The Student Room Group

syrian rebels brutally behead catholic priest on camera

The video of the beheading is on reddit and youtube, im not linking it because I'll be banned, again.

Use google and type in: syrian rebels behead priest, or something similar

http://syriareport.net/tag/francois-murad/

Why are we arming and supporting these savage TERRORISTS?
(edited 10 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
religion of peace
Reply 2
Doubt we are arming them. Do you really think the CIA are just showing up in Syria and throwing guns at every guy who passes by? They are doing pretty detailed checks and vetting of the groups they do arm. Had they started arming moderate groups far earlier we may not have seen the extremists gaining such a hold
Reply 3
Original post by ESPORTIVA
The video of the beheading is on reddit and youtube, im not linking it because I'll be banned, again.

Use google and type in: syrian rebels behead priest, or something similar

http://syriareport.net/tag/francois-murad/

Why are we arming and supporting these savage TERRORISTS?


Because getting a country to be democratic is the most important thing to the West, even if it means supporting a bunch of renegade, heart-eating, civilian killing, terror-mongering war criminals. I don't like Assad or his regime but it is far better than having an extremist rebel state as a puppet controlled region for the US.
Original post by ESPORTIVA
The video of the beheading is on reddit and youtube, im not linking it because I'll be banned, again.

Use google and type in: syrian rebels behead priest, or something similar

http://syriareport.net/tag/francois-murad/

Why are we arming and supporting these savage TERRORISTS?


"Rebels" aren't a synonymous group. There are various rebels. One group might be rebelling against the gov't by protesting peacefully, and then another might want to use arms to overthrow the gov't,one might want to install a theocracy, one might want a democracy etc... etc...

The term "Rebel" is a catch all phrase. I dislike that term, because the media plays upon the idea of "The rebels"...
Original post by ESPORTIVA
The video of the beheading is on reddit and youtube, im not linking it because I'll be banned, again.

Use google and type in: syrian rebels behead priest, or something similar

http://syriareport.net/tag/francois-murad/

Why are we arming and supporting these savage TERRORISTS?

Just seen the video, check out the video of the rebel leader cutting a man open and eating his heart, these 'rebels' are monstruous dogs and are government is obviously very very evil for supporting them the way the media twist things is beggars belief, the idea that they are heros and Putin is a monster for not surporting them, his reasons are never given its just assumed that the rebels are good because the government says so, that's called propaganda and the opposite of what the opposite of what the west prides itself on, luckily for us they show their true face.
Reply 6
Pretty much agree with the below.................there are at least 4-5 main groups, one under the banner of the free syrian army, another the syrian Islamic liberation front, al-nusra, etc.

Yeah they are all "rebels", but they aren't all under the same banner and have different goals in the end of things, however in the meantime they won't get in the way of each other. And I doubt very much the government is arming the ones in those videos people are using to create propaganda against supporting them, considering there literally tons of them and which leaders of the main groups have denounced and even are willing to track them down for trial for committing such things.

The arms will to be fair will go to the free syrian army alone as thats who the west wants to gain control of the country due to their more secular views and supporting them will give them a stake of influence over them and what they do, as with any foreign policy thats what they are after influence..............to be fair they have already gone so far with the sanctions, etc it would be incredibly hard to just back out.

Original post by de_monies
"Rebels" aren't a synonymous group. There are various rebels. One group might be rebelling against the gov't by protesting peacefully, and then another might want to use arms to overthrow the gov't,one might want to install a theocracy, one might want a democracy etc... etc...

The term "Rebel" is a catch all phrase. I dislike that term, because the media plays upon the idea of "The rebels"...
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 7
The West arent arming the terrorists, the West's influence states such as Saudi Arabia will happily arm them instead.

All rebels are united as they are predominantly Sunni, it doesnt matter about their political views, they arent killing each other, which means they are co-operating. The FSA cant win on their own, arming them will essentially filter into arming all rebels, this is why the rebels are classed as one group, FSA dont fight Al Nusra, they fight with Al Nusra.

This is why the west should stop this ever souring support.
Reply 8
Original post by Kiss
Because getting a country to be democratic is the most important thing to the West, even if it means supporting a bunch of renegade, heart-eating, civilian killing, terror-mongering war criminals. I don't like Assad or his regime but it is far better than having an extremist rebel state as a puppet controlled region for the US.


nope because there is some value there that we do not know about. i cant believe how stupid people are? so the USA invaded afghan to beat the taliban and bring freedom. now they are initiating talks with them and they have a head office. not to mention the trillion dollars wealth in afghanistan. dont be fools, if the uk wanted freedom and democrasy they would free people from mugabe and other dictators, lmaooooo. a muslim president must be very stupid to disarm. look at saddam ( no weapons) look at gaddafi ( renounced terrorism and gave up weapons) was with blair a few yrs ago and now dead at the hands of NATO and USA. so a nuke is a must for any muslim country like iran etc. when they tried their propaganda with pakistan about taliban being close to getting their nukes and how they should disarm, i can bet thousand that if they did disarm, boots would be on the ground now.
Reply 9
Original post by Aj12
Doubt we are arming them. Do you really think the CIA are just showing up in Syria and throwing guns at every guy who passes by? They are doing pretty detailed checks and vetting of the groups they do arm. Had they started arming moderate groups far earlier we may not have seen the extremists gaining such a hold

This is exactly what my friends and I were talking about.
It's got nothing to do with Islam. Obvs.
Reply 11
absolutely disgusting.
I googled it and it said "christian beheaded for helping military".
Reply 13
Original post by Zero Nowhere
I googled it and it said "christian beheaded for helping military".


Well that's an entire different matter then
Original post by 2ndClass
Well that's an entire different matter then


It's brutal murder.
Reply 15
Original post by Zero Nowhere
It's brutal murder.


Well where does one draw the line between murder and killing in a war. Especially if the victim is no longer in the realm of "innocent civilian" and more-so an agent of an enemy force.
What's new...

This is saddening, but it is only going to get worse.
We saw and see the same thing happening in Libya (many different "minority/unpopular groups", this is what happens when western media gives a heavily unbiased representation of why there actually is this civil war in Syria.

Then take sides...
Original post by 2ndClass
Well where does one draw the line between murder and killing in a war. Especially if the victim is no longer in the realm of "innocent civilian" and more-so an agent of an enemy force.



Presumably when they are unarmed and it is done in a spontaneous sort of way? War is war, yes, but there is a difference between killing armed enemy combatants in battle and unarmed civilians who have either surrendered or have been captured, even if those civilians worked/work for the enemy.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by 2ndClass
Well where does one draw the line between murder and killing in a war. Especially if the victim is no longer in the realm of "innocent civilian" and more-so an agent of an enemy force.


In 'wars' like this, which isn't a conventional war there are no lines to cross for those involved, an enemy for them is nothing more than a plague that needs to be eradicated. It still doesn't take away the fact that a beheading infront of a cheering crowd is brutal and basically murder, at least from the perspective of an outsider. He was a prisoner, he wasn't an enemy killed in combat.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by 2ndClass
Well where does one draw the line between murder and killing in a war. Especially if the victim is no longer in the realm of "innocent civilian" and more-so an agent of an enemy force.

The guy ate a mans heart, is that 'killing in war' lol

Quick Reply

Latest