Obama’s Syrian Rebels Dismembered a Little Girl With a Saw, WHILE She Was Alive

The Syrian rebels that Obama wants to help have been accused of dismembering a precious little girl with a hand saw, WHILE she was still alive. These are the people that Barack Obama thinks are the good guys in Syria.

This is being recorded more every day as Obama’s al Qaeda-backed rebels are sweeping through ares not controlled by the brutal Assad regime and murdering everyone that won’t pledge allegiance to radical Islam.

The horrendous story comes from Mother Agnes Mariam el-Salib, a Catholic nun and mother superior of St. James Monastery in Qara, Syria.

Mother Agnes reported on the massacres of the Alawite minority and Christians perpetrated by Obama’s radical Muslim “rebels” in Syria.

In the village of Estreba they massacred all the residents and burnt down their houses. In the village of al-Khratta almost all the 37 locals were killed. Only ten people were able to escape.

A total of twelve Alawite villages were subjected to this horrendous attack. That was a true slaughterhouse. People were mutilated and beheaded. There is even a video that shows a girl being dismembered alive – alive! – by a frame saw. The final death toll exceeded 400, with 150 to 200 people taken hostage. Later some of the hostages were killed, their deaths filmed.

Sadly, there are no “good guys” in Syria.

We either support a brutal dictator (by at the very least not opposing him) or we back the rebels trying to eliminate Assad but turn a blind eye to the atrocities and murders they are committing on Christians and other minorities.

MAJOR FAIL: Million Muslim March Draws Only a Few Hundred
Colorado Dem Senators Get Recalled, PPP Polling Throws Out Own Poll Foreshadowing Results
  • jim_m

    Let us remember that it was these rebels that obama finally decided that it was critical to stake this nation’s credibility to defend and that the world only refused to follow obama because Bush!!!!

    • Brucehenry

      But you have said repeatedly that Obama should have intervened against the Assad regime a year or more ago.

      Do you think these guys got eviler in the last 18 months? If we had intervened earlier, would these guys have been moderates?

      • jim_m

        I have said multiple times that we should have intervened in such a way as to have promoted a secular democracy. Instead obama chose to intervene on behalf of our enemies, al qaeda.

        I find it interesting that you are trying to make the idiotic connection that because obama was for our enemies in Syria that somehow we should be for them as well.

        We should have intervened at an earlier point in time where there would have been more options and when the Russians and Chinese were not prepared to stop us. But obama dithered for over a year hoping that international politics would just go away and maybe someone would chuck another Peace Prize in his direction for being the first black President.

        Maybe if you focused on the substance of people’s positions and not the superficial appearance you would understand the world a little more accurately.

        • Brucehenry

          What is the magical way in which we should have intervened so as to promote a secular democracy? What, specifically, should we have done? To whom, specifically, should we have sent aid?

          If we had intervened a year ago against Assad, we would have aided these same guys. If we had intervened a week ago, we would have aided these same guys. If we intervene next month, we will aid these same guys.

          That’s why I oppose intervention in Syria. That’s why I have always opposed intervention in Syria. Unlike you, I didn’t support intervention until Obama started supporting intervention, then oppose it.

          • jim_m

            I am not opposing it because obama! Like you opposed everything Because Bush!!! and how you blame all of obama’s failures on Because Bush!!!!!!

            obama has taken the side of our enemies. There were more factions innvolved previously but al qaeda has consolidated their position in the interim and now obama moves from denying that al qaeda had anything to do with Benghazi trying to cover up their crimes against the US, to actively aiding and supporting our enemies.

            You don’t have any problem with obama supporting the enemies of our people. You have a problem with people who have a problem with that.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, whatever over-the-top boilerplate bullshit you wanna spew. “Sided with our enemies.” Please.

            Now, please tell me the magical “such a way” that we should have intervened a year ago, when there were more factions or whatever, that would have resulted in a secular democracy in Syria. What is that “such a way”?

            Be specific. To whom, by name, should our support have gone? How should our support have been expressed? What if any weapons should have been shipped, to whom, specifically?

            Which factions, specifically, have been displaced by al qaeda? Where have they gone? Were they viable a year ago to replace Assad and now they’re not?

            Edited to add: It’s my understanding that Obama’s proposed intervention is to take out Assad’s chemical weapons. Does that mean you think that Assad should be allowed to keep using chemical weapons, that taking them out means aiding al Qaeda?

          • jim_m

            Over the past year islamist factions have gained significantly in strength. Previously the free Syrian Army was mostly secular and lead by former Assad military. Now it is mostly islamist. In addition, Al Qaeda, in the form of Jabhat al-Nusra has gained strength as have elements supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. All of this has taken place as obama’s CIA has poured arms in to the rebels, It may be a coincidence but it seems likely that since obama is so close with the brotherhood and actively tried to conceal the participation of al qaeda in Benghazi that the increase in their influence in Syria is due to his support.

            There are reports from Turkey that suggest the gas attacks are in fact false flag attacks committed by the rebels.

            So there was an opportunity to strengthen secular forces that were in ascendancy a year ago, but are not now. Is it a mere coincidence that as the Brotherhood and al qaeda, our enemies, have achieved ascendancy that now is the time that obama chooses to act, even though these gas attacks by Assad or others have been going on for some time?

            I think not.

          • Brucehenry

            Where is the evidence that the gas attacks have been going on “for some time”? On Gateway Pundit maybe?

            The CIA has “poured arms in” to the rebels? Which rebels? I keep hearing them complain they’re not getting aid. I kept hearing all this past year from war hawks in Congress and the wingnutosphere that no aid was forthcoming though it had been promised.

          • jim_m

            There have been reports of suspected gas attacks going back to the Spring. It is only now that obama chooses to intervene.

            The CIA has been supplying arms to the rebels for some time now. They have done so primarily through Qatar and apparently not supplying US manufactured weapons.

            The plan to arm the rebels was announced in June but the administration only admitted to it in the last few weeks.

            If you want to consign CNN, Reuters and TPM to the “Wingnutosphere” be my guest, jackass.

            [edit] My bad, the increase took place in June but last year. The casualty rate has remained essentially flat since then. Never the less, it does not invalidate the fact that we have been supplying arms to the rebels for the last few months already.

          • Brucehenry

            The “last several weeks” is what TPM reports. Is that what you mean when you say that the CIA has “poured weapons in” to the rebels over the past year? Exaggerate much?

            Your graph shows the increase in atrocities taking place in June of 2012, not “several weeks” ago, as TPM and CNN are reporting in your posted links.

            The CNN link you posted includes a quote from the FSA commander complaining that the FSA hasn’t received any weapons.

            Republican war hawks have been bitching for a year that weapons weren’t being sent. Were they wrong or were they lying?

            ADDING: “There have been reports of suspected gas attacks” is one thing. Saying “these gas attacks have been going on for some time” as if these reports are Gospel is another.

          • jim_m

            They announced that they would start in June. The article from CNN was in June. There was nothing in the article that said that it was already active.

            Who knows if McCain and others were wrong or lying. I really don’t care. This isn’t about them, this is about Dear Leader’s policy.

          • Brucehenry

            You still haven’t said what specific policies he should have been pursuing this past year in order to achieve the goal of a secular democracy.

            Who should have been supported, specifically? How should that support have been made manifest? How could we have assured ourselves that aid to “moderates” wouldn’t fall into extremist hands?

            Where is your evidence that “previously the Free Syrian Army was mostly secular”? If it was led by former Assad military did it have any popular support? How much?

          • jim_m

            I’m sorry. I’m still having a problem taking an idiot like you seriously when you cannot tell the difference between an actor and reality. Few people are that dumb. I commend you on achieving a level of stupidity rarely demonstrated.

          • Brucehenry

            Answered on the other thread you crazy person.

            Still dodging the question, though. Could that be because all you got is Obama-hatin’? No ideas of your own. Just all Obama-hatin’, all the time.

          • jim_m

            I’ve given you all the answer you deserve. I identified who we should have supported and when we should have supported them. I have identified why obama is supporting our enemies.

            You don’t have to like what I say, but stop saying that I haven’t said it.

          • Brucehenry

            Really? Link to where you identify — specifically — who we should have supported. What specific groups?

            And then link to where you say HOW we should have supported them, and how that support would turn into the magic “such a way” that would have resulted in Assad riding into retirement on a unicorn and a secular democracy taking his place.

          • Brucehenry

            Months, weeks, whatever. Math is HARD, right Jim?

          • jim_m

            I owned my error little man. Too bad you are so small, so petty and so stupid that you cannot accept that.

          • Brucehenry

            Nope. When it was pointed out that aid has been sent “over the last several weeks” you claimed it was a “fact that we have been supplying arms to the rebels for the past few months.”

            Hence my snark re: weeks v months. Jokes ain’t funny if you have to explain ’em.

          • Too much, too little, TOO LATE.

          • jim_m

            You know, Bruce, I do find things on Gateway Pundit that I do then bring here, but when I do I always identify the source material that they link to. I agree that they have serious editing issues and have made mistakes so I try to make sure I verify what they claim. But sometimes they report on something that is interesting and true and very much against the ideologically based truth that you believe in.

        • Having squandered the opportunity to get involved covertly when we could have made a significant difference, the horse was well and truly out of the barn before 0bama stuck his foot in his mouth (repeatedly) with his red line(s).

          This was best done early, or not at all.

          Since it was not done early, #SyriaNotOurProblem .

  • Commander_Chico

    This is all about prepping the battlefield for war with Iran – by getting rid of his ally, Assad.

    Little Syrian girls do not matter to the war cabal.

    • Nor to you, obviously.

      • Commander_Chico

        Since I am not a member of the war cabal, I am against my tax dollars being used to support her killers.

        In good faith, isn’t that what you have said? So we agree.

        • Like so much of what you believe…

        • jim_m

          I am against my tax dollars being used to support her killers.

          Not that he finds her brutal murder to be any problem whatsoever. He just objects to his tax dollars paying to feed and shelter her murderers. Her life means nothing to Chico. Like obama, lives to Chico are an abstraction. I am sure that Chico will say that her death was “suboptimal”.

    • Retired military

      Ah Yes. Chico goes with option a.
      The Oligaphy

  • GarandFan

    When is Jug Ears going to lean to STFU! and stay out of it. There are so many factions involved that it’s a tribal/civil war. Or as King Barry used to say ‘we can’t be the world’s policeman’.

  • Brucehenry

    Please explain how these murderers became “Obama’s al-Qaeda backed rebels,” when Obama has resisted giving them meaningful aid all this time? Much to the chagrin, might I add, of war hawks like Bolton, McCain, Graham, et al.

    • Commander_Chico

      The Presidential finding back earlier this year allowing CIA assistance to the rebels.

      Also, we are giving our client states – Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel – free reign to aid the rebels.

      • [citation required]

      • Brucehenry

        Well, somehow I suspect Warner might have a problem calling Bin Laden “Reagan’s Frankenstein monster” or Saddam “Reagan’s puppet dictator” or the Shah “Eisenhower’s toy monarch.”

        Every action the US has taken in the ME and elsewhere in the Third World has had unintended consequences. Because Obama wants to take out Assad’s chem weapons, somehow he is aiding THESE SPECIFIC murderers? I don’t think so.

  • kommentater

    Big difference between an intervention of taking out delivery systems and arming rebel factions whose allegiance we know nothing about.

    • jim_m

      obama is already doing the latter.