Outrage at Syrian rebel shown 'eating soldier's heart'

Posted this in the other thread as well,

the dude eating the 'heart' is well known

www.liveleak.com...

Text book example of WHY unilateral regime change and arming insurgents are illegal under international law.
But of course NATO knows better - look at all the success they've had in Iraq and Libya

Originally posted by judus
This is nothing short of Satanic.

un hate to be the one to tell you this, but your government is controlled by a satanic group.

Love and harmony
Whateva

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by boncho

 

I see your point, boncho, but I believe that the Russians, being in a position of influence, are at least looking for a negotiated end to the conflict. The Iranians...Well, who knows...

I wasn't taking sides, East / West on this, I just think there should be no military support of any kind, or intervention, other than humanitarian support for both sides.

Well, 2 things.

1) The BRIC is united, whether they show it or not.
2) The BRIC wins, the US loses.

Wait, I'll add another one in:

3) The Cold War never ended.

Quite simple. It's a proxy war, if Russia, Iran both pulled out, and US and their pick of the litter allies for the week left town... Well heck, there'd be no conflict. It's a proxy war. Never was about Syria. No one cared when Father Syria was alive and life was really crap...

May I just say, it's genuinely a nice surprise to see someone with someone with a genuine understanding of whats happening on ATS (I don't really expect to see much but flag waving when I view a topic on here )

Originally posted by ohiwastedmylif
Posted this in the other thread as well,

the dude eating the 'heart' is well known

www.liveleak.com...

That's sick I wished I never kliked the link but perhaps he can find redemption in his sky god under the name Allah like General Butt Naked of Liberia did under his sky god Christ R Lord.

reply to post by judus


They send them money so they and fund their own terrorist action and use those bat crap crazy people instead of the official military so they don't have to be help accountable. Plain and simple.

Then they get the rest of the world to condemn the problem in which they created.

aljazeera.com

"At least 80,000 have perished since the start of the hostilities, with most of those casualties believed to be civilians," Jeremic told the 193 members of the General Assembly before Thursday's vote.

That's not 50% (40,000 ) percent or 60% or maybe 70% but 75% ( 60,000+), 80 % and up for casualties of war or the more politically


correct terminology, civilians, or lets humanize the situation and call these murdered victims of political conflict.


If the govt is so vocal in support of the CIA backed coups and financial funded with aid, would they help aid and support the potential coups in the US of A?

They should have sold their organs, like the Israelis would have.

Why eat it when you can turn a profit!

Originally posted by DaTroof
So shooting someone to death, not a war crime.

Eating, war crime.

Makes no sense to me either.

Eating the heart of a fallen enemy isn't anything new. It is a practice as old as war itself.

What is so wrong about it? It is meant to strike to fear into the enemies hearts and minds.....and is actually a useful tactic.

How can it be a war crime? It is done AFTER the enemy is killed....there is no Additional suffering that occurs.

Eating the heart of a fallen enemies to me isn't anywhere as bad as war itself, or the torturing of humans that often occurs in "private" and "secret" from both sides in most wars.

Haven't they ever heard the saying, All is fair in love and war.



I'm not saying its NORMAL to eat the hearts of the fallen enemies....but then again, what about war IS normal? War itself is ugly.......there is no "pretty" version of war.

Originally posted by supermarket2012

Originally posted by DaTroof
So shooting someone to death, not a war crime.

Eating, war crime.

Makes no sense to me either.

Eating the heart of a fallen enemy isn't anything new. It is a practice as old as war itself.

What is so wrong about it? It is meant to strike to fear into the enemies hearts and minds.....and is actually a useful tactic.

How can it be a war crime? It is done AFTER the enemy is killed....there is no Additional suffering that occurs.

Eating the heart of a fallen enemies to me isn't anywhere as bad as war itself, or the torturing of humans that often occurs in "private" and "secret" from both sides in most wars.

Haven't they ever heard the saying, All is fair in love and war.



I'm not saying its NORMAL to eat the hearts of the fallen enemies....but then again, what about war IS normal? War itself is ugly.......there is no "pretty" version of war.

It really cracks me up how there’s a double standard to people. If anyone in a western country would do this they would get everyone saying my god! However some Muslim does it and excuses are made this just leaves me to believe that as long as you’re not a westerner or for god sakes a Jew as I saw previously the anti Semites are all ready in this thread its ok. In any civilized country in the world this guy would be charged with a war crime and spend a lot of his life behind bars. So all I can say is thank god these backward countries have no way to put their backwards ideas into practice. And for anyone that wants to say it's been done before so what. You are very sick individuals because lots of atrocities have been done there’s been rape pillaging plundering mass murders but that doesn’t mean we should allow those things to go unpunished. If we don’t then we’ve learned nothing in the centuries past and are condemned to repeat them. And once again I think we can take a lesson from this the middle east has been and will all ways be stuck in the middle ages I vote we arm both sides and just let them solve the problem because in religious wars the great thing is they’ll keep going until they kill each other off.

I don't condone the eating of anyone's heart unless they asked the other party to do so.

With that being said, isn't there like 120k plus innocent people dead now because the U.S. started some illegal wars based on lies?

Oh yes. If an American bullet pierces a heart it's holy right?

Originally posted by LadyofGlass
I don't condone the eating of anyone's heart unless they asked the other party to do so.

With that being said, isn't there like 120k plus innocent people dead now because the U.S. started some illegal wars based on lies?

Oh yes. If an American bullet pierces a heart it's holy right?

I guess that depends on your definition of innocent sound to me like your jealous that the United States is the big boy on the block. I guess all I can say to that is eat your heart out but don't take it literally,

reply to post by dragonridr


My definition of innocent is people that would not be dead if a war based on laws wasn't started. Men, women, and children. Civilians that have nothing to do with and nothing to gain by any of this. Lives gone, blood spilled, money gained not by them or us. Please zero down what you mean by U.S. being big dog? Who is the U.S. exactly?

Originally posted by LadyofGlass
reply to post by dragonridr

 

My definition of innocent is people that would not be dead if a war based on laws wasn't started. Men, women, and children. Civilians that have nothing to do with and nothing to gain by any of this. Lives gone, blood spilled, money gained not by them or us. Please zero down what you mean by U.S. being big dog? Who is the U.S. exactly?

Ok ill play which war and who was innocent I'm hoping you're not referring to Saddam because I think the kurds would beg to differ with you since he was trying to destroy them innocent is relative to which side of the coin you look at? So which one what innocent people would you be referring to??

Originally posted by ohiwastedmylif
Posted this in the other thread as well,

the dude eating the 'heart' is well known

www.liveleak.com...

Embedding this:

Originally posted by dragonridr

Ok ill play which war and who was innocent I'm hoping you're not referring to Saddam because I think the kurds would beg to differ with you since he was trying to destroy them innocent is relative to which side of the coin you look at? So which one what innocent people would you be referring to??

edit on 5/15/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

Um... you don't think the west telling the Kurds "We've totally got your back in this, go on start an uprising" and then giving them no support had anything to do with them being gassed?
(We also did it to them in the last Gulf war, convincing them they'd see the formation of Kurdistan in the aftermath of war - before doing absolutely nothing and turning a blind eye to Turkey putting them back down)
I'm honestly surprised any potential insurgent would be willing to accept US support, it never seems to go well for them, couldn't even engineer a rigged election in the Ukraine without cocking it up for crying out loud/

Either way complete deflection on your part - that was NOT why we went to war with Iraq and you know it.
It was an illegally imposed regime change carried out under false pretenses, if we were that bothered about toppling a dictator there were plenty more worthy ones.

reply to post by MaxSteiner


6irst Saddam was killing Kurds long before the US intervened.However thats neither here nor there. As far as rigime change your right he had to go the reason is he lost it he was actually uniting the Sunni and Shia against him. This is the last thing the west wanted have toi keep them fighting.Now people are calling for Syria intervention along the same lines as before with one major diffrence this time its not in the intrests of any western nation to stop the fighting only counter Irans ambitions. The world isn't black and white good bad is all relative its not like the movies where the good guys come charging in with white hats.There isn't only one motivation for armed conflict there is allways multiple reasons and you weigh those against the consequences. People once again want the United States to intervine in syria because they can't do it themselves I vote this time we stay out. Just as before where getting pressure from UN Saudis France Germany and many other countries to play police.I think its time the US retire take our gold watch and go home I'm tired of proxy wars in countries that in the end will turn they always do.

____________________

Syria : Militants open fire on Palestinian refugees
This points a finger at israel's agents and
their cohort gangs.

_____________________