Let u eens op deze formuleringen en vraagstelling:
The US air strike against insurgents in Syria illustrates exactly what is wrong with how states fight terrorism.
The US military carried out an aerial attack on Sunday against foreign insurgents holed up in Syria along the Iraqi border, US officials confirmed today. Although details of the operation remain vague, the attack reportedly killed eight civilians and drew condemnation across the Muslim world, from Damascus to Tehran. Similar bombings by US special forces have also been stepped up in recent weeks against al-Qaida and Taliban strongholds in northwest Pakistan... Are such cross-border strikes wise policy, and should the next US president continue with them? The answer is no. Not only do such strikes violate state sovereignty - which also requires that states control their inhabitants - and end up killing civilians, but they are unproven to work, do nothing to address the socioeconomic conditions that invite terrorism and too often just turn local public opinion against us.'
The US military carried out an aerial attack on Sunday against foreign insurgents holed up in Syria along the Iraqi border, US officials confirmed today. Although details of the operation remain vague, the attack reportedly killed eight civilians and drew condemnation across the Muslim world, from Damascus to Tehran. Similar bombings by US special forces have also been stepped up in recent weeks against al-Qaida and Taliban strongholds in northwest Pakistan... Are such cross-border strikes wise policy, and should the next US president continue with them? The answer is no. Not only do such strikes violate state sovereignty - which also requires that states control their inhabitants - and end up killing civilians, but they are unproven to work, do nothing to address the socioeconomic conditions that invite terrorism and too often just turn local public opinion against us.'
Lees verder: http://www.truthout.org/102808C
Deze bewoordingen: 'Although details of the operation remain vague, the attack reportedly killed eight civilians and drew condemnation across the Muslim world, from Damascus to Tehran... Are such cross-border strikes wise policy, and should the next US president continue with them? The answer is no. Not only do such strikes violate state sovereignty - which also requires that states control their inhabitants - and end up killing civilians, but they are unproven to work, do nothing to address the socioeconomic conditions that invite terrorism and too often just turn local public opinion against us.'
'Hoewel details van de operatie vaag blijven' en hoewel de journalist zelf niet ter plaatse is wezen kijken beweert hij wel dat de 'Amerikaanse luchtaanvallen tegen opstandelingen in Syrie' gericht waren. Hoe weet hij dat zo zeker? Wel, dat hebben de autoriteiten hem verteld. Herinnert u zich nog de aanslagen van 11 september 2001? Stel dat een Guardian-journalist had geschreven: 'Are such cross-border strikes wise policy?' De lezers zouden de journalist voor gek hebben gesleten, want wie stelt nu zo'n vraag? De journalist van de Guardian dus, maar dan alleen wanneer het om machteloze Syrische burgers gaat, en zeker niet als het om even machteloze Amerikaanse burgers gaat. Dan wordt terreur meteen als terreur gekwalificeerd, maar in het geval van Amerikaanse terreur heten die terreurdaden 'cross-border strikes, ' en vraagt de journalist zich af of dit 'wijze politiek' is. Zelf ben ik van mening dat 'terreur' altijd contraproductief is, welke terreur dan ook, dus ook christelijke terreur.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten