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: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday August 01 2016, @05:00PM
The way to make the decision between voting for the third party you actually want versus the lesser evil:
1. If you are polled, you should say you support the third-party candidate. Always.
2. If you are in a state that is not considered competitive between the major parties (this is the majority of the country), vote for the third-party candidate of your choice.
3. If you are in a state that is considered competitive between the major parties, vote for the lesser evil.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday August 01 2016, @05:20PM
The polls are only accurate 19 times out of 20. That means with 50 states, you can expect 2 races that appear to have a clear winner, when in fact, it is closer to an even split.
I advocate never voting for the lesser evil. That just perpetuates the 2 party system.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 02 2016, @07:23AM
3a) Vote for the most-likely-to-be-larger party, hopeing to unlock strategy 2 next time;
3b) Vote for the party which is going to make the bigger fuckup (yes, the greater evil), hoping to encourage a wider realisation that the big 2 are evil.
Or, of course:
3c) resorting to outright rebellion (a consequence of (3b) perhaps)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:24PM
> I advocate never voting for the lesser evil. That just perpetuates the 2 party system.
That entire argument relies on the assumption that there is ever a pure unadulterated good to vote for.
That's obviously sophomoric.
Its just hiding from the fact that every candidate is a mixture of "good" and "evil" and you are just rationalizing your preconceived biases about the trade-offs that you prefer.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:04PM
I am in such a state, and I define the lesser evil to be a third party.