1. Educación Básica Superior
Primer Quimestre - Segundo Parcial
GRADE
STUDENT(S):
TEACHER: Mauricio Torres
SUBJECT: Social Studies
DATE:
7/11/13
TIME:
25 min.
ACTIVIDAD GRUPAL EN CLASE (AGC)
No. 2
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: Read the instructions below before starting the activity.
 Read the instructions carefully.
 Check your notes from class and also read the news below.
 Work in pairs and discuss your answers.
10 Points
Curso
Paralelo
No. Lista
10
IDENTIFY CONTEXT
Interpret
/5
Analyze
/5
Read the news and editorials below (CNN and Al-Jazeera) to identify the context in which they are written in
order to answer the questions below.
CNN: Syrian war's brutality isn't going away
By Peter Bergen and Jennifer Rowland
A gruesome snuff video that has garnered more than
180,000 views on YouTube underlines just how grim the
Syrian conflict has become.
This video appears to document one of the worst kinds of
war crimes: The summary executions of wounded men.
(Warning: The scenes are extremely graphic.)
Several paramilitaries in battle fatigues armed with
automatic weapons -- some speaking Arabic in distinctive
Lebanese accents -- pull wounded men out of the back of
a van and drop them on to the ground, then shoot them in
their heads at point-blank range.
As they shoot their victims, some of the paramilitaries
seem almost giddy with excitement.
A man who appears to be their commander admonishes
his men, "Come on guys, we are here to carry out our
duties not to seek revenge on our own. This is
unacceptable."
One of the paramilitaries smilingly replies, "But we are
killing them in God's cause, only in God's cause."
There has been much analysis of the al Qaeda-aligned
groups in Syria fighting the Assad regime that have
recruited thousands of foreign fighters from around the
Arab world and a smaller number from the West, but there
has been far less discussion of the Shiite militias in Syria
that have recruited foreign fighters from Iraq as well as
from Lebanese Hezbollah, all of whom are fighting to
support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
As is now well known, many of the players in the Syrian
conflict, including most prominently the Assad regime
itself, have committed war crimes against civilians.
Al-Jazeera: Striking Syria: Illegal, immoral, and
dangerous
By: Phyllis Bennis
If I were very optimistic, I'd say that President Obama is hoping
that Congress will follow the example of the British parliament,
and vote against his proposed military strike on Syria. It would
let him off the hook - he could avoid an illegal, dangerous,
immoral military assault and say it's Congress' fault.
But unfortunately, I don't think that much optimism is warranted.
Obama's speech - not least his dismissal of any time pressure,
announcing that his commanders have reassured him that their
preparations to fire on command are not time-bound - gives
opponents of greater US intervention in Syria a week or more to
mobilise, to build opposition in Congress and in the public, and
to continue fighting against this new danger. As the president
accurately described it, "some things are more important than
partisan politics". For war opponents in Congress, especially
President Obama's progressive supporters, keeping that in mind is
going to be difficult but crucial.
Obama said he will "seek Congressional authorisation" for a
military strike on Syria. He said he believes US policy is
"stronger" if the president and Congress are united, but made
clear his belief that he "has the authority to strike without"
congressional support. That's the bottom line. The first question
shouted by the press as he left the White House rose garden was
"will you still attack if Congress votes no?" He didn't answer.
All of that led to the drive towards war slowing a bit. But it didn't
stop. And that's a problem. Because whatever Congress may
decide, a US military strike against Syria will still be illegal,
immoral and dangerous, even reckless in the region and around
the world. Congress needs to say no.
What should the US do?
First thing, stop this false dichotomy of it's either military force
or nothing. The use of chemical weapons is a war crime, it is
indeed what Secretary Kerry called a "moral obscenity".

2. On Friday, Human Rights Watch released a report
documenting a massacre on August 4 that was perpetrated
by two al Qaeda-aligned Sunni militant groups, the
Islamic State of Iraq and Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra.
Human Rights Watch collected the names of 190 civilians
who were killed in these attacks, including 57 women and
at least 18 children and 14 elderly men.
While the world in the past few weeks has been distracted
by the U.S. government shutdown and the brutal attack on
the mall in Kenya by an al Qaeda affiliate that left at least
67 dead, the Syrian war has ground on.
It is a war that has now claimed as many as 120,000 lives.
Four of those deaths are documented in the appalling
videotape of the Shiite paramilitaries gleefully executing
wounded men who appear to be civilians. And the deaths
of 190 civilians killed by Sunni militias in August are
documented in great detail in the Human Rights Watch
report that was released Friday.
Whoever used such a weapon should be held accountable. So
what do we do about it?
First, do no harm. Don't kill more people in the name of
enforcing an international norm.
Recognise that international law requires international
enforcement; no one country, not even the most powerful, has the
right to act as unilateral cop. Move to support international
jurisdiction and enforcement, including calling for a second UN
investigation to follow-up the current weapons inspection team,
this one to determine who was responsible for the attack.
Recommend that whoever is found responsible be brought to
justice in The Hague at the International Criminal Court,
understanding that timing of such indictments might require
adjustment to take into account ceasefire negotiations in Syria.
Stand against further escalation of the Syrian civil war by
voting no on any authorisation for US military strikes.
Just when you thought the Syrian civil war couldn't get
any worse, it does.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/11/opinion/bergen-syria-video/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/201391142319670421.html
I.
Interpret: In what context is the CNN news written? What is the emotion it tries to stir upon the reader? Give
a full answer (4 points for content, 1 for a complete paragraph)
II.
Analyze: The second text is an editorial, which allows opinion to be openly written. What is the stance of the
Al-Jazeera editorial? Is it being open on its position towards US intervention in the conflict? Why and how? (4
points for content, 1 for a complete paragraph)