9. august 2005

DRs Allan Høgsbro til OPRØR i Radioavisen: “det er vel ikke fordi i støtter terror mod civile…”

Venstreradikale OPRØR blev idag sigtet for sin støtte til terrorbevægelserne PFLP og FARC, og 18-Radioavisen havde idag foreningens talsmand Patrick MacManus i telefonen. Ringere kan journalistik næppe blive:

Patrick MacManus, OPRØR: “Det er ikke gavnligt for nogen, at organisationer der fører en legitim modstandskamp, der fører en kamp for social og politisk frigørelse – at disse organisationer bliver opført på en såkaldt terrorliste.”

Allan Høgsbro, DR: – og det er vel ikke fordi i støtter terror mod civile sagesløse?

Patrick MacManus, OPRØR: “Slet ikke derfor, vi mener stadigvæk at verden er sådan at det kan være nødvendigt for befolkninger at gribe til væbnet kamp, når, og først når alle andre muligheder er udtømte.”

MacManus siger det en venstreloonie skal sige. Problemet her er DRs Allan Høgsbro der ikke bare giver ham lov til gøre FARC-kommunisternes revolution til et folkeligt foretagende, men stiller et ledende spørgsmål der frikender organisationen for noget de på forhånd har erkendt.

Fra Terrorismfiles…

FARCActivities
“Bombings, murder, kidnapping, extortion, hijacking, as well as guerrilla and conventional military action against Colombian political, military, and economic targets. In March 1999 the FARC executed three US Indian rights activists on Venezuelan territory after it kidnapped them in Colombia. Foreign citizens often are targets of FARC kidnapping for ransom. Has well-documented ties to narcotics traffickers, principally through the provision of armed protection.”

PFLP

Activities
“Committed numerous international terrorist attacks during the 1970s. Since 1978 has conducted attacks against Israeli or moderate Arab targets, including killing a settler and her son in December 1996.”

Oploadet Kl. 22:14 af Kim Møller — Direkte linkEn kommentar


20. oktober 2004

OPRØR støtter FARC og PFLP – for demokratiets skyld…

Den venstreradikale forening OPRØR vil samle ind til terrorgrupperne FARC i Columbia og PFLP i Palæstina, for på den måde at skabe debat om definitionen på terrorisme. Principielt er det da helt iorden at debattere hvor definitionen skal sættes, men dyrk lige argumentet. Her sakset fra Århus Onsdag, i en reklame for debatmøde:

“Kunne man forestille sig at man i terrorbekæmpelsens hellige navn kom til at udrydde de ægte demokratiske kræfter i verden diktaturstater?”

Foreningen samler ind FARC:

FARC is responsible for most of the ransom kidnappings in Colombia; the group targets wealthy landowners, foreign tourists, and prominent international and domestic officials. FARC stepped up terrorist activities against infrastructure in cities before Colombia’s May 2002 presidential election. Recent FARC operations include:

– the February 2002 hijacking of a domestic commercial flight and kidnapping of a Colombian senator on board;
– the February 2002 kidnapping of a presidential candidate, Ingrid Betancourt, who was traveling in guerrilla territory;
– the October 2001 kidnapping and assassination of a former Colombian minister of culture; and
– the March 1999 murder of three American missionaries working in Colombia, which resulted in a U.S. indictment of FARC and six of its members in April 2002.
[Terrorism Q & A]

Støtten går endvidere til PFLP:

In its early years, the PFLP conducted hundreds of terrorist attacks. It is best known for pioneering the technique of international airplane hijackings in the late 1960s and 1970s—with consequences that rattled the Middle East.

– On July 22, 1968, the PFLP hijacked its first plane, an El Al flight from Rome to Tel Aviv.
– In September 1970, the PFLP hijacked three passenger planes and took them to airfields in Jordan, where the PLO was then based; after the planes were emptied, the hijackers blew them up. In response, King Hussein of Jordan decided that Palestinian radicals had gone too far and drove the PLO out of his kingdom.
– In 1972, PFLP and Japanese Red Army gunmen murdered two dozen passengers at Israel’s international airport in Lod.
– In 1976, breaking a PLO agreement to end terrorism outside Israeli-held territory, PFLP members joined with West German radical leftists from the Baader-Meinhof Gang to hijack an Air France flight bound for Tel Aviv and landed the plane in Entebbe, Uganda. In a now famous raid, Israeli commandos stormed the plane on the Entebbe tarmac and freed the hostages.
– During the current intifada, PFLP gunmen shot dead Ze’evi, Israel’s rightist tourism minister, in a Jerusalem hotel—the first assassination of an Israeli minister.
– The group has also claimed responsibility for several recent car bombings and shootings in Israel and the West Bank.
– In April 2002, Israeli officials foiled a PFLP attempt to blow up a Tel Aviv skyscraper with a car bomb—which could have caused massive casualties and would have marked a dramatic escalation in Palestinian terrorism.
[Terrorism Q & A]

Hvis kampen for ‘det sande demokrati’ omfatter massemord på civile, flykapringer, mord på folkevalgte og mere i den dur, så er det næppe ønskeligt. Såfremt John Jacobsen og hans glade givere støtter terrorister, må de være medskyldig i kommende terroraktioner fra de nævnte grupper. Længere er den ikke.

Oploadet Kl. 20:27 af Kim Møller — Direkte linkEn kommentar


26. august 2004

Ja, alle ‘folk’ har ret til uafhængighed, men nationalstaterne er ukrænkelige – om ‘Oprør’

En hidtil ukendt venstreradikale forening Oprør er imod anti-terrorlovgivningen, og afholder på lørdag en støttefest for terrorist-organisationerne PFLP (Palæstina) og FARC (Columbia). Indsamlingen er ment som en provokation, og politiet møder forhåbentligt talstærkt op og smider overskuddet i kaffekassen.

Oprør henviser på en fremtrædende plads på deres hjemmeside til FNs overordnede traktatgrundlag, som taler om ‘folks’ ret til selvbestemmelse og uafhængighed. På sin vis har de jo ret. Alle har ifølge FN ret til uafhængighed og bestemmelse, men som ofte i FN-regi er formuleringerne vage og tvetydige. Det er de såmen også nødt til at være når FN-Chartret også pointerer at medlemstaterne er ukrænkelige, og således ikke kan deles imod ‘deres’ vilje. Så her må man spørge: Uafhængighed for hvem? – Har Livø, Himmerland eller andre danske områder ikke krav på samme såfremt ‘de’ ønskede det…

Her et citat fra (den demokratiske politiker) Daniel Patrick Moynihan, i hans uforlignelige gennemgang af problematikken specifikt relateret til den første Irak-krig i Pandaemonium. Ethnicity in International Politics:

The dilemma, if it is that, was graphically displayed in the Persian Gulf War of 1991. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the previous year produced an unprecedented international response. As nver before in history, international law was invoked and international organization in the United Nations Security Council set about its putative task of applying th U.N. Charter.

However, the moment Iraqi forces were expelled from Kuwait ethnic divisions within Iraq itself broke out into civil strife. Shi’ite Moslems rose against the sunni authorities in Baghdad and slaughter commenced in southern regions, including Karbalah, where Shi’ism began with the defeat and death of Husain, the Prophet’s grandson, in A.D. 680. In the North ethnic Kurds rose once again, and were once again driven into the mountains and across borders into Turkey and Iran, from whence they were driven back amidst great suffering. Now, however, the international community did not seem to know just what to do with its new found solidarity and activism. Resolution 688 (1991) was adopted stating that the security Council:

1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region.

In this context the French began to talk about a ‘right of intervention’ arising from general principles of humanitarian law. Mario Bettati, professor of international law and former dean of the Law School, Université de Paris-Sud, wrote that ‘By passing Resolution 688 on April 5 [1991], the United Nations Security Council broke new ground in international laq, for the first time approving the right to interfere on humanitarian grounds in the hitherto sacrosanct internal affairs of member states.’ In fact, the Security Council found a way to subsume the particularism of internal ethnic conflict with the universalism of the Charter’s rules concerning breaches to international peace. Although article 2(7) states emphatically that ‘nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state,’ the Security Xouncil determined that the massive flow of Kurdish refugees over Iraq’s borders and into Turkey and Iran had created a ‘threat to peace’ and, therefore, justified further action by the Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. And, indeed, American and British forces were deployed in parts of Kurdistan, so called, along with U.N. relief workers. And yet when it was all over, Iraq was still in Saddam’s control. The Kurds were calling for self-determination… For are they not entitled to it under Article 1, Section 2 of the Charter? [s. 66ff]

Oploadet Kl. 09:36 af Kim Møller — Direkte linkEn kommentar
Denne weblog er læst af siden 22. juni 2003.

 

« Forrige side



 

Vælg selv beløb



Blogs


Meta
RSS 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
Valid XHTML
WP






MediaCreeper