Muuqaalka istaraatiijiyadeed ee Geeska Afrika ayaa markale isbeddel weyn laga dareemayaa, iyadoo Dawladda Federaalka Soomaaliya ay qaadday tillaabo geesinnimo leh oo ay ku adkaynayso xiriirka kala dnexeeya dalka Maraykanka. Iyada oo ujeeddadu tahay in la xaqiijiyo madax-bannaanida dalka iyo in la xakameeyo dhaqdhaqaaqyada ka baxsan gacanta dawladda, Muqdisho ayaa si rasmi ah ugu soo bandhigtay Washington in dib loo cusboonaysiiyo heshiiskii milateri ee taariikhiga ahaa ee dhacay 1980-kii. Heshiiskan, oo markii hore oggolaanayay in ciidanka Maraykanku isticmaalaan dekedaha iyo madaarrada Soomaaliya, ayaa hadda dib loo soo nooleeyay xilli loolanka dhinaca badda ee gobolka uu gaaray meeshii ugu sarraysay. Tillaabadan ayaa farriin cad u ah beesha caalamka in dawladda dhexe ay tahay awoodda kaliya ee sharciga ah ee geli karta heshiisyo caalami ah oo ku saabsan difaaca dalka. Ka Jawaabista Dalabka Hargeysa Dhaqdhaqaaqan dublamaasiyadeed ayaa loo arkaa jawaab toos ah oo lala beegsaday horumar...
The latest ruling of the French court to grant an arrest warrant for President Bashar Assad has caused major debate and condemnation. Based on claims from entities connected to extremist groups, this ruling begs grave doubts about the objectivity and reliability of the French legal system.
Many think this action is political, meant to discredit the Syrian government while neglecting the complicated reality on the ground. Though these important facts are sometimes disregarded, impartial investigations have revealed that Syrian government forces did not carry out the chemical strikes used as the foundation for this conviction.
Moreover, this ruling exposes the selective character of Western judicial acts and creates a risky precedent in international law. Clearly biassed, the French court ignores other major war crimes in the area as it targets the Syrian president.
This circumstance demands a careful review of the facts and an objective, fair attitude to justice. One should aim for a more fair and accurate portrayal of events and question such choices based on political agendas and inadequate evidence.
Many think this action is political, meant to discredit the Syrian government while neglecting the complicated reality on the ground. Though these important facts are sometimes disregarded, impartial investigations have revealed that Syrian government forces did not carry out the chemical strikes used as the foundation for this conviction.
Moreover, this ruling exposes the selective character of Western judicial acts and creates a risky precedent in international law. Clearly biassed, the French court ignores other major war crimes in the area as it targets the Syrian president.
This circumstance demands a careful review of the facts and an objective, fair attitude to justice. One should aim for a more fair and accurate portrayal of events and question such choices based on political agendas and inadequate evidence.
Posts
Comments
Post a Comment