Syrian Rebel Leader Abu Sakkar Filmed Cutting Out (GRAPHIC VIDEO, PICTURES at link)

[notadmblnd]

And 'Eating' Soldier's Heart.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/14/syrian-rebel-leader-abu-sakkar-cutting-eating-soldiers-heart-video_n_3271067.html

UPDATE: Syrian Rebel Leader Filmed Eating Soldier's Lung Has No Regrets & Promises More Slaughter (GRAPHIC VIDEO, PICTURES)

Footage of a Syrian rebel commander cutting the heart out of a soldier and biting into it has emerged online.

According to Human Rights Watch, the clip shows Abu Sakkar, a founder of the rebel Omar al-Farouq Brigade carrying out the bloody act.

He says: “I swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers, you soldiers of Bashar the dog,” to offscreen cheering.

Is this the sort of leader we want to support?

[Tx4obama]

1. So, folks should support Assad? Assad has killed over 100,000 people...

... including hundreds of children with at least two different types of chemical attacks.

[cali]

2. there is no one faction worth supporting

[deutsey]

3. That's what I wish more people know

There are many factions fighting each other, not just "the insurgents" or "rebels" vs. "Assad."

If we're looking for a real clusterfuck, Syria seems custom made for one.

[Aerows]

4. Yes, of course

Because Obama backs him. He's better than Bush™

[KittyWampus]

5. Obama backs whom? Are you just being glib and throwing crap out there?

[Aerows]

6. Dear Lord

If you think it is glib to state that the US Government and Obama support the Rebels, then I really don't know what to say. If it makes you feel better to pretend to fly in the face of obvious facts, please, go right ahead, and don't get angry when you get swatted in the face with said facts.

[Tx4obama]

7. Obama does NOT support Assad.

[Aerows]

10. I didn't say that he did

I said it was ridiculous to state that he did. Maybe I should have used a sarcasm tag, but I doubt it would have made a difference.

[notadmblnd]

11. I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. I asked if that is the kind of person we want to support.

Regime change is the end goal here isn't it? Would we want to replace Assad with a leader that eats the raw body parts of those he kills, then posts it on YouTube for all the world to see? Is that a more acceptable method of terror than terrorizing people with chemical weapons? Do you think Syria would be better off with him running the country?

[Aerows]

14. Hell no is my answer. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

23. binary thinking is for simpletons.

This situation is too complex for either binary thinking or simpletons. Who on earth suggested that anyone support Assad? And if no one suggested it, why have you brought it up?

[bunnies]

8. War does fucked up things to people.

I cant begin to imagine what the state of minds are over there.

[Catherina]

9. I have posted about this. No one cares. Putin even brought this up multiple times

Putin slams Cameron: Do you want to supply arms to people who eat their enemies organs?

I will spare DU the links to those very graphic, horrifying videos that the same savages we've used in other countries, filmed and uploaded themselves to youtube. This is from the House of Commons Debate yesterday where they told Cameron to go fly a bloody kite and repeatedly distanced themselves from Obama's "FOOLISH" (their word) war mongering based on lies.

Don't believe me? Don't believe him? Wanna cut out RT because they make these horrifying stories prominent instead of burying them on page C-24, well here.... here's a BBC story you have to fucking dig for if you know what specifics you need to dig for to find these things in the MSM. No wonder there's such a war against RT right now. It's of no surprise that the most vociferous opponents of RT are cheering this madness along and wanting people to rely on *reputable* news sources like CNN that fabricated video of Iraqis so joyous of their new democracy when they got to *gasp* vote except that they got caught trucking in a bunch of actors, filming that for their story and when the filming was done, they loaded all those actors on a truck and drove away.

Shameful shit going on with our MSM right now. Again. Anything to drum up support for a war to boost profits for the same parasites who'd slit our throats rather than see us interfere with their profits.

Anyway, here's the BBC story, cleverly written to skirt close enough to the truth while planting doubts in the readers' minds that this hired thug had a reason and may have only temporarily lost his mind. Yeah right, like all the women they're raping, the 14-year old atheist boy they killed and filmed because he dared to say "A free cup of coffee? Lol no, not even for the prophet Mohammed if he comes back". Off with his head!

I weep for America if we let those bastards get away with their latest production.

Face-to-face with Abu Sakkar, Syria's 'heart-eating cannibal'
By Paul Wood BBC News, Syria

It sounded like the most far-fetched propaganda claim - a Syrian rebel commander who cut out the heart of a fallen enemy soldier, and ate it before a cheering crowd of his men.

The story turned out to be true in its most important aspect - a ritual demonstration of cannibalism - though when I met the commander, Abu Sakkar, in Syria last week, he seemed hazy on the details.

"I really don't remember," he says, when I ask if it was the man's heart, as reported at the time, or liver, or a piece of lung, as a doctor who saw the video said. He goes on: "I didn't bite into it. I just held it for show."

The video says otherwise. It is one of the most gruesome to emerge from Syria's civil war. In it, Abu Sakkar stands over an enemy corpse, slicing into the flesh.

"It looks like you're carving him a Valentine's heart," says one of his men, raucously. Abu Sakkar picks up a bloody handful of something and declares: "We will eat your hearts and your livers you soldiers of Bashar the dog."

Then he brings his hand up to his mouth and his lips close around whatever he is holding. At the time the video was released, in May, we rang him and he confirmed to us that he had indeed taken a ritual bite (of a piece of lung, he said).

...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23190533

[Aerows]

15. And they are deemed "better"

to lead the country.

But, of course, some will believe that there is absolutely no freaking reason why the Syrian rebels got attacked in the first place, because obviously, if we support them, they can't possibly be cannibals.

[Catherina]

16. And hired them, and organized them, and armed them, and did the propaganda with them

The good news is that only 9% of the US population and only 11% of the UK population are being played this time.

"Better" lol. Right. Like the same exact savages we armed in Afghanistan when we were trying to SHOW RUSSIA and who came back to bite us on 9-11.

This is the madness of neocons like John McCain and I want nothing to do with it.

[Aerows]

17. I'm in the 91% of the US

and believe we have no business wading into this shitpile that will only stir more shit and leave us with dead soldiers and a horrible stench that lingers for years.

[Catherina]

19. Heck, you'll get no disagreement from me!

The only business we have "wading into this shitpile" is that we deliberately created this "shitpile" and now it's not only biting us in the face but the rest of the civilized world is saying "Bite Me".

I echo lol- "BITE ME"

[wildbilln864]

12. k & r! n/t

[Aerows]

13. Bottom line:

Hardcore Obama supporters are going to support him if he fires a nuke a Syria, just as they will praise his even-handedness if he sits back in neutrality and does nothing. I hope he goes the even-handedness route. If Obama decided that dropping food and care packages to rebels as they gassed everyone in sight, they would still think he was wise.

It's cult of personality.

Personally, I will absolutely praise his wisdom if he takes a step back and let's event play out for a while. No harm in waiting to make a decision - things aren't suddenly going to get worse than they are, and without our involvement, they might get better.

[Catherina]

18. I respectfully disagree

Several hardcore Obama supporters have forcefullyy (ok, some timidly) come out 100% against this. Battle lines have been being drawn for the last few years now with increasing intensity and others are honestly trying to reconcile their consciences with what they can tell is manipulation for war.

I would beg you to ignore the decreasing number of known propagandists and listen instead to the change of heart of normal supporters. There are also a lot of people who still support Obama as a President (for various reasons) and are still vehemently against this Some of them are very hardcore too.

I don't think this is about the simple lines of supporting Obama or not supporting him any longer. Big difference between supporters and the deliberately blind who are intent on misleading people.

[Aerows]

20. You know, Catherina

You are right. Because I have heard some voices that I didn't expect to come out against launching an attack against Syria.

I really should temper my attitude, and I thank you for pointing that out, because I do respect you and your presence on DU. Some fine people have pointed out that this is folly, and I have disagreed with them on various issues vehemently in the past.

Thank you for pointing out my own anger towards people that actually agree with me on this issue simply because we have disagreed in the past. That doesn't lead to sane agreement. Sane agreement is letting ourselves agree on some things, and disagree on others.

I appreciate your levity on this.

[Catherina]

22. Wow lol, just sent you a head's up PM thinking it would get to you before you saw my post

but you got it. That's exactly what I meant.

91% of the American people are following their conscience on this. The rest of them are just lost fucking souls trying to call the breakaways back. Too late. Lost cause. Done with the lies, the manipulation and the emotional blackmail.

[KittyWampus]

21. You aren't paying attention. Your post is not even close to reality.

[Aerows]

24. I'm not right 100% of the time

and I just admitted as such when Catherina pointed it out to me. I'm human. Past disagreements can alter my thoughts.

You and I have disagreed in the past. Sometimes we need to be reminded that we can be on the same side, even if we aren't always on it all of the time.

I have decided to take a step back towards a reality check instead.

[MNBrewer]

25. And Assad is the "crazy" one?

[Aerows]

26. Assad is - if it is in the best interest

of those who stand to make big profits selling weapons if he is sold as the crazy one.

Because you know if those crazy people get their hands on the country, mayhem, destruction and violence will only follow.

On a positive note, defense contractor stock and profits will go up! Guns will sell like hotcakes!

[Just Saying]

27. Why do we have to support any side in Syria's civil war?

Being against Assad using chemical weapons on citizens doesn't mean we support his enemies. It doesn't seem like there are any easy (or good) choices here.

[notadmblnd]

29. If the US attacks Syria and takes out Assad, who do you think it will help?

As I said down thread, regime change is the wanted outcome. Are we certain that replacing Assad with a leader who imbibes in cannibalism the smart thing to do? This rebel leader also promised that there would be many more whom would be cannibalized. Do you think cannibalism is a more human method of terrorizing people than terrorizing them with chemical weapons?

[Just Saying]

30. I've seen nothing from the administration

To indicate regime change is the goal or any mention of "taking out Assad." It seems to me they've been working for years to stay clear of Syria's civil war. We can be against tactics like chemical weapons and eating your victims and still not choose a side. Pointless to do anyway, IMO because anything we touch will be tainted in that region.

Isn't this the same rebel group McCain did photo ops with when he was trying to push us into helping the rebels against Assad?

[Aerows]

31. You aren't blind

it was the same group.

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. if weakening Assad's forces thus making it more vulnerable to defeat by the opposition is not a goal

of any strikes by perhaps hundreds of Tomahawk missiles - then doesn't it follow to reason that there is no goal? How are "punitive strikes" that don't actually weaken Assad's forces really that punitive?

[Just Saying]

34. Well now you want me to speculate on what action the US may take

What the goals are and what the outcome might be? No idea.

I don't believe shooting missiles at Assad's forces will achieve any useful outcome.

[notadmblnd]

33. Syria has been on the agenda for a very long time.

And it does appear that the US has chosen a side.

I've listed an article from Sourcewatch that talks about regime change as far back as the early 2000's and then an article which is current explaining that the US will be supporting the rebels.

"Even though Syria is not listed among the three members of the axis of evil named by U.S. President George W. Bush in his January 29, 2002, State of the Union address, ... there is no doubt that the neoconservative faction which currently controls U.S. foreign policy aspires to replace the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad with one more amenable to the U.S. and Israel. What is unclear is only whether they are prepared to use military force to achieve this objective. [1]

Virtually as soon as the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003, reports began to surface in the international news media suggesting that Syria was next in line for invasion. Since 2003, much as it has also done with Iran, the U.S. has continuously denounced Syria on the slightest pretexts. During the invasion, it complained that Syria failed to close its borders to Iraqi insurgents entering or fleeing Iraq, while afterwards, when WMD's could not be found in Iraq, some U.S. officials went so far as to suggest that Syria had allowed Saddam Hussein to smuggle them across the border into Syria. The U.S. news media kept up a steady stream of reporting in an identical vein throughout 2004. The accusations of U.S. officials were reported uncritically, and the administration was never pressed for proof to support its inflammatory allegations.

On October 15, 2003, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which imposed strict sanctions against the Syrian government. Middle East analyst Stephen Zunes doubted that the Act would have any practical effect. "ts real purpose may be to simply demonize a government whose main offense appears to be its refusal to support the Bush administration's foreign policy agenda in the Middle East." [2]"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Regime_change_in_Syria



"The sudden intensification of conflict on the ground, which saw the rebels lose the strategic city of Qusayr a week ago, sets up a renewed diplomatic confrontation between Russia and the West at next week’s G8 summit in Northern Ireland.

Added urgency was provided by the disclosure from David Cameron that rebel groups affiliated to al-Qaeda “have attempted to acquire” chemical weapons for use in Syria, citing briefings from British intelligence.

The US announcement that it would be sending military aid to the rebels, including communications equipment, logistical support and – according to some officials – light weapons and ammunition, has sharply upped the ante on Syria. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10120064/Syria-US-to-arm-rebels-live.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10120064/Syria-US-to-arm-rebels-live.html

[Just Saying]

35. Well I have no doubt that Bush's goal was regime change.

But nothing there tells me Obama agreed with him or continued that policy. I see discussion in your links of aiding the rebels due to Assad's use of chemical weapons but nothing specific to say if we did send aid. Are we arming them? Did this happen?

As I've said several times, there are no good choices in their civil war. There are no good guys. I'm against our involvement whether it be lobbing missiles or throwing money at the problem.

McCain wandered over to Syria and was buddying up with this heart-eating guy trying to push Obama to support them. He's now out blaming the President for chemical attacks.

“Assad was able to use chemical weapons before and there was no response, and so why not do it again? This should surprise no one,” McCain said. “They viewed that not as a red line but as a green light, and they acted accordingly.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/27/exclusive-mccain-says-obama-gave-green-light-to-syria-to-use-chemical-weapons.html

[notadmblnd]

36. The neocons are still pushing for regime change. Obama has specifically said that his options do not

currently include regime change.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/videos/news/white-house-no-option-for-regime-change-in-syria/v958m/

Here is a list of articles that talk about assisting the rebels

US offers 'military support' to Syrian rebels - Americas - Al ...
The US is boosting military support to the main Syrian rebel group after determining that the government has used chemical weapons against the opposition, a top White House official has said. "The president has made a decision about providing more support to the opposition, that will involve
aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/06/2013613212110550.html More from aljazeera.com


US Expanding Support to Syrian Rebels - ABC News
President Obama has directed his national security team to identify ways to significantly ramp up U.S. support of the opposition forces battling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Among the options under consideration are supplying arms to rebel forces, although no decision on that has ...
abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/us-expanding-sup... More from abcnews.go.com


At crossroads, Syrian rebels eagerly await more US support ...
Syrian rebels say they are at a turning point in the two-year conflict against President Bashar Assad's forces, and that for the first time they have an organized, unified command that will now also benefit from a shipment of weapons from the United States.
worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/25/19138622-at-crossroads... More from worldnews.nbcnews.com


Syrian Rebels to Get 1st Direct U.S. Support as $8M in ...
The first shipment of U.S. aid to the armed Syrian rebels was being delivered Tuesday to the opposition Supreme Military Council (SMC). It includes $8 million in medical supplies and ready-to-eat military food rations.
ktva.com/news/local/Syrian-Rebels-to-Get-1st-Dir... More from ktva.com


US to Increase Military Support to Syria Rebels
President Barack Obama has authorized sending U.S. weapons to Syrian rebels for the first time, a U.S. official said on Thursday after the White House said it has proof the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against opposition forces fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. The U.S
cnbc.com/id/100814710 More from cnbc.com

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=US+support+for+Syrian+rebels


Lastly, I would ask, if regime change is not the end goal, what is the purpose of an action against Syria?

Looking at the dates, I would have to conclude that yes we are currently aiding the rebels and we have been aiding the rebels in the recent past.

I also want to say, that perhaps Obama does realize that

[notadmblnd]

37. Psst... I told ya so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023630987

[Just Saying]

38. Psst...you ain't Carnac.

These strikes were never intended to "take out Assad" as you claimed nor is Rice saying that at this time. On the contrary, she's explaining that the US seeks a diplomatic end to the civil war. Yes, they want Assad out but that's actually not the same as supporting one of the other groups as you claimed. Assad used chemical weapons on his people but that's the latest of his atrocities. As I've said many times, there is no good side in the Syrian civil war.

Oh and here's the entire speech not just a tweet. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/susan-rice-syria-full-speech-text-96484.html

[notadmblnd]

39. You're right, It doesn't take having psychic abilities

Just paying attention to what is going on in the world and not forgetting what has happened in the past.

Nothing supernatural about that at all.

[Aerows]

28. I guess he's better than Assad

Since, you know, the country had a bunch of heart-eating, people bombing, gentle people leading before-hand. Jon Stewart had Assad on his show because he's clearly a heart-eater.

But I guess that guy is better. Eating hearts just shows how civil of a leader he would be.