12:23 Dec 4, 2011 

"Alawites should be equal before the law, to have jobs in the economy, and have the chance to be employed in various sectors beyond in the security or army apparatus."

Error: "to have" - The use of the infinitive is wrong ('should be equal to have' is nonsense). The commas may or may not have been used correctly. What was meant could be:
'should be equal before the law, have jobs in the economy and ...'
or
'should be equal before the law, able to have jobs in the economy and ...'.

Error: "beyond in" - The meaning could be deduced from a knowledge of the current employment of Alawites. Are they currently (a) restricted to employment in the security and military establishments, or (b) excluded from these sectors?

a) '... the chance to be employed in various sectors in addition to security or the military establishment."

b) 'the chance to be employed in various sectors, including the security or military establishment.'

12:17 Dec 4, 2011 

In my opinion, the text does not imply that they should cease to be employed in the security and military apparatus; it simply says they should able to be employed in other fields beyond those.

12:14 Dec 4, 2011 

Allowance should of course be made for the fact that this is non-native English, but I don't find it particularly obscure. I think he means that Alawites (Alawis) should be able to find employment in areas beyond the security and military apparatus: that their employment possibilities should not be confined to those areas. "[T]he Alawis comprise the entirety of the top military and intelligence offices [in Syria]" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawi ). As Carol has remarked, the problem is really "in"; if you remove that, it's fine: "they have the chance to be employed in various sectors beyond the security or army apparatus".

12:12 Dec 4, 2011 

So they should have a wider range of employment opportunities in the civilian market, including the military one.... or they should have a wider range of employment opportunities in a civilian, BUT NOT the military?

12:06 Dec 4, 2011 

Both the answers given so far would be suitable in a general sense. The troubling part is the poorly written end of the sentence "beyond in the security or army apparatus." As the sentence mentions the economy, it seems to infer that the Alawites (or whatever group is being referred to) should have access to a broader range of employment opportunities than military service offers. It's possible that the article was edited in a rush and the incoherent "in" was overlooked. The answers that kmtext and I have provided really amount to one and the same in the end as they both mean a wider range of employment opportunities in a civilian, rather than a military, context.

12:03 Dec 4, 2011 

Yes it is, but we're confused, is it "other than", "further than" or "further more"?
TIA

11:59 Dec 4, 2011 

... with Burhan Ghalioun, the leader of the Syrian National Council, Syria's main opposition group

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020383310457707...

He says:

"Alawites should be equal before the law, to have jobs in the economy, and have the chance to be employed in various sectors beyond in the security or army apparatus."

11:51 Dec 4, 2011 

The newpaper must have published it on the sub-editors' day off, unless this was published in the letters column. Now that you have given the whole sentence, which contains a further serious grammatical error, the only thing that is clear is the impossibility of accurately knowing the writer's intention.

11:42 Dec 4, 2011 

This ethnic group should be equal before the law, to have jobs in the economy, and have the chance to be employed in various sectors beyond in the security or army apparatus.

I'm almost certain that "beyond in" is certainly wrong, but it was published by well known newspaper in the USA. that's why I'm confused .