Wednesday, July 20, 2016

International Outrage Over U.S. Backed Syrian Rebels Filmed Brutally Beheading A Child



Daily Mail: And these are the 'good guys'! Sickening video shows US-backed Syrian rebels taunting and then brutally beheading a young boy because he was a 'spy'

* WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT
* Nour al-Din al-Zenki thug decapitates boy accused of being a child soldier
* Boy was arrested for being a spy for government-supporting group al-Quds
* Fighters laugh and joke before beheading the boy in the back of an SUV
* Executioner shouts 'Allahu Akbar' meaning 'God is great' after killing child

Fighters from a US-backed Syrian militant group have been filmed brutally beheading a child as young as 11.

The video captures Nour al-Din al-Zenki fighters in the back of a truck with a child they claim is an al-Quds soldier supporting Assad's Syrian forces.

One of the fighters shouts 'Allahu Akbar' meaning 'God is great' after taking a small knife to the boy's throat and cutting off his head in the Palesinian refugee Handarat Camp in Northern Aleppo.

Read more ....

WNU editor: With allies like this ....

More News On Reaction To U.S. Backed Syrian Rebels Filmed Brutally Beheading A Child Suspected Of Working For The Assad Regime

Syria conflict: Boy beheaded by rebels 'was not fighter' -- BBC
Beheading of child by Syrian rebel group sparks outrage -- AFP
U.S.-Backed ‘Moderate’ Rebels Behead a Child Near Aleppo -- Daily Beast
Syria war: Rebels 'behead 12-year-old boy' on video -- Al Jazeera
Syrian rebel group investigates beheading of child -- Reuters
Syria war: Rebels 'behead 12-year-old boy' on video -- Al Jazeera
Rebels in Syria behead boy in 'mistake' -- CNN
US mulls ‘pause’ in support of Syrian rebels following beheading of Palestinian boy -- RT

19 comments:

RRH said...

Lends credence to what a lot of pro Gov Syrians adamantly believe; Washington supports the head choppers.

So what else is new?

Jay Farquharson said...

"There is now additional information about the case:

8:08 AM - 20 Jul 2016 Elijah J. Magnier @EjmAlrai
#Palestinian child, Abdullah Issa, was at Hospital, beheaded by Mateen al-Nahlawee coz his father is a militant.

#Palestinian Abdullah Issa was suffering from lack of oxygen n the bloodstream causes thalassemias and needed blood transfusion every month+

He was not fighting among Al-Quds pro-gov group but his father. He was a patient at the Hospital in #Aleppo when beheaded by pro-#US Zinki."

http://www.moonofalabama.org

Aizino Smith said...

These are Obama's allies.

Jay Farquharson said...

Those are your allies.

B.Poster said...

Not my allies. "Obama's allies" is closer to being accurate. Under President Trump whom, the nature of, and the types of support will be reevaluated.

I've known from the beginning tgat Assad's forces were/are going to prevail. We would have done much better to support them ftom the start and we might have been able to improve our relations with Russia and Iran.

Of course if Assad's forces behave badly it will not generate the kind of coverage that anti-Assad forces receive when tgey behave badly. Hopefully this incident will lead to a reevaluatikn of this policy and we won't have to wait until Mr. Trump assumes office to make the neccessary changes. Additiknally this underscores the fact that admitting Syrian "refugees" into the United States is a bad idea without proper vetting and US officials could not properly vet this. As such, there is no reason to expect they could properly vet refugees of this magnitude either.

Jay Farquharson said...

They're America's allies, so unless you recently renounced your citizen ship and your right to vote, they are your allies too.

Bi-partizan support for using radical jihadi head chopping war criminal islamofacist psycopaths against Civil Societies is a longstanding US Policy going all the way back to 1978.

B.Poster said...

I did not vote for such people nor do I condone such policies. America's foreign policy well before 1978 and continuing to this day has been a fight for it's survival against enemies who are far more powerful than it is. As such, there is often an element of "the enemy of my enemy of my friend" within American poljcy, such an approach is misguiddx in the case of anti-Assad forces.

Furthermore there is a tendency to lump anyone who might support an American position in with jihadis and psychoaths while declaring those opposed to America as peace, light, and civil. America is very bad at working witin the media to get a coherent message out. In contrast, it's adversaries are quite good at this.

Since the Canadian position on Syria and other key areas has often been similar to America's, this would make them Canada's allies as well and by extension yours as well as mine. These are NOT my allies just brcause certain leaders misguidedly support them and I would not claim that they are yours.

There is no justification for supporting anti-Assad forces. They cannot win and such support only risks further animosity with Russia.

Under Presidrnt Trump such policies will be reevaluated and changed. I pray the change will be for the better. It would help if Canada changes it's policies as well. Americans look up to Canadians as the people and nation they admire the most. This extends to many of America's leaders as well. A change in course by Canada would help make the neccessary changes occurr faster even before President Trump takes office.

Jay Farquharson said...

If you ever voted for Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush II or Obama, or all but 11 House Reps and 6 Senator's over those 32 years, then you voted for "those people" and "those policies".

B.Poster said...

Again, such policies have to be evaluated in their context. Mostly what is being referred to here is with regards to Syria. Furthermore as pointed above, there is the tendency to lump anyone who supports an American position as a Jihadi. Such is not always warranted.

I think the point I'm trying to make perhaps not so eloquently is just because someone or something may be supported by the US government does not mean I or any other American supports it. These are not my allies nor would most Americans or even the US government viee such people as allies. Over the years it's often been a convergence of interests. Also, in many cases the US had little choice as often times only bad choices were available. When facing existential tbreats on multiple fronts against forces far more powerful than oneself with only limited options the bedt of bad situations often has to be made. In the current case of Syria, support for anti-Assad forces is unwarranted for the reasons already mentikned.

Under President Trump changes in American foreign policy will occurr. Hopefully they will be for the better. Great places to start would be in recognizing Russia's posjtion as the world's most powerful country and undrrstanding this isn't changing any time soon. From this look for ways to add value to Russia and it's leadership.

Jay Farquharson said...

LMAO.

RRH said...

Oh cut the bullshit B.

And Aizino,

I know you know better.

RRH said...

Trump re_evaluate????

He has the attention span of a knat.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

fazman said...

B poster correct because your government does does not mean you or indeed millions of consituents do

It has nothing to do with renouncing citizenship or allegiance to the flag its a conscience vote no more no less.

RRH said...

Faz,

(If) When You vote for a government, you vote for the whole enchilada. It's one of the reasons I haven't voted in Canada for decades. A party that says gays can marry, I can keep my guns, or possess marijuana doesn't make it's support for the TPP or Islamo-fascists palatable. Picking and choosing or crying mea absolvo after the fact (vote) doesn't cut it.

That being said, there's a lot more to being civically (or ethically) responsible than voting -- which is over rated if you ask me.

RRH said...

As for "context", it's debatable and could be readily swapped for "interest" or "real motivation behind".

B.Poster said...

Jay,

LMAO? Not sure if directed at me. I see nothing funny in snything I posted. I was trying to have a zerious discussiin about serious issues in a serious manner.

RRH,

Not sure what bullsh!t you were referring to. America's foreign and domestic policies over the last several decades have to be evaluated within the context and do not occur in a vacum. Even if I'm incorrect about the current or prior power structure, America has facdd and currently faces extremely powerful enemies on multiple fronts.

As to Mr. Trump reevaluating, he has suggested that NATO along with other defense and trade agreements may need to be renegotiated. Given how forceful his approaches have been in the entirety, he is going to have to reevaluate these things. Big changes are coming. Will they be for the better? I hope and pray so as should every friend of America.

As to his attentikn span being that of a "knat", I suspect what happened here is Mr. Trump has the ability to focus on many things simultaneously that is far beyond the ability of those of average intelligence. To the less intelligent, such a person may look and seem like a knat. Furthermore people able to multitask successfully in this manner oftentimes tend to lose patience with those less capable tgan they are.

As for the ghostwriter, I think it is fairly common for famous people to employ professional writers because of their ability to express complex thoughts in ways that can be understood by the reader. To try and understand Mr.Trump as opposed to dictating his thoughts, is likely beyond the writer's ability.

While I will check out the article, I suspect it will have no effect as both supporters and opponents of Mr.Trump have long understood the long knives of the media are out for him. I'm going to reiterate, he was NOT and is NOT my first choice bottom line though is he will probably be the next POTUS,

Fazman,

I think you're spot on.

Jay Farquharson said...

Guess you havn't been watching RNC 2016.

No serious people in the room.

Anonymous said...

There are no serious people left in United States politics. We have gotten the leaders we deserve.

B.Poster said...

The purpose of a convention is to build up a candidate and the time is cery limited. As such, it will likely not have the time to deal with specific policy solutions. Just because you disagree with the positions they may espouss does not mean they are not "serious." It means there are profound disagreements on policy perscriptions.

Several mistakes have been made by team Trump that I think were unforced errors. Most importantly they've allowed the "never Trump" movement to much time and space to distract from the message. There have been others. I would describe such people as "psychopath narcissists." The American people will likely be done with them.

At least a couple of policy ideas from team Trump are, 1.) Consider not automatically come to the aid of NATO countries unless they honor their committments. 2.) Consider removing from the Republican platform the policy of supplying "defensive weapons" to Ukraine as we need to work with Mr. Putin. Hopefully this policies can cone to fruition.

While some of the policies may be off, Mr. Trump and his supporters are generally very serious people. Whether anyone likes this or not Mr. Trump will likely be the next POTUS. Time will tell.