Re: WATCH: Arab-Israeli news anchor calls out Arab leaders after the gas attack in Sy
Re: WATCH: Arab-Israeli news anchor calls out Arab leaders after the gas attack in Syria
notquiteright,
et al,
I agree. I should strive to treat everyone equally, without regard to their country of origin. I should treat Sunni and Shia alike
(secular); without being bound by any one particular religious belief and not subject to any one particular set of religious rules. The rule of law and the freedoms of man are made by the people and enforced accordingly by people, for the security, safety and benefit of the people. Now I know that in some cases, my belief in the human rights of man
(meaning both genders) and the Rule of Law
(including equal rights for all) is different from some fenced-in religious belief systems. This might be especially true in the case of radicalized views and fundamentalist interpretations of some religious threats to freedom. BUT, to the extent possible, I take the secular view.
(I'm not perfect, but I try.)
We seem quite capable of turning a blind eye ourselves as a major staging area, Qatar, is a very repressive state and Bahrain has a Sunni minority suppressing a Shia majority.
(COMMENT)
As a general rule, that is the Rule of Law (RoL), there are two principle concepts in play here.
• First, the people of distant land have a right to establish and maintain there sovereignty; without external interference. And to the extend possible, Super Powers should avoid becoming involved in the domestic affairs of other nation; except when a conflict arises between two or more different sovereign people. Countries in Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, the Pacific Rim and the Americas
(just as an example only) are complex amalgams of of varying sovereign entities.
• No religious following has either the "right" or "duty" to force others to accept the protocols of their particular brand of religion. The radicalization
(a fringe interpretations) of a religion is what it is. The strict and literal interpretation of religious texts, held static for centuries by fundamentalist dogma is not in itself wrong. BUT, when it leads to a conflict with other people and other freedoms resulting in a campaign of shocking violence - THEN - action must be taken. Non-Intervention is not selective enforcement or nonfeasance
(a failure to act and intervene). There is no moral obligation for any outsider to interfere in the domestic rule of anthers sovereignty. This is NOT, as you say, turning a blind eye; with the exception of a threat --- to the codex of national security interests
(a non-static living consideration that is changing over time).
Why don't the Israelis and their paid spokespeople call out the USofA's attitude toward the historic terrorist homeland- I mean, if we are going to play the blame game...
eace
(COMMENT)
I am curious... Exactly what do you thing America's attitude towards the historic terrorist homeland (I'm not even sure I know what this means). Of course there are Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters
(some are terrorist and some are not). And some of these are domestic terrorist and some are foreign terrorists. If these entities go into action to intimidate or coerce an outcome/demand, then there is terrorism. If there are a band, group, association or other assemblage that creates an atmosphere of terror and fear, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aims that could not be achieved through peaceful means --- well that is the kernel behind the threat.
DAESH (AKA: ISIS), in Syria and northern Iraq, are principally a group of a specific persuasion. DAESH uses stolen art and antiquities, and the income derived from mass Sex Slave sales to fund a portion of their operations.
Most Respectfully,
R