Tuesday, October 28, 2008


I caught a fragment of BBC Radio's interview of Richard Perle, notorious supporter of Bush's unwarranted invasion of Iraq, justifying the illegal U.S. incursion into Syria which left at least eight people dead, including one woman and four children.

Perle said it was "hot pursuit." Now "hot pursuit" is the legal doctrine that allows the police to follow someone into his home or onto his property after the police saw the person committing a crime. There is no need to first obtain a warrant.

How Perle thinks it is "hot pursuit" is beyond comprehension. Whomever the U.S. was looking for, that person was not running away. So some other justification for what appears an illegal violation of the U.N. charter and international law needs to be created.

Tell me, what is the difference between some jihadist exploding a bomb in a crowded Baghdad market and U.S. special forces entering tents in this Syrian town and shooting all the inhabitants? Are they not both terroristic acts?

The Syrians claim that the U.S. engaged in murder of unarmed civilians. A surviving Syrian young woman claims that the special forces opened fire on civilians in the tents before departing in their choppers. If the lady's account is true, then the United States engages in terrorism just as much as the crazed bomber in the market.

No comments:

Post a Comment