[Daily Mail] U.S.-Backed Moderate Rebels Behead a Child Near Aleppo in Syria

[Neural Network]

And these are the 'good guys'! Sickening video shows US-backed Syrian rebels taunting and then brutally beheading a young boy because he was a 'spy'

 

Fighters from a US-backed Syrian militant group have been filmed brutally beheading a child as young as 11.

The video captures Nour al-Din al-Zenki fighters in the back of a truck with a child they claim is an al-Quds soldier supporting Assad's Syrian forces.

One of the fighters shouts 'Allahu Akbar' meaning 'God is great' after taking a small knife to the boy's throat and cutting off his head in the Palesinian refugee Handarat Camp in Northern Aleppo.

 

The child, who is clearly under the age of 12, was arrested by the Islamist militants for allegedly being Palestinian Liwaa Al Quds, al-Quds Brigade fighter, according to Russia News Now.

Sickening footage shot immediately before the boy is slaughtered shows him in ragged clothes surrounded by bearded militants in the back of a pick-up truck.

One of them holds him by the hair and slaps him in the face.

Judging by his ragged clothes and the marks on his arms, it appears the boy was impoverished and may have been tortured before he was murdered in the video, seen by MailOnline.

The boy is placed face-down in the back of the truck with his arms tied behind his back when the executioner is handed a small knife by a fellow fighter.

He then cuts the boy's throat before shouting 'Allahu Akbar' and holds his head aloft.

Before the video ends, he places the head on the boy's back before jumping down from the SUV.

 

iwaa Al Quds is a pro-Syrian government Palestinian paramilitary faction made up of the Palestinians who have been driven out of their homes in the Handarat Camp once Islamist militants took over the neighbourhood.

Today, the group is fighting alongside the Syrian Army to retake the camp.

Nour al-Din al-Zenki is part of the Levant Front, and its allies the Islamic Front and the Free Syrian Army are fighting to overthrow the Assad regime.

It is also battling ISIS and the U.S government supplied the group with money and anti-tank missiles.

 

WHO ARE NOUR AL-DIN AL-ZENKI?

Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki is an Islamist rebel group in Syria formed in late 2011 during the Syrian Civil War.

Named for Emir of Aleppo Nur ad-Din, the movement was formed in Aleppo to fight against the Syrian Arab Army, and it joined the Army of Mujahideen in the war against the Islamic State.

The United States supplied the group with money and BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missiles during its war against ISIS and the government.

In December 2014, it joined the Levant Front and also the Fatah Halab operations room.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3697770/US-backed-Nour-al-Din-al-Zenki-behead-boy-accused-al-Quds-spy-Assad.html

 

Follow the link to see images and watch a video. Graphic content!

[QueenElizabeth]

Moderates? In Syria? What have they been smoking, it's been years since any of the active parties in Syria has been moderate...

[BigManSam]

To think Syria use to be considered one of the more sane Middle East states. The whole area is a shithole.

 

Wonder why...

[green]

This is horrible. Just reading the description is horrifying. 

[MALAZAN]

The religion of peace.

[Neural Network]

Moderates? In Syria? What have they been smoking, it's been years since any of the active parties in Syria has been moderate...

To think Syria use to be considered one of the more sane Middle East states. The whole area is a shithole.

 

Wonder why...

This is horrible. Just reading the description is horrifying.

The religion of peace.

The key point is "US-backed"

[benseac]

The key point is that they beheaded a child.

[BigManSam]

The key point is "US-backed"

Do you think they should support Assad?

[Property of Goddess Irene]

This is what US/UK/Israel/Turkey/Saudi Arabia/UAE/Russia wanted.

[BigManSam]

This is what US/UK/Israel/Turkey/Saudi Arabia/UAE/Russia wanted.

Yes this is their real goal. They are using the Syrian civil war as a front to murder civilians. All those billions spent on this, they must really hate those Syrian children.

[letsrewindit]

These rebels are anything but moderate.

 

Afaik anyone with a brain should not consider a sister group of Al Qaeda moderate. People can say Assad is evil but whoever takes after him if Assad fails is probably just as evil.

[Neural Network]

Do you think they should support Assad?

Yes. He is the only legitimate, less religious, more secular, good side where exists relatively more gender equality and religious tolerance.

 

The "Assad is evil", "Assad used chemical weapon on his own citizens" shoutouts - US propaganda without proofs.

 

Like how many more proofs of US evil agenda do we need more to realize the US is the evil side in Syria?

[blank_stare]

It's backed by US. Tell me it's all about "religion"

[guava]

Yes this is their real goal. They are using the Syrian civil war as a front to murder civilians. All those billions spent on this, they must really hate those Syrian children.

That's why the poor citizens are turning to ideology's like extremism. They have little options but to think the west is out to destroy them looking at their track record.

Did we see terrorism against the west 25 years ago? No. It started after Russian and then American lead involvement in Afghanistan. They purposely destabilised that country for their own petty war. The West can stop acting like they are any better when the people they are backing are beheading children and who knows what else.

[BigManSam]

Extremism mainly stems from Saudi Arabia, and they use less stable countries as a platform. You can't argue that the west hasn't been good for Saudi people. The problem is the religious ideology they subscribe too. Terrorism has existed in the Middle East for a very long time way before western involvement in the area.

 

There wasn't extremism in the west 25 years ago because they wasn't a significant Muslim population. And considering most western attacks are perpetrated by 2nd or 3rd generation Muslim immigrants, we can logically say that what happening now wasn't possible 25 years ago.

 

I agree that less stable areas in the region leads in an increas in extremist groups and Isis was made possible by how the aftermath of Iraq invasion was handled but you can't blame extremism on the west.

 

If the west didn't go after Isis, people would complain, they go after them people complain. Cant win really, either we wash our hands of the area and let it implode or we take action which inevitably leads to some civilian deaths.

 

But I'm tired of the excuse that Islamic terrorism is the west fault. It's not. It's islams problem, as it has been for a millennia.

[guava]

But I'm tired of the excuse that Islamic terrorism is the west fault. It's not. It's islams problem, as it has been for a millennia.

You can quote me.

 

How is the history of Islam any more extreme then the history of Christianity? It's isn't. Islam has had peaceful, advanced civilizations for hundreds of years.

The West has always refused to deal with the consequences of their actions, not surprised.

[BigManSam]

You can quote me.

 

How is the history of Islam any more extreme then the history of Christianity? It's isn't. Islam has had peaceful, advanced civilizations for hundreds of years.

The West has always refused to deal with the consequences of their actions, not surprised.

I'm on my phone so sometimes I forget to quote. It was obvious I was replying to you.

 

Yeah straight after Muhammad died the whole religion went to war with itself and people are still killed today over those actions.

 

Christianity use to be extreme it hasn't been for a long while now. 98% of religious terrorism was Islamic last year. That's current. Islam hasn't being able to take any steps toward reformation like Christianity did. The Middle East has never been peaceful just like the rest of the world.

 

The west is not responsible for religious extremism in the Middle East.

 

It has made conditions where it has being able to take power but it's existence came to be without any of the wests help.

 

this whole ' its not Muslims fault, it's always the west' stance has always been pathetic based on soft bigotry by those who take it in the west and a lack of accountability by those in the Middle East.

[guava]

I'm on my phone so sometimes I forget to quote. It was obvious I was replying to you.

Yeah straight after Muhammad died the whole religion went to war with itself and people are still killed today over those actions.

Christianity use to be extreme it hasn't been for a long while now. 98% of religious terrorism was Islamic last year. That's current. Islam hasn't being able to take any steps toward reformation like Christianity did. The Middle East has never been peaceful just like the rest of the world.

The west is not responsible for religious extremism in the Middle East.

It has made conditions where it has being able to take power but it's existence came to be without any of the wests help.

this whole ' its not Muslims fault, it's always the west' stance has always been pathetic based on soft bigotry by those who take it in the west and a lack of accountability by those in the Middle East.

The middle East does not equal Islam tho. Indonesia and Malaysia are the Muslim countries with the biggest populations and they are fine. As you see it seems to be a regional issue not a religious one. Blaming Islam for the middle East's problems is extremely ignorant and short sighted.

Something the middle East has had a problem with is war. Most of the extremism stemming from that area of the world seems to be politically. IS and the Taliban aren't killing people or targeting the West because they are Christian (most of their victims are Muslim and they attack Islamic religious sites) they attack them because of what they think Western governments have done to their country. It is bigots that keep on blaming the religion and keep getting involved in wars that are the problem. They are still not addressing the root cause and are looking for cheap fixes that don't help anyone but give the citizens of the West an illusion of security until the next attack.

[Bitman]

How is the history of Islam any more extreme then the history of Christianity? It's isn't. Islam has had peaceful, advanced civilizations for hundreds of years.

Quoted by guava: The West has always refused to deal with the consequences of their actions, not surprised.

 

 

I'm on my phone so sometimes I forget to quote. It was obvious I was replying to you.

Yeah straight after Muhammad died the whole religion went to war with itself and people are still killed today over those actions.

Christianity use to be extreme it hasn't been for a long while now. 98% of religious terrorism was Islamic last year. That's current. Islam hasn't being able to take any steps toward reformation like Christianity did. The Middle East has never been peaceful just like the rest of the world.

The west is not responsible for religious extremism in the Middle East.

It has made conditions where it has being able to take power but it's existence came to be without any of the wests help.

this whole ' its not Muslims fault, it's always the west' stance has always been pathetic based on soft bigotry by those who take it in the west and a lack of accountability by those in the Middle East.

 

Wow I didn't know you were omnipresent and lived everywhere in the Middle East in history to know that it was peaceful and in the rest of the world to make a comparison. I guess the Civil Rights movement were peaceful right? And the KKK? And the rise of Neo-Nazis? And you're a time traveller too. Can I have your powers?

 

And guess who wasn't Islamic? Dylan Roof, Anders Breivik, Elliot Rodgers...

 

I actually agree with you that the west wasn't responsible for religious extremism but the consequences of the wars did provide the vacuum for ISIS. The root cause is not being addressed here.

[Solfa]

To think Syria use to be considered one of the more sane Middle East states. The whole area is a shithole.

 

Wonder why...

There has been a study on Muslims around the world, for the region, it was Lebanon which was the most moderate of them, but even Lebanon wasn't as moderate as Turkey, while Turkey was not as moderate as Azerbaijan, South Eastern Europeans and Kazakhstan. The latter three groups may as well be considered liberal in religion at least.

 

 

How is the history of Islam any more extreme then the history of Christianity? It's isn't. Islam has had peaceful, advanced civilizations for hundreds of years.

Quoted by guava: The West has always refused to deal with the consequences of their actions, not surprised.

 

 

 

Wow I didn't know you were omnipresent and lived everywhere in the Middle East in history to know that it was peaceful and in the rest of the world to make a comparison. I guess the Civil Rights movement were peaceful right? And the KKK? And the rise of Neo-Nazis? And you're a time traveller too. Can I have your powers?

 

And guess who wasn't Islamic? Dylan Roof, Anders Breivik, Elliot Rodgers...

 

I actually agree with you that the west wasn't responsible for religious extremism but the consequences of the wars did provide the vacuum for ISIS. The root cause is not being addressed here.

Not denying there was advancement during the Islamic Golden, but there was never truly widespread peace before WWII. We are living in the most peaceful times of humanity right now, that's a fact. Seriously click that link, it's not denying there are conflicts, but there are fewer than they have ever been in history. This is the global peace index of the contemporary world, it was so much worse before, there were no such things as green countries:

 

 

 

You seem to be implying the advanced Islamic Golden Age existed in a vacuum. There has been advancement for sure, not denying that, but before the Islamic Golden Age, Arabs conquered parts of the Byzantine Empire which was Christian. Things like Coptic Church in Egypt are what is left from the Byzantine inheritance. That and the Byzantine knowledge which at that time the most advanced in the world. As many (both Muslim and non-Muslim) scholars have said, if it wasn't for Greek works (philosophy, science, mathematics, technology, engineering, medicine and literature) being translated in Arabic, there would have not even been an Islamic Golden Age. 

 

In terms of peace, even in the Islamic golden age, the Sunni/Shia split has always been a source of conflicts. The conflict started as soon as Mohammed died and it continues to this day. Even if it wasn't the inner conflicts, there was always the Mongols the biggest danger of all, and it was them who officially even ended the Islamic Golden age after they sacked Baghdad. There was also the Crusades which were a big deal to Western Europeans, but to Islamic leaders of the time, they were at best a nuisance. Imagine, if the Crusades weren't even a problem, how many conflicts they just brushed under the rug as not that big of a deal? 

 

That's why we say we are living in the most peaceful times. 

[Big Stupid Jellyfish]

Yes. He is the only legitimate, less religious, more secular, good side where exists relatively more gender equality and religious tolerance.

 

The "Assad is evil", "Assad used chemical weapon on his own citizens" shoutouts - US propaganda without proofs.

 

Like how many more proofs of US evil agenda do we need more to realize the US is the evil side in Syria?

 

The world is not this black and white.

[Neural Network]

The world is not this black and white.

The US is black. Hillary is a murderer and war criminal.

[Bitman]

The world is not this black and white.

The issue wasn't if the world was black and white. Now you're just trying to change the topic.

[Bitman]

There has been a study on Muslims around the world, for the region, it was Lebanon which was the most moderate of them, but even Lebanon wasn't as moderate as Turkey, while Turkey was not as moderate as Azerbaijan, South Eastern Europeans and Kazakhstan. The latter three groups may as well be considered liberal in religion at least.

 

 

Not denying there was advancement during the Islamic Golden, but there was never truly widespread peace before WWII. We are living in the most peaceful times of humanity right now, that's a fact. Seriously click that link, it's not denying there are conflicts, but there are fewer than they have ever been in history. This is the global peace index of the contemporary world, it was so much worse before, there were no such things as green countries:

 

 

 

You seem to be implying the advanced Islamic Golden Age existed in a vacuum. There has been advancement for sure, not denying that, but before the Islamic Golden Age, Arabs conquered parts of the Byzantine Empire which was Christian. Things like Coptic Church in Egypt are what is left from the Byzantine inheritance. That and the Byzantine knowledge which at that time the most advanced in the world. As many (both Muslim and non-Muslim) scholars have said, if it wasn't for Greek works (philosophy, science, mathematics, technology, engineering, medicine and literature) being translated in Arabic, there would have not even been an Islamic Golden Age. 

 

In terms of peace, even in the Islamic golden age, the Sunni/Shia split has always been a source of conflicts. The conflict started as soon as Mohammed died and it continues to this day. Even if it wasn't the inner conflicts, there was always the Mongols the biggest danger of all, and it was them who officially even ended the Islamic Golden age after they sacked Baghdad. There was also the Crusades which were a big deal to Western Europeans, but to Islamic leaders of the time, they were at best a nuisance. Imagine, if the Crusades weren't even a problem, how many conflicts they just brushed under the rug as not that big of a deal? 

 

That's why we say we are living in the most peaceful times. 

 

I really don't know how you've managed to extract all of that from what I wrote before. Not going to speak for other people but I didn't say that there wasn't any conflict in the Middle East in the past. Please read what I wrote again. I'm not going to bother repeating myself because I think you're more interested in proving that you're right and trying to assert some kind of...something (I don't know honestly what you're trying to do). Or maybe we have a misunderstanding or misreading but okay. 

 

But here's the thing. You're making a really, really broad sweeping generalization by saying that we're living in the most peaceful times. You are derailing and derailing and derailing by bringing up unrelated things like the Mongols and the Crusades and Islamic Golden Age. And a map of world peace. Btw, just think to yourself. Think to yourself, what was a factor in the world not being peaceful before? Just one. It isn't the sole factor but it's how the world is how it is now. Here's a hint: Imperialism and colonialism, occupation and invasion. But the post I made wasn't referring to world peace. It was a response to BigManSam's post right down below. 

 

 

I'm on my phone so sometimes I forget to quote. It was obvious I was replying to you.

 

Yeah straight after Muhammad died the whole religion went to war with itself and people are still killed today over those actions.

 

Christianity use to be extreme it hasn't been for a long while now. 98% of religious terrorism was Islamic last year. That's current. Islam hasn't being able to take any steps toward reformation like Christianity did. The Middle East has never been peaceful just like the rest of the world.

 

The west is not responsible for religious extremism in the Middle East.

 

It has made conditions where it has being able to take power but it's existence came to be without any of the wests help.

 

this whole ' its not Muslims fault, it's always the west' stance has always been pathetic based on soft bigotry by those who take it in the west and a lack of accountability by those in the Middle East.

 

 

What you're implying, Solfa, is that the West is imperfect and flawless and free of any violence. We all know that's not true. Especially when it comes to POC. Ever heard of the LA massacre where 500 white men went and massacred a bunch of Chinese people? Or the death of Vincent Chin who was killed by a white guy and his stepson because Vincent Chin had the nerve to dare challenge the white man? Or the fact that black businesses were burned down by jealous whites in the past when they saw that black people could do well? And you know what the price was? Death for Vincent Chin. And nothing for his family or friends. An apology doesn't bring a life back. And the death and destruction in the Middle East speaks for itself.

 

I notice you did not say anything about Dylan Roof, Anders Breivik or Elliot Rodgers when I mentioned it as a counterpoint and seem to have ignored those points when they were raised as a counter to what you said about living in the most peaceful times. Very dishonest. But was it too close to the truth perhaps? 

 

You're on the defensive. It's alright. But here's a point I raise to you for your last point. This is what you said: There was also the Crusades which were a big deal to Western Europeans, but to Islamic leaders of the time, they were at best a nuisance. Imagine, if the Crusades weren't even a problem, how many conflicts they just brushed under the rug as not that big of a deal?"

 

Here's what you're saying. Event X is a big deal to Group X but to Group Z, they weren't worth anything. So therefore, Group Z must have even more conflicts than Group X. Do you see how you're just twisting and turning and not even getting to the root of anything? Instead, you're just playing the blame game. So here's something to consider. Let's flip it around. Let's say......the conflicts involving Black Lives Matter and the police is not such a big deal to those outside of the US. Imagine, if Black Lives Matter weren't even a problem, how many conflicts have the US just brushed under the rug as not that big of a deal?

 

And to clarify, I'm not saying that everywhere else is a utopia. Tbh, East Asia had civil conflicts in the past for example. How could it not? It's been around for a long, long time. But to think that the west hasn't had its conflicts (internal and external) is very naive and is a high level of self-denial. Do you know there was a candlelight vigil in my country for the people who were killed in Kabul, Afghanistan by suicide bombers? Are you going to tell the family of the people who were buried that they're living in peaceful times? Or is it only peaceful when it applies to the west and are not brown or yellow or black?

[Arthur Morgan]

there's no moderate rebels in syria

 

people just call them ''rebels'' because you have to call some of the groups by their actual name like ''army of sharia'' or ''victory to jihad brigade'' it seems a lot less ''moderate''