a bit inconsistent if you say that this group is wonderful, and yet, you also ban its leader from coming to the States to collect an award for which – and you say you’re going to continue to support the group. I mean, if you have reason to revoke his visa, that he could be a security threat or something like that, why would you continue to support —

      MR TONER: But again – but again, I’m trying to separate this individual from the group, which we believe is —

      QUESTION: All right. So the guy is – you’re saying that basically he is suspect but his group is not?

      MR TONER: Well, again, I can’t speak to the specific allegations against him, Matt.

      QUESTION: Well, not if I —

      MR TONER: No, I’m sorry, I – my hands are tied too but —

      QUESTION: All right. The other thing —

      MR TONER: — but yes, we’re not condemning the group in any way whatsoever.

      QUESTION: Off —

      MR TONER: We believe it’s doing good work.

      QUESTION: Could I —

      QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

      QUESTION: If he is the leader of the group, how do you support this group and he is not allowed to get into the States? This is the question.

      MR TONER: I understand that and all I can say is that —

      QUESTION: How can you separate the leader of the group from the group?

      MR TONER: Well, he’s one individual in the group.

      QUESTION: But the leader of the group.

      MR TONER: And any individual – again, I’m broadening my language here for specific reasons, but any individual in any group suspected of ties or relations with extremist groups or that we had believed to be a security threat to the United States, we would act accordingly. But that does not, by extension, mean we condemn or would cut off ties to the group for which that individual works for.

      QUESTION: Okay. It just seems a little odd.

      QUESTION: Could I just follow up on the group? Which group is —

      MR TONER: Sophisticated. (Laughter.)

      QUESTION: I mean, they are a civil defense group, right? They are —

      QUESTION: The White Helmets?

      QUESTION: Who are —

      MR TONER: The White Helmets. So this is a group —

      QUESTION: White Helmets. Okay, I understand.

      MR TONER: So, yeah, this is the Syrian Civil Defense Group. Yeah.

      QUESTION: Do you know – I understand about the White Helmets. Do you know who finances them, how they operate, who are they supported by, what kind of organization they have? How do you get your information from them and so on?

      MR TONER: Well – well, I can say we provide them with —

      QUESTION: We – you do know a little bit.

      MR TONER: Well, I can tell you that we provide, through USAID, about $23 million in assistance to them.

      QUESTION: Right.

      MR TONER: I can say that they’ve saved over 40,000 lives, as I just mentioned at the – in the topper by acting as first responders. They go into combat zones, they save people after attacks. We’ve seen no action on the part of this group writ large that indicates in any way that they’re nothing but an impartial group that – like any humanitarian organization – works across lines of control and is in contact with a range of groups to facilitate their life-saving efforts. And that’s – again, we’ve talked about this the last couple days. Aleppo is —

      QUESTION: I understand that.

      MR TONER: — a very complex situation. We understand that. And for these groups to operate, they have to be able to operate within the milieu on which they’re working.

      QUESTION: Mark, but can you ask for some – I mean, this just seems bizarre to me. You’re giving this guy and his group $23 million. Yes, they do good work, they save lives, but you’ve revoked his visa for some reason and you won’t say why and it just doesn’t make any sense. Why is the U.S. taxpayer supporting a group whose leader you have banned from coming to the States?

      MR TONER: Well, I mean, look, I’m always willing to try to get more information.

      QUESTION: Please.

      MR TONER: In this case, I’m a bit restricted by the fact that this is —

      QUESTION: Just – well, I know, but it just —

      MR TONER: I can’t talk about a specific visa.

      […]

      QUESTION: Can we go to Syria? Back to Syria a little bit?

      MR TONER: Of course.

      QUESTION: Let me just go back for a minute to the White Helmets.

      MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

      QUESTION: Do they operate in, let’s say, rebel-controlled areas freely? I mean, do they move about in that area? Are they just targeted by the regime or —

      MR TONER: So my understanding is that – sure. My understanding is that, like I said, like many of these humanitarian organizations that operate in that environment —

      QUESTION: Right.

      MR TONER: — that operate in that environment —

      QUESTION: Right.

      MR TONER: — that they cross lines. So if it’s Nusrah-held territory, they will go in the Nusrah-held territory, again, to help civilians, to aid civilians in the aftermath of attacks. And so, again, I don’t know beyond that that they – but they do move within the various factions on the ground certainly around Aleppo.

      QUESTION: And to the best of your knowledge, are there any other government or groups that are aiding them beside USAID?

      MR TONER: That’s a good question. I don’t have that in front of me. I can take that question.

      QUESTION: Okay. And on the —

      MR TONER: We’ll get more detail for you on that.

      QUESTION: Okay. On the negotiations that are ongoing, Mr. de Mistura said yesterday that actually there seems to be, like, some movement or positive movement between the groups and there seem to be the opposition that is supported by Russia, that it seems to – sort of getting its act together and they’re trying to coalesce with the others. Can you update us on what is happening on that score?

      MR TONER: Well, I don’t have a lot to add. Obviously, as you mentioned, U.S. – UN Special Envoy de Mistura is going to – or he is actually going to brief the Security Council later today, and I believe he, after that, is going to have a statement to the press and take some questions. So we look forward to his assessment.

      We did talk about that last week that he did say this round of talks did progress in the fact that it got beyond issues of process and logistics and actually put the subject of political transition front – sort of front and center in the talks, and he viewed that legitimately as progress. So he was encouraged by that. I think that – I’m referring back to his comments, I think, last Friday. We still don’t have a date for the restart of talks. We obviously want to see the parties get back to Geneva as quickly as possible, but as we said yesterday – as I said yesterday, the security situation and the fragility of the cessation of hostilities right now on the ground is a strong – strongly hinders that from – that process from moving forward because the opposition, rightly so, is asking, well, how it can participate in talks in Geneva when its forces are coming under attack.

      So what we need to see at the same – we need to see very soon is the ceasefire, the – all sides that are party to the cessation of hostilities to restrain from ongoing combat or ongoing actions against other groups, most of what we’d seen, as we talked about with the regime carrying out airstrikes and carrying out other strikes against opposition groups. So we need to see all sides refrain from further action. We need to see the cessation of hostilities regain traction, if you will, and then we can get the Geneva talks back on track.

      QUESTION: Mark, have you seen —

      QUESTION: Mark —

      QUESTION: — Michael’s – Michael Ratney’s statement on the cessation?

      MR TONER: I have seen Michael Ratney’s statement.

      QUESTION: What’s the main message? Is he calling the Syrian opposition groups to fight al-Nusrah groups or to leave their positions and go far from al-Nusrah’s positions?

      MR TONER: No, I don’t think he was – I think —

      QUESTION: What’s the main message?

      MR TONER: Sure, sure, that’s – it’s a fair question. I think he was trying to speak to the fact that there was the misperception among some of these opposition groups that we were somehow trying to paint Aleppo as under – that some of these opposition groups were in league with al-Nusrah and other terrorist organizations. And I think he was simply trying to clarify to these groups – and it was a statement in Arabic, as you note, with the intended audience being the Syrian opposition – to just clarify the fact that Aleppo is not under the exclusive control of Nusrah. And there is the perception, and certainly this is something that the Syrian regime and the Russians have supported, that Aleppo is under Nusrah control; therefore, they can simply attack it, and they’re going after known terrorist organizations.

      So what he’s trying to clarify there is that is not our belief. Nusrah does control areas of Aleppo without doubt, but there are parts of Nusrah – of Aleppo, rather, that are controlled by those groups that are party to the cessation of hostilities. And so I think that was the major point he was trying to make – to clarify to those groups that we do not have the same or share the same assessment that it’s under Nusrah’s control.

      QUESTION: But didn’t he call these groups to fight al-Nusrah or to leave their positions and be —

      MR TONER: He said they need to – he said, and I’m quoting here, “The Syrian people and revolutionary factions must continue to reject terrorism in all its forms and distance themselves from the terrorists to the maximum degree possible.”

      QUESTION: What does he mean by that – by that phrase that —

      MR TONER: Well, I think – I mean, look, what I think he means is that given the fact that the regime is, frankly, looking for excuses to lump all of these groups together under the flag of Nusrah, if you will, that these groups need to very clearly delineate their differences and their separation from Nusrah. And look, we’ve talked about this before, and the Secretary’s spoken to this, is – and frankly, it’s a huge challenge for us when you’re dealing with a situation like Aleppo – is you’ve got a group here, you’ve got another group here, al-Nusrah on the ground, there needs to be a clear delineation between the groups so that you don’t have a Syrian opposition party that is party to the cessation of hostilities being hit by the same airstrikes that might be hitting al-Nusrah.

      QUESTION: Last question for me on Syria.

      MR TONER: Yes, sir.

      QUESTION: Russia has proposed placing Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham on the UN sanctions list for ISIL. Do you agree with them?

      MR TONER: No, we think that that would have damaging consequences to the cessation, and frankly, at a moment when we’re trying to make sure that it’s – we’re trying to de-escalate the situation on the ground. This has been something they have raised before. They’ve – it’s two opposition groups – Jaysh al-Islam, as you note, and Ahrar al-Sham. And they want to try to designate these groups that, frankly, are right now party to the cessation of hostilities. So we don’t want to see that happen. We don’t believe that that’s constructive.

      QUESTION: But they are targeting them in Aleppo and elsewhere.

      MR TONER: I agree, and that’s why they need to refrain from targeting these groups that are parties to the cessation of hostilities, and we call on them to do so.

      QUESTION: Thank you.

      QUESTION: Can I ask you on more on Russia and Syria?

      QUESTION: I have —

      MR TONER: Of course. Yeah, of course. I’ll get to you.

      QUESTION: These seems to – there’s some criticism coming from the Russian foreign ministry concerning the U.S. plans to put the additional troops in Syria, basically saying that the U.S. does not have, quote-unquote, “permission” for these troops to be there. Is there any effort underway to address these concerns that are being presented by Russia?

      MR TONER: By “permission,” they mean international —

      QUESTION: Syria – consent from Syria.

      MR TONER: From the Syrian Government?

      QUESTION: Right.

      MR TONER: I mean, look, we’ve talked about this before. We have the – we do believe we have the legal authority to use military force against ISIL in Syria. We have the 2002 AUMF that’s still in place that we feel strongly provides for – or provides the legal authority, rather, for military operations against ISIL both in Iraq and in Syria. The President has made efforts to encourage Congress to pass a new AUMF, the authorization for the use of military force – forgive me for using an acronym – and that really is up to Congress to take on that task. But we believe the current one passed in 2001 does cover us —

      QUESTION: Well —

      MR TONER: — and provides justification.

      QUESTION: I don’t – that’s —

      MR TONER: Is that not what she was asking?

      QUESTION: Well —

      MR TONER: Or what are you asking me?

      QUESTION: Look, this is not a new – this is not a new —

      MR TONER: It sure isn’t.

      QUESTION: — position of – from the Russians and this is not a new explanation from you guys, but that – what you’re referring to is a U.S. law.

      MR TONER: That’s correct.

      QUESTION: It doesn’t have universal application. You guys say it does, but what the Russian point is here is that you do – don’t have permission from the Syrian Government nor do you have authorization from the UN Security Council, which would be the two ways that they say that such an operation would be legitimate or legal. That’s correct, is it not?

      MR TONER: So what we have said in response is that —

      QUESTION: I mean, that’s like saying because —

      MR TONER: — we’re using – but we’re using force – no, no, I understand what you’re saying, Matt. I’m giving you the —

      QUESTION: That’s like me – if I’m from Delaware and I say that, “Well, my state has no sales tax,” so I go to New York and I’m going to say, “Well, you know what? I’m going to play by Delaware’s rules and I’m not going to give you your sales tax.”

      MR TONER: So in response to that —

      QUESTION: Right?

      MR TONER: — we have notified the Security Council that we are taking action consistent with Article 51 of the UN Charter, and more broadly speaking, we’ve said that our actions are using force against ISIL and al-Qaida in Syria in the collective self-defense of Iraq and in the U.S. national self-defense. We’re doing so as the Syrian regime has shown it is incapable and possesses neither the will nor the capability to confront these terrorist groups effectively.

      QUESTION: But – well, you’re complaining about them confronting them right now.

      MR TONER: Matt, we both know what —

      QUESTION: Okay, but I mean —

      MR TONER: We can argue that one too. I mean, welcome – welcome to —

      QUESTION: No, I don’t want to argue it. I just —

      MR TONER: No, what we’re —

      QUESTION: You’re – no, my question is —

      MR TONER: Yeah.

      QUESTION: So you’ve told the Security Council that you’re doing this under Article 51.

      MR TONER: Yes.

      QUESTION: And that’s – and that, according to you guys, is the —

      MR TONER: Yeah, legal basis —

      QUESTION: Okay. That and the AUMF.

      MR TONER: Yes.

  3. Versteh‘ ich nicht, die USA haben den Anriff doch schon längst zugegeben. Angeblich war fehlender Satellitenempfang die Ursache.

    Euer Hajo Hensel aus Hessisch Lichtenau

Kommentare sind geschlossen.