In the paper today, I saw two bits of phrasing that struck me as odd. Here's the first (key part in color):

By 2015, it's estimated that Iran will be able to target European capitals with its missles ... holding Berlin, Paris or London hostage to whatever its demands are then. We must take action now to prevent Mr. Almadinejad or some other extremist leader that opportunity.

I could see ending the sentence with "take action to prevent him." or "take action to prevent that opportunity." But somehow, though I can't figure out why, it seems wrong to say "to prevent him that opportunity."

Is that just my feeling? How do you feel?

quote:

We must take action now to prevent Mr. Almadinejad or some other extremist leader that opportunity.

It's just careless writing and any half-competent journalist would be ashamed of it. Here's my suggested re-write:

"We must take action now to prevent Mr. Almadinejad, or some other extremist leader,having that opportunity."

It is unclear from the extract as to whether the writer is suggesting that Alminejad should be denied the opportunity by having his missile construction halted proactively, or whether he should be prevented from taking advantage of the opportunity offered once the missiles are in place. I have inferred the former.

As I said, a poor piece of writing.