Al-Qaeda-linked rebels mistakenly behead fellow fighter, rebel group says


#1

By Salma Abdelaziz, CNN
updated 11:57 AM EST, Fri November 15, 2013

(CNN) – Radical anti-government fighters in Syria mistakenly beheaded a wounded fellow rebel soldier after assuming he was a supporter of President Bashar al-Assad, according to an online statement from the radical fighters’ group.

A separate online video showed a gruesome display of radical fighters holding what appeared to be the victim’s head.

After the beheading earlier this week, the victim was determined to be Mohammed Fares, an anti-government fighter wounded in clashes against the Syrian Army earlier, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Read more

I guess the “rebels” (Islamic Jihadists) must have thought he was a Christian. I wonder if Obama is still on the side of the “rebels” in this?


#2

They thought he was a “loyalist”

These guys are not the brightest bulbs in the store.


#3

I have full faith and confidence our Commander and Chief will apologize:shrug: After he forms an investigative committee to access how this atrocity happened, he’ll find out who’s responsible from our side, and heads will roll. :rolleyes:


#4

The problem that the world currently has with Iran is due to the United States backing “rebels” who took over with violence and made Iran what it is today.


#5

Carter was a weak president, with a warped idea of who were the allies that were necessary, and those that needed to be shut out of power.
The victory of the Islamists and the subsequent shaming of America by those Islamist taking over the embassy is the reason that the ME is being dominated by Islamists today.

Obama, a man of the left in the mould of Carter, likewise has no understanding of who America needs to support, and who it needs to oppose in the ME.


#6

Wait, the Iranian Revolution was conducted by US backed rebels? LOL!!!


#7

I didn’t say it was “conducted” by the US. I said it was backed by the US meaning that the US came out in public support of the “rebels” as in when the president says “We support you”. Is it possible that there was more support than this? Yes. Do I know if there was more than this? No. That’s why I didn’t make any specific claims. Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough and if it led to a misunderstanding of what I intended to say.


#8

I didn’t say it was conducted by the US either. I stated it was conducted by US backed rebels; or as you worded it "United States backing “rebels” who took over with violence and made Iran what it is today. "


#9

The US provided the encouragement to the “rebels” who took Iran with violence. Just knowing that the most powerful nation on earth is on your side, even if it is only politically, provides a lot of confidence to those fighters who the US favors. That’s because when the US says it supports one side of a conflict there is an understanding that the US will be willing to help out when and if needed. An example is how Obama first said that he supported the Syrian “rebels”, and later that verbal support almost turned into the US bombing of Syria when the “rebels” were losing.


#10

People who enjoy brutal murders so much don’t really care who they murder. It gets to be a habit, like crack.


#11

I hate to break it to you, but the US (or any other power) did not encourage clearly anti-West (and more to the point anti-US) revolutionaries to take over a country the US had spent the several last decades making sure was in it’s pocket (see previous US backed coup, installation of US friendly government, special relationship with the US, foreign policy [Iran was our top Islamic ally in the region/world], etc).

As for “knowing that the most powerful nation on earth is on your side,” yeah that does a lot to explain how said US installed Iranian government was able to stay in power so long despite its horrible track record in regards to its citizens.


#12

Iran is an example of how it’s possible for the US to back a group of “rebels” politically and that group later becomes an enemy after gaining enough power. Do you deny that Carter came out in support of the Iranian “rebels”? And please stop putting words in my mouth. I didn’t call Iran a “US installed government”.


#13

Ok, I’ll bite. Nope Carter didn’t come out in support of the rebels. Now after you’ve listed your citations of Carter supporting the rebels, you mind explaining to me how Carter’s support could somehow tip the balance in the outcome of the Iranian Revolution. Frankly, short of an all out US military intervention (which the USSR wouldn’t have allowed to happen even if Iran wasn’t situated on it’s border) the illegally installed and repressive Iranian government was a lost cause. Autocratic repressive regimes (even legit ones) tend to have a negative effect on the people under them. Such a negative effect that by the time the revolution starts the people really don’t care who is supporting them or who is supporting the regime (see Cuba- US didn’t support Castro, France- pretty much every state in Europe supported the king, Russia- see France, add in the US, change “king” to “Tsar”).


#14

-The Iranian rebels considered the US an enemy prior to gaining power. Hence the categorization by them of the Shah as a Western puppet.

-No you didn’t call the pre-Revolution Iranian government a “US installed government.” You’ve actually done a good job not discussing how this poor victim of violent rebels gained and maintained power.


#15

See post #9. And here’s a source:
americanthinker.com/2007/08/jimmy_carters_human_rights_dis.html


#16

“Nonetheless, between 1975 and 1978, the Shah’s popularity **fell due to the Carter administration’s **misguided implementation of human rights policies.”

So apparently Carter was directing US policy toward Iran two years before he even became President. Yeah…


#17

Although Carter was sworn in as president in January 1977, he was elected in 1976. And his campaigning for president probably began in 1975. As we have seen recently, even a presidential candidate can have some influence on world affairs while campaigning. I think the next paragraph of the article shows that this was the intention of the writer.

The election of Mr. Carter as president of the United States in 1976, with his vocal emphasis on the importance of human rights in international affairs, was a turning point in US-Iran relations. The Shah of Iran was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners. Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid. Carter pressured the Shah to release “political prisoners”, whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our “war on terrorism”. - Jimmy Carter’s Human Rights Disaster in Iran (excerpt)


#18

After rereading the article you linked I just had to share some of the damning things Carter apparently did-

-Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid.

-Carter pressured the Shah to release “political prisoners”, whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists.

-The Carter Administration insisted that the Shah disband military tribunals, demanding they be replaced by civil courts.

-Carter pressured Iran to permit “free assembly”, which encouraged and fostered fundamentalist anti-government rallies.

Wow, that Carter was such a radical. Promoting human rights (like not torturing prisoners and summary executions), pressuring the Shah to release political prisoners, the use of civil courts versus military tribunals, free assembly. How dare an American President try to spread such un-American ideals as the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments.


#19

The election of Mr. Carter as president of the United States in 1976, with his vocal emphasis on the importance of human rights in international affairs, was a turning point in US-Iran relations. The Shah of Iran was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners. Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid. Carter pressured the Shah to release “political prisoners”, whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our “war on terrorism”.

It was the same cries of human rights that very nearly had the bleeding hearts enter into yet another ME war in Syria.
Thankfully, American politicians are finally starting to wise up, and not get sucked into fighting wars on these pretexts.

However bad the shahs and the dictators are, the people that are out to depose them are more devoid of humanity, especially those who defame the name of God by attributing their murders to Allah.

The left never meets enemy of the West and America that they do not like. The fact that the ayatollahs describe America as Satan just confirms it in the mind of the left that these people are people who got it right.


#20

Please. Carter was pretty much unknown prior to being nominated and the '76 election wasn’t one in which the sitting President couldn’t run. If the author was really trying to argue that candidate Carter (someone no one was really paying attention to as a strong Presidential hopeful in an election in which the sitting President could run [most people in office get re-elected]) was shaping US foreign policy with a vital ally in a vital region than his article is worth even less than I thought.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.