Syrian rebels, should we support this?

[Gob]

'The man was brought in to the square. His eyes were blindfolded. I began shooting pictures, one after the other. It was to be the fourth execution that day I would photograph. I was feeling awful; several times I had been on the verge of throwing up.

But I kept it under control because as a journalist I knew I had to document this, as I had the three previous beheadings I had photographed that day, in three other locations outside Aleppo.
The crowd began cheering. Everyone was happy. I knew that if I tried to intervene I would be taken away, and that the executions would go ahead. I knew that I wouldn’t be able to change what was happening and I might put myself in danger.

I saw a scene of utter cruelty: a human being treated in a way that no human being should ever be treated. But it seems to me that in two and a half years, the war has degraded people’s humanity. On this day the people at the execution had no control over their feelings, their desires, their anger. It was impossible to stop them.


I don’t know how old the victim was but he was young. He was forced to his knees. The rebels around him read out his crimes from a sheet of paper. They stood around him. The young man was on his knees on the ground, his hands tied. He seemed frozen.

Two rebels whispered something into his ear and the young man replied in an innocent and sad manner, but I couldn’t understand what he said because I don’t speak Arabic.

At the moment of execution the rebels grasped his throat. The young man put up a struggle. Three or four rebels pinned him down. The man tried to protect his throat with his hands, which were still tied together.

He tried to resist but they were stronger than he was and they cut his throat. They raised his head into the air. People waved their guns and cheered. Everyone was happy that the execution had gone ahead.

That scene in Syria, that moment, was like a scene from the Middle Ages, the kind of thing you read about in history books. The war in Syria has reached the point where a person can be mercilessly killed in front of hundreds of people who enjoy the spectacle.

As a human being I would never have wished to see what I saw. But as a journalist I have a camera and a responsibility. I have a responsibility to share what I saw that day. That’s why I am making this statement and that’s why I took the photographs. I will close this chapter soon and try never to remember it.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2epMd8IZm

[rubato]

Is opposing Assad supporting this?

No.

[Gob]

If Assad is removed, will this become commonplace?

[Crackpot]

Just a few notes.

You do notice the report is completely devoid of "why"?

If Assad is removed, will this become commonplace?

As opposed to the ways Assad removes his opposition?

Beheading while gruesome is far more humane than many of the other torturous methods used certainly by middle eastern standards and I'd wager even by some of the methods used by "civilized" countries. People often get the the mistaken notion that the "brutality" of a method of execution is directly correlated to the amount of cleanup required after the fact.

No one disputes there are extremist groups among the opposition. Casting them as homogenous is just plain dishonest.

[Lord Jim]

No one disputes there are extremist groups among the opposition. Casting them as homogenous is just plain dishonest.

Exactly, and all the more reason why we should be , (and should have been all along) providing support, training and arms to the moderate secularlists, (Like the Free Syrian Army) who began this fight.

There are some indications that the power of the radicals within the rebellion may have peaked and is now somewhat on decline. They have been bringing the enlightened principles of Taliban style-rule to those areas of Syria which they control, which has not done much to win the hearts and minds of the Syrian population. (As in Egypt, the average Syrian has no particular desire to return to the 13th century.)

[Crackpot]

Seriously am I the only one surprised at the big brass balls on this "reporter" to harp about his journalistic responsibility to record these events but can't be bothered to find out why they were being executed?

All he does is give some flimsy excuse that he doesn't speak arabic. (you telling me that you don't have a translator or with all of these hundreds of people around he couldn't find one who spoke english?)

I strongly suspect he knew exactly why they were being executed but the reasons didn't fit the narrative he was trying to craft. (Need I remind you that Ariel Castro (to name a recent example) "responded innocently" too)

[Lord Jim]

You make excellent points, CP...

I strongly suspect he knew exactly why they were being executed but the reasons didn't fit the narrative he was trying to craft.

Given the whole tone of the piece, I think that's obvious. This is nothing but propaganda masquerading as journalism.

[Crackpot]

I wouldn't call it propaganda as much as an attempt to inflate his own journalistic credentials while simultaneously pissing all over the hallmarks of true journalism.

[rubato]

Opining about his journalistic professionalism without going to the link and see what he actually reported, is typical.:

The captives are understood to belong to the fearsome Shabiha ('ghosts') - thugs loyal to Assad who are said to roam the country massacring women and children

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2eyKEUMt1
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

More from the link to the entire article:

The dreadful pictures emerged as the organisation Human Rights Watch released a video and report into brutal summary executions carried out by the other side - Syrian government forces.
They massacred at least 248 innocent people in the towns of al-Bayda and Baniyas in May this year, the report said.
The executions - which included at least 37 women and children - came after military clashes had ended and opposition fighters had retreated.
People were rounded up and shot at close range in an apparent attempt to ‘teach a lesson’ to the townsfolk not to side with the rebels.
The United States and Russia undertook a second day of talks in Geneva yesterday to try and achieve a diplomatic solution to the brutal conflict and get Syria to hand over its chemical weapons.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2eyLSGevU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Apparently they were executed for murdering women and children.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Well, I hate to say this, (believe me, I really hate to say it) but rube's got a legitimate criticism here...

I did not go back and read the entire linked article before responding...

I regret that, because if I had, given my position on this issue I would have been able to use the additional information in the article to undermine the argument Strop was trying to make here...(an argument I clearly disagree with)

I didn't go to the link and check it for a couple of reasons:

First, it comes as no surprise to me that so-called "journalists" would leave key journalistic points out of a story...

Regular readers of this space will know that this has been one of my enduring criticisms of the current generation of "journalists", (Whether they come from dodgy sources like The Mail, or supposedly reputable ones like The Associated Press or Reuters; standards are down across the board...)

The second reason I didn't check the link is because I was short on time, and from prior experience, (when I have checked the links) I have found that when Strop posts an article he generally post the whole article, so I didn't think it was necessary...

Rube, I have to admit that when I read your post I was a bit crestfallen and thought to myself, "oh gee, did Strop deliberately leave out details that would undermine his argument?"

But now having gone to the link, (which Strop provided) it's clear to me he did nothing of the sort; he copied and pasted the portions of the article that were in bold, and then provided a link for the rest....He was not attempting to be misleading....

Unlike your own good self...

Who has on numerous occasions (either out of ignorance or dishonesty, or some combination of the two) left important parts out of the story with your copy and pastes...

You are the last person, (the very last) who ought to be trying to hold book on anyone else around here for intellectual dishonesty or laziness...

[rubato]

Self-serving crap. Not even interesting self-serving crap.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Self-serving crap. Not even interesting self-serving crap.


yrs,
rubato

While that accurately characterizes just about everything you've ever posted here, being a sympathetic sort, I'll give you another shot...

Put in your own words...

"Twy twy again"...

[Jarlaxle]

In other words, both sides are basically vicious animals. I say, let them kill each other... as long as they're occupied doing that, they're not trying to kill us.

[Big RR]

I hate to agree Jarl, as many innocents will be maimed and/or killed, but what else can you do when neither side is worthy of support, morally or in your national interest?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Too bad we can't "wall 'em in" and let them, and them alone, fight it out.

[Lord Jim]

As has been pointed out, this notion that there is a "choice" between either Assad on the one hand or radical Islamacists on the other is a false choice, and a completely inaccurate reading of the actual situation.

However it's a good way to define the problem if the objective is to come up with excuses for not doing anything.

[Big RR]

If you say so Jim; after all, whatever we do won't favor one side over the other, right? And it's not even remotely possible that the Al Qaeda factions of the rebels will wind up with (some or all of) Assad's chemical weapons if we attack his strongholds, right? We can act decisively and maintain the status quo between the sides--when did we learn how to do that?

Indeed, denying that taking some sort of punitive action against Assad will have no effect on the conflict or help the rebels is a good way t define the problem if the objective is to support taking some sort of military action, consequences be damned.

You want to have a discussion, let's have one; you want to sit and trade snarky remarks, we can do that as well.

[Rick]

It's the Muslim middle East anything we do will give the US a black eye.

Support Assad we are damned if he loses (he will eventually anyway).

Support the rebels we are still damned, we backed the Taliban see where that got us. We stopped the Serbs from doing their "ethnic cleansing" thang (well the UN anyway mostly US/UK led) any gratitude there?

I have changed my stance on a US only retaliation for the nerve gas event, if it is a coalition I would support it US alone...I'm not for it.

[Sue U]

As has been pointed out, this notion that there is a "choice" between either Assad on the one hand or radical Islamacists on the other is a false choice, and a completely inaccurate reading of the actual situation.

It's not really a false choice. The Assad regime, under both father and son, has espoused a Baathist Arab nationalism that functionally supersedes Islam. The regime has consistently -- and often brutally -- opposed (Sunni) Islamists and the politicization of Islam generally, since the rise of such groups in the late 1970s/early 1980s, notably crushing the Islamist uprising centered in Hama in 1982. It has been the Muslim Brotherhood that has been the vanguard of anti-Baathism for more than 30 years, and which expressly seeks to establish Islamist governments by overthrowing the secularist establishment. Remember, it was the Muslim Brotherhood that spawned Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is now heading al-Qaeda, and it is the Muslim Brotherhood that is responsible for the current failure of attempts at democratic government in Egypt.

To the extent the Free Syrian Army portion of the opposition forces is officially secular, it is also officially apolitical, and avers that it will leave governance of a post-Assad Syria to civilian political factions -- which are dominated by Islamists who vary only in degree of extremity. It is highly unlikely that there would be any governmental role for secularists -- who are largely Baathists or their supporters -- in a post-Assad Syria.