SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-you-DO-NOT-want-them-to-"think-of-the-children!" dept.
A couple of weeks ago this story was reported by The Daily Beast :
Members of an American-backed rebel group in Syria beheaded a young child in a grisly execution video.
The footage surfaced early Tuesday of members of Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki and a captured child in Handarat, near Aleppo. The young boy, who appears to be prepubescent, is then executed on the back of a pickup truck.
The gruesome videotaped murder of a child drew outrage on social media and the promise of an inquiry from the group's leadership, which has previously received U.S.-made weapons and American funding. The group no longer gets such backing. But it's also renewed questions about which rebels the American government has supported in Syria's ongoing civil war.
[...] State Department spokesperson John Kirby told The Daily Beast. "We strongly condemn this type of barbaric action, no matter what group is responsible. We encourage al-Zenki to investigate the incident and expect all parties to comply with their obligations under the law of armed conflict."
[...] the group's leadership issued a statement condemning the beheading. It said it formed a committee to investigate how such a crime could have happened.
More video from the incident has been released:
The victim is seen among a group of fighters from the US and Turkish backed militant group, in the same red pick-up truck that features in their video of his execution. In a chilling exchange the jihadist militants can be seen taunting the child, taking selfies, and threatening him with 'slaughter'.
When asked about his final wish, the child asks to be shot rather than slaughtered. Their shocking answer? "Slaughter. We are even worse than ISIS"
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday August 01 2016, @03:57PM
Perhaps a better American policy would be to stop backing the side committing the atrocity and back the other side which they are fighting against.
Then when that side commits an atrocity, switch our support to the other side.
Effectively back whichever side has committed an atrocity the least recently. Sort of like an Accident Free for 0 days sign in workplaces where non-rich people work.
Maybe an even better foreign policy, which would be even more profitable to arms makers and the military industrial complex in general, would be: back both sides at the same time!
That way we can say we are outraged when side X commits an atrocity, and that we are fully backing the other side in their efforts against X.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Oceania has never been at war with Eurasia.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @04:08PM
But the Middle East is full of jerks (including the land-swiping Israel). No groups are pure, no groups are predictable. Good-guys-vs-bad-guys is Western myth, at least in the Mid-East. We'll be forever chasing our tail if we keep hunting for the mythical Good Guy.
Perhaps we should get out of their way and let them clobber each other until it dawns on them that nobody is winning and all their friends and family are dying. It's what finally ended the Christian wars several centuries ago in Europe. The Clue-Club of mass death has to work on its own; we don't want to get pulled into the blood bath, and we have a crappy record of "fixing" anything.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday August 01 2016, @04:15PM
That would not be very profitable to the military arms suppliers.
> . . . let them clobber each other until it dawns on them . . .
That's a better tragedy, er . . . um, I mean strategy. Much more profitable for arms suppliers to sell to both sides.
> . . . until it dawns on them that nobody is winning
Ah, but the arms suppliers and their stockholders are winning.
Do you know how profitable it is when a tank vehicle must be replaced?
Or how much that shoulder fired missile cost that destroyed the tank?
Cynical? Me cynical?
Maybe the winning move is not to play?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @04:41PM
I wish the US presidency was split into a domestic president and a foreign policy president. Ron Paul would then have a reasonable shot at winning. I don't like his domestic plans, but I would like to test his overseas non-meddling policies. Meddling certainly hasn't worked. The split would also give the non-meddling side more room to present their case. The job of presidency is too big for one person anyhow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @04:58PM
Then you are an idiot.
The presidency is primarily about foreign policy and, being the leader of the party, setting the domestic agenda for the party, but there is a whole 'nuther branch of government you have to negotiate with in order to get anything done.
Critiquing Paul for domestic plans that have no chance of seeing the light of day is about as meaningful as claims from the right that Obama is a secret Muslim (whatever that means): they have no purchase.
But Paul could put an immediate end to overseas adventurism, or at least require congress to commit to an actual declaration of war.
You're a dilettante ideologue.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 01 2016, @09:42PM
Ron Paul would then have a reasonable shot at winning.
Then you are an idiot.
These two statements are super compatible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:31AM
The presidency is primarily about foreign policy
Maybe originally, but the power of presidents has increased over time, and they are able to do many things using executive orders that they couldn't in the past. It's a tragedy.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:27AM
Just STOP sending WEAPONS and MONEY to them. It's not hard to work it out. If there is a fire, why does the US put logs and gasoline under it and then say "Oh dear, what an awful awful fire, we should burn it to make it go away!". However, there is a reason why. That's the difficult truth and when people discover it they become very angry.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday August 01 2016, @04:45PM
Probably be very effective at promoting false flag ops.
Assuming this story isn't a false flag op, of course.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:26AM
Perhaps or perhaps it's another al Qaeda. It could be a false flag, more likely it's more right wing foreign policy just about ready to come back to roost.
We need somebody with the guts to refuse to start anymore stupid wars. The terrorism problem can't be solved by military might.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:48PM
right wing foreign policy
Miswrote neo-con. Whom solely represent the interests of a certain group. And all of them are moving to Hillaries camp, she's the warmonger candidate. If we/Trump don't attack Iran like the Israelis have told us to, they're gonna be really pissed off at us.
I'd accept an argument that we only have one party for decades and its foreign policy has been consistent whatever you want to call it.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday August 02 2016, @02:46PM
Fair point.
Anyways, why do we still have any ties with Israel? They do nothing but cause us headaches and spy on us. I don't think there are any countries out there that spy on us more than Israel does.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:06PM
Obviously, 'cause Jesus can't come back till one specific subset of Jews have their homeland, at which point he'll show up with sword in mouth per Revelation and damn everyone the GOP doesn't like (including said Jews...) to eternal flaming torment. Says so right there in the Constitution, which God wrote *rolls eyes*
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @08:25PM
What difference at this point does it make?
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Monday August 01 2016, @08:41PM
That's not a stable policy though. What you need to do is a mixture of support for both sides, proportional to relative frequency and severity of atrocities on both sides.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday August 02 2016, @02:50PM
Or just refuse to back any group that uses violence to overthrow their government. It's come back to bite us on the ass time after time after time over the last several decades. Barring genocide we shouldn't be getting involved in armed conflicts within a country.
At this point nobody believes that we have good intentions when we back rebels. Probably because we don't have a good track record of backing regimes that don't support us.