Syrian Rebel Leader Eats Human Heart on Video - Glenn's Warning


Recommended Posts

Syrian Rebel Leader Eats Human Heart on Video - Glenn's Warning

 

Glenn is on the attack against Republicans--specifically the Progressive ones represented by John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

 

And Obama, of course.

 

We are now arming the Syrian rebels. As Glenn has stated, we are on the wrong side of this. But not because Assad is good or preferable. It's because there is no right side.

 

Assad is horrible. Killing his own folks left and right. The rebel leader in the video below eating the heart of a recently killed soldier and filming it is the one we are arming to fight Assad.

 

It's fanatical terrorists against the regime of a brutal tyrant.

 

Who wins in a war like that?

 

Who cares?

 

The USA should not be dignifying either side with support. Both have to go or stay out of it. With emphasis on the "stay out of it" part in almost all cases.

 

 

Glenn is asking people of all political persuasions to share this video. I say do it if you agree with him. Facebook. Twitter. Blogs. Other forums. Other places on the web.

 

I believe this is one we can all agree on. You don't give guns to a man who eats human hearts and expect good things to happen.

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should let the Syrians slaughter each other wholesale.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should let the whole region slaughter themselves. Sit back, build wealth = mighty military. Americans sit nicely at the end.

We always get in the middle of things and it drives me crazy. Here's an example of the American government way of thinking. "OH you mess with us...we will bomb you but no worries.. we will pay you to rebuild, and as a bonus, here, take a few tanks for good luck".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a bone to gnaw on. The United States has not won a war it has been in since the end of WW II. That was the last war we won.

That is 68 years and going on 150,000 Americans dead. And for what?

At least the blood we spilled in WW II (the "good war") put an end to German and Japanese Fascism. What did the following 150,000 or so dead buy us since then?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do feel bad for the foreigners , who most likely barely understand in what way they are being victimized and how they played a role in their own suffering (or their children's). The real victim of US wars is the American tax payer and the soldiers who were abused and misused by those wars.

Chatzaf is correct, we haven't won any wars because no one wants to end wars. They want perpetual undefined warfare against unknown enemies because of who it benefits, and because our culture is so altruistic they think the means that it would take to win a war are inhumane and evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

The video is indeed gruesome, but I wonder how representative that commander is of the Syrians fighting their government. I seem to remember a full year of mostly peaceful protests by the Syrian people while something like 30,000 of them were shot dead in the streets and we did nothing. In other words, the Syrian opposition resisted resorting to violence for a full year. They didn't resort to violence until the brutal dictatorship of Assad had killed 30,000 of them and their situation had become untenable.

Now the Syrian people are fighting. Some of the groups are composed of radical jihadists and the guy in the video is clearly nuts. Perhaps, it is too late to achieve the outcome that I believe we could have achieved had we intervened earlier. But, it is very much in our geopolitical interest to be rid of Assad. The Assad family has long been an ally of Russia and a thorn in the side of the U.S. and Israel -- not to mention Lebanon. Did you know that Lebanon used to be a mostly peaceful, modern, Christian country? What has tolerating the Assad family led to in Lebanon?

I'm not saying that supporting the overthrow of Assad is a panacea, but, sometimes in the real world you're faced with bad choices and worse choices and there is no way to evade making a choice.

Darrell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

The video is indeed gruesome, but I wonder how representative that commander is of the Syrians fighting their government. I seem to remember a full year of mostly peaceful protests by the Syrian people while something like 30,000 of them were shot dead in the streets and we did nothing. In other words, the Syrian opposition resisted resorting to violence for a full year. They didn't resort to violence until the brutal dictatorship of Assad had killed 30,000 of them and their situation had become untenable.

Now the Syrian people are fighting. Some of the groups are composed of radical jihadists and the guy in the video is clearly nuts. Perhaps, it is too late to achieve the outcome that I believe we could have achieved had we intervened earlier. But, it is very much in our geopolitical interest to be rid of Assad. The Assad family has long been an ally of Russia and a thorn in the side of the U.S. and Israel -- not to mention Lebanon. Did you know that Lebanon used to be a mostly peaceful, modern, Christian country? What has tolerating the Assad family led to in Lebanon?

I'm not saying that supporting the overthrow of Assad is a panacea, but, sometimes in the real world you're faced with bad choices and worse choices and there is no way to evade making a choice.

Darrell

What would supporting the protesters a year ago have bought us?

ba'al chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more analysis by Glenn from today's show.

 

It's from here: ‘THE REFUGEES WILL COLLAPSE EUROPE’: BECK OUTLINES HOW SYRIA CRISIS COULD HAVE WORLD-CHANGING IMPLICATIONS

 

 

Also, a guy who works for Glenn, Buck Sexton (former CIA) is in Jordan and reported on what things look like in that region:

 

 

I remember getting into a few arguments here on OL about Libya when lots of people were Gung Ho on getting the madman. Then I finally stopped, but not because I agreed. I just didn't have the words to express what I saw as a humongous mistake in terms those who disagreed with me could see. I remember I kept saying Qaddafi was bad and I wasn't supporting him as good. It's just people don't understand what it's like over there.

 

I knew what was coming and now here it is. The carnage and suffering are high and I'm not sure any good is going to settle in for a long time to come.

 

Michael

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Darrell,

It's no longer "the people" against Assad.

It's "the people" against Assad and the rebels and God knows who else in a free for all.

The bad guys had a lot of time to infiltrate this mess.

Add to this that Syria is Shiite, not Sunni. That means Iran is it's natural protector. And that, weirdly enough, means Russia.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chatzaf is correct, we haven't won any wars because no one wants to end wars. They want perpetual undefined warfare against unknown enemies because of who it benefits, and because our culture is so altruistic they think the means that it would take to win a war are inhumane and evil.

Bingo! We are fighting "the Forever Way". It is a dreadful meme whereby we define ourselves by our enemies, not our virtues.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Darrell,

It's no longer "the people" against Assad.

It's "the people" against Assad and the rebels and God knows who else in a free for all.

The bad guys had a lot of time to infiltrate this mess.

Add to this that Syria is Shiite, not Sunni. That means Iran is it's natural protector. And that, weirdly enough, means Russia.

Michael

I have had my eye on Syria since March 2011. The present situation is a hideous mess, with multiple actors playing by the most savage 'rules of war.'

I do not dispute MSK's characterization of the mess, nor his (likely) position that the USA should keep out of the conflict.

One statement is incorrect: "Syria is Shiite, not Sunni." The powerful Assad family belongs to a sect called the Alawites. This is a non-conformist Muslim 'mystery religion' that is grouped with Shiism or noted as an 'offshoot' of Shiism (though it is not at all compatible in practice). In present-day Syria, and since the rise of the dictator Hafez Assad (in 1970), Alawites have been at the apex of the power structure, but not to impose or implant Alawite faith or practice in society. In many ways (but not all), the Alawite power structure represents 'secular values' ... and a secular state.

All that being true, it is only the regime that is majority Alawite (starting with the president's family). Syria writ large is an overwhelmingly Sunni county, with at least 75 percent of the population assumed to be Sunni.

MSK points to the terrible heterogeneity of the 'rebel' forces -- and of the opposing political formations. Opposition to Assad`s minority dictatorship ranges from the civil (non-violent) to the most horrifying (the Al-Qaeda affiilated Jabat Al-Nusra).Also fighting inside Syria are armed elements of the Shia 'Party of God' Hezbollah -- along with Iranian Revolutionary Guard assistance . In addition to the regular armed forces of the Assad regime, there is also the 'shabiha' paramilitary forces (almost entirely Alawite), and local 'Defence Forces' (newer community-based paramilitaries).

On the other side of the mess are a disparate congregation of fighters from outside Syria, from many parts of the world -- Sunni fighters, jihadi fighters.

The hideous mess that is Syria is made more hideous and more complex by the old, invisible lines of the Cold War: Syria allied with Russia and Iran (and North Korea and Belarus), USA on the other side, with its allies the large and small Sunni powers (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar).

I am no longer hopeful of any good outcome in Syria, no matter what the USA does or doesn't do in support of (some of) the forces fighting against the Assad regime. Too many old conflicts have been brought back to life in war: Sunni/Shia, Eastern Bloc versus the West, Iran vs USA, etc. Too many forces have only the slightest concept of war crimes, and with a background of state atrocities, those who have raised arms against the state have among their fighting forces the worst examples of religious mania and brutality.

As for refugees set to overwhelm Europe, this is quite unlikely. See this Washington Post article that describes the conditions for Syrian refugees in the nearest 'European' country, Greece. The EU will not accept any but a drop in the bucket of the displaced people of Syria. Turkey has half a million in both camps and informal refuges. Lebanon is bulging with refugees. Jordan is also host to displaced folks in the hundreds of thousands.

Beck's notion of a flood of refugees (from the Syrian conflict) entering Europe is not based on real conditions of law and policy. It is simple assertion: “The refugees will collapse Europe,” Beck said. “Not to mention start a civil war. People have no place to go" (from the story at the Blaze link).

If in two years of savage fighting there is but a trickle of refugees reaching Europe from Syria, what conditions will emerge that changes facts on the ground? I don't think serious homework was done on this particular issue at the Blaze. "Everyone is on fire," says Beck, meaning all the Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Not true.

Here's a couple of paragraphs from the Wapo report sketching the situation of Europe vis a vis refugees:

European leaders say they have not received significant numbers of requests from Syrians for resettlement, but they acknowledge the need to do more to help. Germany recently announced that it would resettle 5,000 refugees this month. Sweden also has taken many of those coming to Europe. But whether European countries could take significantly more refugees without popular backlash is another question, leaders say, with economies in recession and deep skepticism about whether the migrants would ever go home.

“Not as many people as we expected have come to Europe, by far,” said Cecilia Malmstroem, the E.U. commissioner for home affairs, who has pushed for Greece to improve its treatment of Syrian refugees and of migrants in general.

“The general attitude in Europe is rather restrictive today,” Malmstroem said. “We have never had as many xenophobic parties in political power since the Second World War.”

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites


Darrell,

It's no longer "the people" against Assad.

It's "the people" against Assad and the rebels and God knows who else in a free for all.

The bad guys had a lot of time to infiltrate this mess.

Add to this that Syria is Shiite, not Sunni. That means Iran is it's natural protector. And that, weirdly enough, means Russia.

Michael


Hi Michael,

I agree that Syria is somewhat of a free-for-all now and with Obama as President, it might be better to stay away. I think the conflict could be turned to America's benefit if it were handled skillfully, but, alas, Obama is President.

BTW, Syria is mainly Sunni, not Shiite. The current leadership is Shiite (Alawite) which is why Iran is trying to prop up Assad and may have something to do with Syria's association with Russia.

This is partly a sectarian struggle --- the majority Sunni against the ruling minority Shiite. But, helping the Sunnis win could help restore balance to the region. See, Iraq, which is majority Shiite was being ruled by a Sunni minority under Saddam Hussein. Now that we've imposed democracy on Iraq, it is being mostly governed by Shiites. So, what was a balance with Turkey being ruled by a Sunni majority and Iran being ruled by a Shiite majority and the two countries in between, Syria and Iraq, being ruled by their minority populations, now has three countries in which the Shiites rule and only one in which the Sunnis are still in charge.

Of course, I'm ignoring several other Middle Eastern and non-Middle Eastern countries and the divisions within Islam are more complicated than Sunni vs. Shiite. I'm just concentrating on the axis that extends from Istanbul to Tehran.

Darrell


BTW, Thank you, William Sherk, for that excellent post. I, unfortunately, didn't see it before I posted my comments so I just wanted to acknowledge your post in this footnote added later. Edited by Darrell Hougen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Beck's notion of a flood of refugees (from the Syrian conflict) entering Europe is not based on real conditions of law and policy.

William,

It never is.

When Glenn predicted, for example, that Islamists would be fighting alongside the left in the Middle East, waaaaaaaay before the Arab Spring, and was mocked to the gills for it in the mainstream, that wasn't based on "real conditions of law and policy." Yet that is exactly what came to pass. Hell, even the flotilla thing that happened as icing looked like an anachronistic exercise of the Weather Underground. Just look at who was on board.

Glenn is a dot-connector and he does not present his predictions as fact. When he talks of the future, he basis it more on principles, human nature and the patterns of past behavior from mankind's history than something as authority-oriented and political as "law and policy."

For example, I believe his core principle in his analysis is that when living conditions are horrible. people tend to migrate--legally or otherwise. And he takes it from there. Besides, a man who will film himself eating a human heart and brag about it is not too beholding to "law and policy." Neither, I imagine, are those who fight him, or those who run from him.

People who watch Glenn regularly know that he owns up when he is wrong and is even grateful for it if what he was imagining was something real bad.

Still, he has one hell of a batting average.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beck's notion of a flood of refugees (from the Syrian conflict) entering Europe is not based on real conditions of law and policy.

William,

It never is.

I don't think you take issue with my reasons for doubting a great spike in refugee flows to Europe. In any case, I stand by my analysis. I find no reason to expect vast numbers of refugees to make it to Europe. There are large practical reasons -- besides official EU refugee policy and law, why Europe has accepted temporary numbers that are but a drop in the bucket compared to a) the population of the EU and b) the numbers already accepted as refugees elsewhere in the Middle East.

If I had a way to question Glenn Beck on these issues, I would try to engage him on actual numbers, try to find out why he expects something new (a new refugee flow dwarfing the trickle now experienced) after two years of horrible civil war. Maybe I would ask: how many refugees from Syria do you expect to land in Europe? I could also ask: how will they get there?

So, Michael, do you expect a great spike in refugees? If so, what numbers do you think would be necessary to -- as Beck suggests -- collapse Europe?

Syria is landlocked except for the coastal provinces under the firm control of the Assad regime -- boats do not leave from Latakia or Tartous port for Europe full of Syrian people fleeing fighting. Fighting in the south sends waves of refugees across the border to Jordan. Fighting in the east sends refugees into Iraq. Fighting in the north west sends refugees into Turkey.

This is all pretty plain -- there are close to two million internally displaced in addition to the two million in adjoining countries as noted above.

Maybe look at it this way: how many Syrian refugees have made it to Europe after two years of war? I say quite few, relative to the internally displaced and in adjoining countries. I do not think you would disagree with me there.

If we start from that place of agreement, roughly, what would make the situation change? I suggest that there are multiple barriers to Syrian refugee flow to Europe, of which I mentioned law and policy. European refugee law is not about to change, in my opinion, nor is policy. Europe, collectively, is in no mood to host more than a relative handful of refugees.

I can agree with you here as well: "I believe ... that when living conditions are horrible. people tend to migrate--legally or otherwise. "

I think this is quite true, whether the conditions are due to war, or drought, or other natural or political disaster. What I would emphasize is the why and the how and the whereby. Wars uproot people, and can send them fleeing. In such a crisis, those fleeing make it to the first welcoming area they can reach -- and the welcome is not only subject to law and policy, but also the mood of the day. The mood right now in Europe is to deny refugees a foothold.

Consider, Michael, just one area of law/policy. If you read the Wapo article (it seems to me that the Blaze staff did) on the suffering of Syrians in Greece, you will note that real world constraints prevent the refugees in Greece from moving onward:

Treaties that govern the European Unions external borders forbid Syrians who have reached Greece without visas from continuing further into Europe. So the refugees find themselves marooned in a country with 27 percent unemployment that has slashed social services for its own citizens.

Another number from that story lets us contrast the numbers of actual refugees in Europe from those in the immediate vicinity of Syria. "More than 34,600 Syrians have applied for asylum in E.U. countries since the conflict in their country started." If this is true, then what will change that number? Consider that Jordan has accepted nearly half a million registered refugees, with a pre-war population of six million.

[ . . . ]Besides, a man who will film himself eating a human heart and brag about it is not too beholding to "law and policy." Neither, I imagine, are those who fight him, or those who run from him.

I appreciate the linking of the heart-eating Nusra commander to law and policy of the European Union as far as refugees go. I do not, however, see any particular reason to expect that those fleeing areas under 'rebel' onslaught have any means to leapfrog over Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan to the northern states. I just don't see it happening that way.

Here is a site that helps to frame the discussion of refugees from (and within) Syria: http://syrianrefugees.eu/ -- see especially the numbers, maps and breakdowns of people requesting asylum in the EU.

It is a tough, ugly situation, Syria. But the least likely outcome of a Syrian exodus of refugees is European collapse, in my considered opinion. I mean no offence to you as a fan of Glenn Beck, Michael. I just don't think facts support his suppositions.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Beck's notion of a flood of refugees (from the Syrian conflict) entering Europe is not based on real conditions of law and policy.

William,

It never is.

Glenn is a dot-connector and he does not present his predictions as fact. When he talks of the future, he basis it more on principles, human nature ...

People who watch Glenn regularly know that he owns up when he is wrong and is even grateful for it if what he was imagining was something real bad.

Still, he has one hell of a batting average.

Michael

I cannot agree. As a continual predictor he is more like the stopped clock which is right twice a day. I don't recall that the Caliphate arrived with Sharia law when he said it would, or the stock market drop, or either 2010n or 2011 as Summers of Rages with progressives rampaging in the streets....just a sample.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a continual predictor he is more like the stopped clock which is right twice a day. I don't recall that the Caliphate arrived with Sharia law when he said it would...

Carol,

Your watch is off.

Glenn never said the Caliphate would arrive. He said the goal of the Islamists was to resurrect the Caliphate. He said that's what they wanted. Not that they would succeed.

Back when he said that, oh did the Progressives have a hoot 'n holler. Imagine a Caliphate of all things. Tin foil hats, man never walked on the moon and the lizard creatures it was. Nobody ever used the term Caliphate, fer gawd's sake...

Yada yada yada...

A few month pass.

Suddenly everyone--especially the Progressives--is talking about the Caliphate being the goal of the Islamists.

What about Beck?

Who him?

Snort snort... chortle... He's a caricature. Not human. He's a myth and the myth must prevail over reality. Beck cannot ever be right, gawdammit. He's a yokel fer gawd's sake...

But then there's that damn prediction. What to do? What to do?...

Oh yeah...

Just say he predicted the Caliphate would come to pass.

Bingo.

But is it true? Did he really say that?

No, but who cares?

Gotcha mofo... Glen Beck sucks...

Stopped watch and all...

:smile:

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

You are correct that I don't believe Syrians will overrun Europe and cause it to collapse.

I treat that as excessive rhetoric by Glenn.

Listen to his radio show sometime and you will find his sidekicks calling him on exaggerations. They're always joking with him about this. This is probably why his fans are not phased by his rhetorical excesses and his enemies can't understand it.

However, I do believe if this situation gets much worse, there will be lots more Syrians trying to get out.

And I also believe this Syrian mess has the potential to cause WWIII. Right now, the major players are sitting on a gigantic power keg over there, staring down each other and lighting their respective cigars.

As to your baptism by fire on things Syrian (i feel for you--I do :smile: ), I would need to research more than I have time for or even want to in order to debate this with you in more depth.

All I have is a Syrian flag lapel pin given to me by the Syrian Consulate himself at the Centro Cultural Árabe Sírio in Sâo Paulo. I was chasing a girl back then (she was far too young for me, too :smile: ) and she was always dragging me to lectures and courses there. I had already been married into an Arabian family way before that, so to me at the time it was business as usual.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a lighter note, here is Jon Stewart on a recent comedy show in Cairo.

It starts in the Egyptian language, but soon goes into English.

I think it is important to see this side of the Middle East. It's a shocker to those who only have an internal image of the Middle East as a bunch of oppressed poor people and barbarians. So this thread is a great place to put it.

The name of the comedian who hosts the show is Bassem Youssef.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn is a dot-connector and he does not present his predictions as fact. When he talks of the future, he basis it more on principles, human nature and the patterns of past behavior from mankind's history than something as authority-oriented and political as "law and policy."

People who watch Glenn regularly know that he owns up when he is wrong and is even grateful for it if what he was imagining was something real bad.

Still, he has one hell of a batting average.

Michael

He sure does, Michael.

Glenn is offers his opinions based on moral principles rather than on politics... which is why I'm likely to resonate with his words. On details he can be as wrong as anyone else...

... but on ascertaining the vector of events, he's proven himself to be as accurate as an experienced sailor out on the open seas with a good sextant on a clear starry night.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now