BBC whitewashes Syria ‘heart-eating cannibal’ to justify arming al-Qaeda

It can be understandable that the mainstream Western media, being a tool in the hands of the warmongering elite, continues to portray the Syrian government as the main perpetrator in the conflict. But what seems shocking yet obnoxiously shameful is the BBC with complete lack of integrity sinking down to the level of justifying cannibalism; and all of this in an attempt to shift the public opinion towards backing their governments in arming al-Qaeda in Syria.

As the fear of a strike on Syria looms, the international community is becoming more and more concerned about the USA siding with al-Qaeda in the war against Assad. The USA also vows to continue arming the rebels regardless of the war. The public opinion in the West is largely against the war simply for the reason that the rebels are no good guys. The rebels have been reported to have committed grave crimes in Syria. There have appeared numerous videos of executions, grave excavations, destruction of holy places and other atrocities committed by the rebels most notably the cannibalism act performed by Abu Sakkar, also known as Syria’s ‘heart-eating cannibal’.

Abu Sakkar is the leader of the Omar al-Farouq Brigade among the Syrian rebels. He became notorious worldwide when a Youtube video appeared showing him standing over a Syrian soldier’s corpse, slicing into the flesh. Since then the public opinion has shifted from being sympathetic towards the rebels to being concerned what if the rebels take over Syria. Also, it is no secret anymore that most rebel groups have merged into al-Qaeda in Syria, also known as Jabath al-Nusrah.

The USA and its warmongering allies know that their publics are not going to approve a war out of which the barbaric rebels emerge victorious. They badly need to fix and uplift the image of the rebels whose crime list includes all sorts of heinous crimes. They decide to start from the worst – cannibalism.

A recent article published on the BBC website attempts to whitewash Abu Sakkar and quite cunningly justifies cannibalism. In so doing, BBC portrays him as a loner with a sad family history and an angry young man who is different from other rebels, let alone a representative of them. For the past two years BBC has been engaged in presenting biased coverage of the events in Syria, showing false picture illustrate atrocities and showing videos which are not independently verified in order to demonise the Syrian government. As if all of the above was not enough, the BBC now needs to justify cannibalism too.

In the article, the BBC News journalist Paul Wood describes his meeting with Abu Sakkar. The article portrays Abu Sakkar as an angry and bitter young man who is more careful about rather than boastful of his cannibalistic ‘’achievement’’. The article also calls him ‘’hazy on details’’ suggesting that he does not remember the exact details of the event.

The article goes on to describe the ‘’sad and gruesome’’ personal story of Abu sakkar in an attempt to sell it to the public as an acceptable excuse for what he did.

Abu Sakkar tells the BBC:

“Put yourself in my shoes,” he says. “They took your father and mother and insulted them. They slaughtered your brothers, they murdered your uncle and aunt. All this happened to me. They slaughtered my neighbours. ”

The BBC tries to give Abu Sakkar every chance to come up with a convincing argument to justify what he had done to the corpse of the Syrian soldier. Of course there is no way to confirm the reliability of his version of the story. But what he explains is way too “marvelous” not to be used by the BBC. No reason could be better than this to accomplish ‘whitewashing’ of a cannibal.

Abu Sakkar repeats the same version of the story he has been telling all along:

“This guy had videos on his mobile. It showed him raping a mother and her two daughters. He stripped them while they begged him to stop in the name of God. Finally he slaughtered them with a knife… What would you have done?”

This is clear that no one in the world can verify this story. But the story is all too overwhelming and can easily be sold to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Who would be stone-hearted enough not to move at the story?

But what is astonishing is the “naivety” of the BBC to easily believe and publish the story without putting it to any scrutiny. The story has several loopholes in it. Even if it is believed that the first thing a rebel would do after killing his enemy is to reach out to his mobile phone and look for videos, one may wonder how easy it is for someone to locate files on a stranger’s mobile phone, especially when on a battlefield. And how did the dead soldier record the ‘acts’ himself with the details as described by Abu Sakkar?

Further obfuscating the facts, the BBC mixes sectarian hue to the already “rosy” picture of an “innocent” crime committed for rather “valid” reasons by a “freedom fighter”.

The article reads:

“Abu Sakkar says the dead soldier was an Alawite or Shia militiaman. “He was insulting us. He was shouting, ‘Oh Ali, Oh Hussein, Oh Haydar [Shia slogans],'” he says.”

The mainstream Western media have been portraying the crisis in Syria as a sectarian issue since the unrest started in the Arab country. What else can be inferred from the above than the BBC is obfuscating the facts and just like Salafis with facts obfuscation as a hallmark of their ideology the BBC too attempts to mislead the public by putting Shia Muslims and Alawites in the same category? This is while the two are distinct religions despite the Alawites having roots in Shia Islam in the distant past. What other purpose does the notion that the dead “rapist” and “murderer” Syrian soldier was a Shia serve than to tarnish the image of Shia Muslims against supposedly “oppressed” Salafi rebel groups who are fighting for “freedom” and “democracy” and are in desperate need of help from the West. The sectarian element can also be used for underlying condemnation of Iran and Hezbollah who represent Shia Islam and happen to be siding with al-Assad as they together make a front against Zionism.

The article further portrays the rebels as humane by nature with a lot of manners and kindness and that the horrors of war and the “barbarianism” of the Alawites have turned them into what they are:

“In the beginning, when we captured an Alawite fighter, we would feed him, make him feel comfortable. We used to tell him we were brothers. But then they started raping our women, slaughtering children with knives.”

In a cunningly smart fashion the BBC journalist makes the cannibal to utter what would put the readers in his shoes, a perfect tactic to make a reader understand and possibly approve of what Abu Sakkar did.

“You suffer a fraction of what we suffered and you’ll do what I did and more.”

By the time a non-critical reader starts to feel pity for and sympathy with the rebels thanks to excellent emotions-inciting story, BBC hits the iron on the red.

“So Abu Sakkar has become the “cannibal rebel” – a handy symbol for all those who, like the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, oppose arming the Syrian rebels.”

As if all of the above was not enough, the BBC issues the “expert” verdict as well, albeit with a poetic touch to it:

“It is possible that Abu Sakkar was mentally disturbed all along. Or perhaps the war made him this way. War damages men – and Syria is no different. As the poet W H Auden wrote: “Those to whom evil is done, do evil in return.”

This very argument to ‘whitewash’ the cannibal in fact backfires at the BBC. Just calling Abu Sakkar a ‘handy symbol’ for those who oppose arming the rebels is not enough to discount altogether what Putin has repeated on several occasions. If the war can turn one person into a cannibal then who knows how many rebels are out there with similar tendencies as Abu Sakkar. It is not the war but the schemas of the rebels many of who are criminals sent from abroad to fight al-Assad, and the underlying values in the Salafi ideology which can turn a human into organs-eating cannibal.

As reports of the rebels’ atrocities continue to come from Syria, and the rebels keep uniting under al-Qaeda, the gist of the issue is not the legitimacy of Bashar al-Assad anymore. It rather is: who will be in charge of the affairs if al-Assad is no more in power. It can be understandable that the mainstream Western media, being a tool in the hands of the warmongering elite, continues to portray the Syrian government as the main perpetrator in the conflict. But what seems shocking yet obnoxiously shameful is the BBC with complete lack of integrity sinking down to the level of justifying cannibalism; and all of this to shift the public opinion towards backing their governments in arming al-Qaeda in Syria.