Fighters from formerly US-backed Syrian rebel group 'filmed cutting off young boy's head'
Source: The Telegraph
The US is investigating a video which appears to show members of one of the Syrian rebel groups it has funded beheading a child.
Images of a fighter cutting off the small boy's head with a knife matched some of the worst brutalities committed by the jihadist Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) group, which has killed hundreds of captives in Syria and neighbouring Iraq in the past three years.
The boy, who looked to be around 12 years old, was captured near Handarat Refugee Camp in northern Aleppo by Nour al-Din al-Zenki - the main opposition faction fighting the Syrian regime in newly besieged city.
Before being killed, he is shown on the back of a truck being taunted by several men who say he was from a Palestinian faction which fights in Aleppo in support of President Bashar al-Assad.
Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/20/fighters-from-us-backed-moderate-syrian-rebel-group-filmed-cutti/
uawchild
(2,208 posts)K&R
Igel
(35,293 posts)Formerly funded.
Saying that the US "has funded" the group says that somehow that funding is materially relevant to the present and the "fundedness" continues to the present. At least that's the normative use of the present perfect in standard English.
"Had funded" would have been more standard. Or simply the preterite "funded".
Some younger English speakers are doing the "French thing," taking the present perfect to also simply indicate what the preterite does. But the present perfect is a bit higher in register or emphatic. It also insinuates a relation where there might not be any. For some verbs this shift is happening faster than with others. It's barely happened with some; it's rather far advanced with others. This is where semantic classes and semantic fields come into play--not all verbs are the same in terms of their event structure or implications.
Compare
1 "Bertha has married a child molester,"
2 "Bertha married a child molester,"
3 "Bertha was married to a child molester"
all of which corresponds to the circumstance that Bertha married Ben, who 10 years later was found to have molested children. (3) denotes not an event or action but a state that's now ended--it's not grammar that says this but discourse-level implicature. The first two differ grammatically, for me at least (an nearly all native speakers 50 years ago) in that (1) says that she's still married--the action taken has consequences in the present beyond showing something about her erratic choice in men. (2) says it happened and that assertion can be denied:
"Bertha married a child molester but isn't married to him now." That denial strategy works badly in "Bertha has married a child molester and isn't married to him now."
On the other hand, if character matters and Bertha is accused of some moral flaw that carries jail time, I could see the prosecuting attorneying, "Men and women of the jury, Bertha has married a child molester." The defense would have to point out that at the time he wasn't known to be such, and now she's not married, but the whole "conversational implicature" thing is hard to judges, much less juries, to wrap their heads around. (Note that there's a similar problem in using the term "child molester" anachronistically.)
because holding the US responsible for conditions in the ME is absurd. Every event occurs in a vacuum, and is therefore not related to any previous event.
See, no pattern of conduct established.
uawchild
(2,208 posts)Honestly, I have no idea what he was going on about.
Was it a grammar issue?
Something about child molesters?
Just loving the sound of his own, figurative, voice?
I still can't discern a cogent point in that word salad.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)The US is not responsible for the mess in the ME, despite the vast historical record demonstrating the contrary.
MowCowWhoHow III
(2,103 posts)https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/755817056243683329
See twitter link for video.
840high
(17,196 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Festivito
(13,452 posts)just bad writing meant to mislead.
Our US group might be looking for him.
agnostic102
(198 posts)that we consider one of the good guys. apparently they were supplied with the TOW missile system. I saw the video. the boy was resigned to his faith as the rebel started cutting at hes neck. It took less then a minute as the boy didnt/couldnt struggle as the much bigger soilder showed no mercy.
BTW the boy was apparently a palastanian. my god, if they do that to palastanians i dont want to see what would happen to him if that kid was a jew.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)we should just butt out, let them figure it out, and buy the oil from the winner. Our involvement NEVER fixes anything over there.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)from anyone and should tell opec to go fuck themselves.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)we are buying less from them than ever, and, if we ever got rid of the choke hold big oil has on this country, we could start emulating Germany in regards to renewables.
keithbvadu2
(36,724 posts)uawchild
(2,208 posts)Try as He May, John McCain Cant Shake Falsehoods About Ties to ISIS
Senator John McCain was one of the earliest advocates of American military action against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. So it has been vexing for Mr. McCain to be battling persistent and false Internet rumors that he not only helped invent the group but also knows its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph of the Muslim world and Americas latest Public Enemy No. 1.
The rumors are based partly on images of a Syrian fighter who resembles Mr. Baghdadi, seen in photographs with Mr. McCain some originally posted on Twitter by the senator during his visit in May 2013 to northern Syria. He met members of the Free Syrian Army, an insurgent group that opposes ISIS and that President Obama, in a speech Wednesday on his new strategy for battling ISIS, has vowed to strengthen.
Nurtured by conspiracy blogposts, social media and photo-altering tricks, the false rumors of Mr. McCains relationship with ISIS have taken on a life of their own. One doctored photo shows the senator, an Arizona Republican, pinning a medal on Mr. Baghdadis chest.
Last month the rumors received new vitality when a left-leaning American veterans group asserted that the senator had posed for photographs with ISIS militants. The rumors were further bolstered with the news that an American recruit to ISIS shared the senators surname. And on Wednesday in Iran, where many people already believe ISIS is an American plot to destabilize their country, the state television asserted that Senator McCain was an ISIS cohort. As proof, it showed one of the photographs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/world/middleeast/try-as-he-may-john-mccain-cant-shake-falsehoods-about-ties-to-isis.html?_r=0
keithbvadu2
(36,724 posts)Might there be other pictures showing JM with his ISIS pals?
.
http://archives.bluenationreview.com/john-mccain-circa-2013-arm-isis/
lark
(23,081 posts)We are backing the bad guys, again and again. We don't know anything about that area and picking winners or losers just makes us the loser. McCain hand picked al-Bagdadhi as one of the good guys to fund and he turned into our worse enemy using weapons we gave him against us and our allies. We should not be there in the first place. We just make it worse. That's truly why repugs keep pushing to put ground troops in, that will clearly cause an escalation to all out war, their desired goal. They don't give a shit about us or the middle east, just want more munitions made, more power to the MIC and themselves.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Who just happen to fight side by side with al qeada.
RAFisher
(466 posts)Arm the rebels? WTF. This isn't Star Wars.