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: 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?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(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.